In a controversial move that raises questions about equality in the justice system, Ontario is considering legislation that would require accused and convicted offenders to pay for their own electronic monitoring devices. The proposed fee structure would see individuals shouldering up to $13 daily for ankle monitors – a policy shift that has ignited intense debate among legal experts and civil liberties advocates.
The Progressive Conservative government introduced the changes through Bill 188, the Working for Workers Four Act, which contains amendments to several laws including those governing electronic monitoring. While electronic monitoring has been used for years in Ontario’s justice system, the financial burden has traditionally fallen on the province rather than monitored individuals.
“This proposal fundamentally changes the accessibility of alternatives to detention,” said Daniel Brown, president of the Criminal Lawyers’ Association, in an interview with CO24. “When you introduce financial barriers to supervision options, you’re essentially creating a two-tiered justice system where those with means have more options than those without.”
Under the proposed legislation, individuals could face daily charges between $5 and $13, potentially accumulating hundreds of dollars monthly. For those on limited incomes, including many who enter the justice system, these costs represent a significant financial burden that could force difficult choices between compliance with court orders and basic necessities.
The Ministry of the Solicitor General defended the proposal, telling CO24 News that the fees align with practices in other jurisdictions and would help offset program costs. However, critics question whether cost-saving measures should come at the expense of fair access to justice.
Ontario currently monitors approximately 450 individuals through electronic supervision programs, with most participants being on bail awaiting trial rather than serving sentences. These monitoring systems provide alternatives to incarceration while maintaining public safety objectives – options that may become inaccessible to lower-income defendants if fees are implemented.
Legal experts point to concerning potential consequences. “This could result in more people being denied bail or alternatives to incarceration simply because they can’t afford monitoring fees,” explained criminal defense attorney Jessyca Greenwood. “That undermines the presumption of innocence and could lead to unnecessary pretrial detention for economically disadvantaged accused persons.”
Similar fee systems in jurisdictions like Florida and Texas have faced criticism for creating inequitable access to supervision alternatives. Research suggests such policies disproportionately impact racialized communities and those facing economic hardship – groups already overrepresented in the criminal justice system.
The Ontario NDP has voiced strong opposition to the proposal. “Electronic monitoring should be about public safety and rehabilitation, not revenue generation,” said justice critic Kristyn Wong-Tam in a statement to CO24 Politics. “Making individuals pay for their own supervision will inevitably lead to more incarceration for those who simply can’t afford the daily fees.”
The legislation also raises practical questions about enforcement. The bill doesn’t clearly address what happens if someone fails to pay their monitoring fees – creating uncertainty about whether inability to pay could lead to violation consequences or even re-incarceration.
The proposal arrives amid broader discussions about Ontario’s justice system, including persistent concerns about overcrowding in correctional facilities and mounting costs associated with incarceration. While electronic monitoring offers cost-effective alternatives to imprisonment, charging fees may undermine these benefits if more individuals end up detained due to financial constraints.
As this legislation moves through the provincial parliament, a fundamental question emerges: In a justice system that promises equal treatment under law, can we justify creating financial barriers to alternatives to detention? The answer may determine whether justice in Ontario remains accessible to all, regardless of economic status.
