Toronto’s Drug Treatment Court

The Toronto DTC, established in December of 1998, “…is a court specifically designed to supervise cases of drug dependant offenders who have agreed to accept treatment for their substance abuse” (Bentley, 2001:4). It is also “…an innovative alternative to the criminal justice system for people with a recognizable drug addiction who are facing non-violent drug-related offences” (NCPS, no date:1; emphasis added), which seems to place the DTC outside of the criminal justice system entirely. Or, according to a presenter at the First National Drug Treatment Court Workshop, held in Toronto from September 23 through 26, 2001, the focus rests more firmly on the therapeutic aspect of therapeutic jurisprudence: “DTC’s are court-directed substance abuse treatment programs” (FNDTCW, 2001:20). These varying definitions capture the dual nature of the DTC, which attempts to strike a balance between criminal justice issues and health.

According to the National Crime Prevention Strategy, the Toronto DTC has “adopted a harm-reduction approach that aims to increase public safety by reducing drug addiction and the crimes committed to support a drug habit” (NCPS, no date:1). While the NCPS does not go on to identify what these crimes could be, additional information on the “harm-reduction” principle of the Toronto DTC is provided in a paper summarizing the Federal Crown Prosecutor’s perspective on DTC’s:

In the Toronto Drug Treatment Court program, the principles of harm reduction are central to the court and treatment goals and operations. Although total abstinence is the ultimate goal, both treatment and court components recognize that immediate abstinence from drug use is an unrealistic goal. The use of graduated rewards and sanctions by the court reflects harm reduction principles because rewards and sanctions are imposed in response to individual client progress and treatment expectations. The requisite urine screens are used to ensure client compliance and to identify and address client needs in order to help the client realize the goal of decreasing drug related harm. This is accomplished through gradual changes in behavior that will eventually lead to total drug abstinence from cocaine and/or heroin (Luedtke et al., 2000:4-5).

These authors go on to suggest that achieving cost savings is a guiding factor in the operation of the Toronto DTC, as well as “to incorporate the Principles of Restorative Justice:”

Restorative justice principles are reflected by the Toronto Drug Treatment Court as demonstrated by (a) the court’s reliance on community support and resources; and (b) the mission to assist offenders to achieve positive changes in their lives. This emphasis reflects the need to create a link between treatment providers and the court in order to address individual client needs. Restorative justice principles have also guided the decision to require regular court attendance by the clients. First, it helps to create structure in their lives and provides them with an opportunity to demonstrate responsibility; secondly, it allows the court to monitor closely client progress and group dynamics; and thirdly, it creates an environment which can foster positive personal growth and reintegration into the greater community. Many clients participating in the DTC form a cohesive social and support group. This group offers incentives to remain drug free and encourages one another to achieve personal treatment goals. The group also serves as a social support in times of relapse. Taken together, these components serve to achieve the goal of client reintegration into the community (Luedtke et al., 2000:5).

Target clientele for the Toronto DTC include “prostitutes, youth, and visible minorities” (Bentley, 2001:7), although others with drug-related offences may be eligible if they meet the additional entrance criteria of being drug-dependent, non-violent, and charged with possession or trafficking in small quantities of crack/cocaine or heroin. “Those offenders with more serious records or who are charged with trafficking, will be required to plead guilty to the charges as a condition of entering the programme” (Bentley, 2001:7). As well, “[f]urther pre-conditions of entry include the signing of a consent to dispense with Crown disclosure, and an agreement that the imposition of a sentence will be delayed” (Bentley 2001:12).