Restorative Justice System Analysis

Analysis

The Canadian justice system adheres to the tort system. The system’s remedial limitations become evident when examining IRSSA. The functional taxonomy of remedies in the tort system is compensation, compulsion, deterrence, vindication, and restitution. The IRSSA uses a combination of these principles to achieve the settlement agreement objectives. However, retributive justice is a Western concept that is flawed and incompatible with achieving the principles of restorative justice which align with Indigenous principles of justice. Restorative justice “promotes healing... by reflecting a practical view about the human psychology that seeks to repair and build social connections.” Furthermore, restorative justice focuses on the rehabilitation

This delayed the healing process for RS survivors. Moreover, the apology took place in a restricted Parliament Chamber, where Indigenous people were prohibited from entering. This deprived them from witnessing their justified apology which appeared as impersonal and lacked sincerity.

Liability and Culpability

[4] The criminal and civil justice processes are not specifically meant to meet the needs of survivors of institutional child abuse. Survivors express the need for truth and reconciliation to address the complexity of the broader truth of the injuries. However, as a result of the adversarial system parties were reluctant to issue formal apologies, accepted truths and restore friendly relations in fear that they would appear as an omission of guilt or acknowledgements of liability

Litigation and Lawyers

Under the Settlement Agreement, the government assigned and funed legal counsel for RS claims. However, the legal fees payable under the Settlement agreement were subject to scrutiny and approval by the courts. The class action would cover all the former RS students without them partaking or even knowing about the case; this led to former students pursuing an out of court

Through the IRSSA former RS students sued their abusers, the federal government, and the various church organizations responsible for administering the schools. Actions were brought for assault, negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and vicarious liability. Over 79, 000 survivors received compensation. Nevertheless, the awarded damages by the CEP and IAP were insufficient in making a meaningful difference in the lives of survivors. Under the CEP awards averaged to under twenty-thousands dollars per person and the most lucrative IAP payment for sexual and serious physical abuse amounts to approximately one-hundred and fifteen thousand dollars per person, including legal cost. The courts failed to rule on the validity of the claim for cultural genocide as a ground for relief. The inadequate compensation reflects unwillingness of Canadian courts to recognize claims relating to cultural