In this personal injury case, the jury was selected in the Brampton courthouse where the case was started, but then the jury was required to attend and sit in on the trial held in the Kitchener courthouse, where the trial was held due to unavailability of courtrooms in Brampton (in this case, due to pandemic closures). The jurors were compensated for their mileage from Brampton through the Jury Transport Program funded by the Ministry of the Attorney General.
No one objected at the time, however, after the plaintiff lost the case, they appealed, arguing that it was improper for the judge to move the jury from place to place. The correct procedure, they argued, would be to have transferred the trial to Kitchener, and then select a jury from Kitchener.
Although the appellate court believed that the optimal arrangement was for the jury to be selected from a panel drawn from the place where the trial was to be heard, there was nothing wrong in sending a jury from one jurisdiction to another. Hence, the plaintiff’s appeal was dismissed, citing that in challenging times some creative measures have to be taken:
“No one is better placed to allocate local court resources than a Regional Senior Judge. I decline to second-guess the decision of Daley R.S.J. or that of Trimble J. Indeed, the fresh evidence filed by the Attorney General demonstrates the ongoing challenges faced by local courts in holding jury trials where there are space restrictions posed by pandemic distancing rules, although this case preceded the pandemic.”
As such, it was held to be proper for the jury to be selected in Brampton, and have them travel to Kitchener with compensation for travel being paid to the jurists.
Hunter v. King, 2022 ONCA 190
https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2022/2022onca190/2022onca190.html