Jurors Can Talk to Therapists Post-Trial

Summary#

This bill changes the Criminal Code rule that keeps jury room discussions secret. It would let jurors, and certain support persons, share those discussions with a licensed health care professional for treatment after the trial ends. All other disclosures would still be a crime. The bill takes effect 90 days after royal assent.

• Allows disclosure to a health care professional for medical, psychiatric, therapy, or counselling needs tied to jury service (Bill s. 649(2)(c)).
• Limits this to after the trial is over (Bill s. 649(2)(c)).
• Requires the health care professional to be licensed under provincial law (Bill s. 649(3)).
• Keeps the general secrecy rule and the offence for other disclosures (summary conviction) (Bill s. 649(1)).
• Preserves existing exceptions for investigations and testimony about alleged obstruction of justice involving a juror (Bill s. 649(2)(a)–(b)).
• Comes into force 90 days after royal assent (Coming-into-force clause).

What it means for you#

• Households (jurors and families)

  • Jurors may talk about jury-room discussions with a licensed health care professional to get treatment for health issues from their jury duty, but only after the trial ends (Bill s. 649(2)(c)).
  • Jurors still may not share jury-room discussions with family, friends, media, employers, or others. Doing so remains a crime punishable on summary conviction (a less serious criminal offence) (Bill s. 649(1)).
  • Timing: Change applies starting 90 days after royal assent (Coming-into-force clause).

• Workers (support persons for jurors with physical disabilities)

  • If you provided technical, personal, interpretative, or other support services to a juror with a physical disability, you may also disclose jury-room information to a licensed health care professional for your own treatment after the trial, when the health issue is tied to that service (Bill s. 649(1), 649(2)(c)).

• Health care professionals

  • You may receive disclosures about jury deliberations from jurors or eligible support persons, but only for providing treatment related to health issues from jury service and only after the trial is complete (Bill s. 649(2)(c)).
  • You must be entitled to provide that care under provincial law to qualify under the exception (Bill s. 649(3)).

• Law enforcement and courts

  • Existing exceptions for investigating or giving evidence about alleged obstruction of justice related to a juror remain unchanged (Bill s. 649(2)(a)–(b)).
  • All other disclosures outside the listed exceptions remain offences (Bill s. 649(1)).

Expenses#

Estimated net cost: Data unavailable.

• No appropriations or spending authorizations appear in the bill text (Bill s. 649 as amended; Coming-into-force clause).
• No official fiscal note identified. Data unavailable.

Proponents' View#

• Improves access to mental health care for jurors and eligible support persons by allowing them to speak openly with a licensed health care professional about deliberations when seeking treatment (Bill s. 649(2)(c)). Assumes that some health issues arise from jury service, which the bill text anticipates by design.
• Protects jury secrecy while creating a narrow, purpose-based exception limited to treatment, after the trial ends (Bill s. 649(1), 649(2)(c)). Assumes providers will use information only for care.
• Limits the exception to regulated professionals, reducing misuse risk compared with broader disclosures (Bill s. 649(3)). Assumes provincial licensing standards are sufficient.
• Keeps criminal penalties for other disclosures, preserving deterrence against leaks (Bill s. 649(1)).

Opponents' View#

• Erodes the strict jury secrecy rule by expanding who may hear deliberation details, increasing the number of people with access to sensitive information (Bill s. 649(2)(c)). Assumes greater access raises leakage risk.
• Relies on provincial licensing standards to define “health care professional,” which may vary by province, leading to uneven protection and uncertainty (Bill s. 649(3)). Assumes variation affects consistency.
• The scope terms “therapy or counselling” and “health issues arising out of or related to” jury service could be interpreted broadly, making enforcement harder and creating grey areas about what disclosures are allowed (Bill s. 649(2)(c)).
• Post-trial timing rule still requires monitoring; proving whether a disclosure occurred “for the purposes of” treatment versus other reasons may be difficult (Bill s. 649(2)(c)). Assumes practical enforcement challenges.