The Alberta Court of Justice has decided to rename the reports utilized by judges to assess the situations of Indigenous individuals facing sentencing. The term “Gladue report” will now be replaced with “Indigenous background report.” This change aims to better reflect the purpose of these evaluations without altering their content or the process of research and writing.
Originating from a 1999 Supreme Court of Canada ruling involving Jamie Tanis Gladue, an Indigenous woman convicted of manslaughter, the Gladue reports provide judges with insights into an Indigenous offender’s personal, family, community, and systemic background. These reports shed light on how colonialism and intergenerational trauma may have influenced an individual’s circumstances.
Scheduled to take effect on September 1, the name change follows consultations with the Gladue family, Indigenous leaders, organizations serving Indigenous communities, and other stakeholders closely linked to the court.
Jackson Mirasty, a criminal defense lawyer in Edmonton who has authored Gladue reports for approximately five years, emphasized that these reports assist judges in assessing moral culpability when determining appropriate sentences. The reports delve into various factors such as experiences with residential schools, childhood trauma, substance abuse, family dynamics, cultural dislocation, and interactions with the child welfare system.
Mirasty clarified that the objective is not to provide special treatment to Indigenous offenders but to ensure that judges consider the contextual factors that may have contributed to an individual’s actions. By understanding an offender’s background, judges can better evaluate their responsibility.
Throughout the report writing process, Mirasty conducts interviews with the individuals facing sentencing, exploring their upbringing, family history, community ties, education, exposure to violence or abuse, and involvement with social services. He also gathers information from family members and other sources to build a comprehensive picture of the individual’s background.
While acknowledging the court’s intention to distance the reports from the Gladue family name with the new terminology, Mirasty raised concerns about whether the term “Indigenous background report” effectively conveys the historical context behind these assessments. He highlighted the risk of implying that the issues considered are inherent to Indigenous people rather than stemming from Canada’s colonial past.
The Alberta Court of Justice clarified that the name change aims to use language that is accurate, considerate, and respectful while maintaining the integrity of the assessments. Mirasty believes that the alteration in name is unlikely to impact the sentencing outcomes for Indigenous offenders but may influence public perception by separating the reports from the Gladue family name.
The court assured that despite the name change, the assessment process remains constant, emphasizing the importance of these evaluations in understanding the circumstances of Indigenous offenders accurately.