Law360 Canada (July 13, 2026, 12:24 PM EDT) --

John L. Hill

Canada rightly prides itself on having one of the world’s fairest criminal justice systems. Yet one of its greatest shortcomings is revealed not when an innocent person is convicted, but when the government refuses to make that person whole after admitting the conviction cannot stand.

That is the injustice confronting Gerald Klassen.

On June 24, Miscarriage of Justice Canada wrote to Prime Minister Mark Carney asking the federal government to compensate Klassen after he spent approximately 26 years in prison for a murder conviction that ultimately collapsed. The organization’s request is neither extraordinary nor radical. It is an appeal for the government to finish what the justice system has already begun.

After years of analysis, the Innocence Project at the University of British Columbia discovered a failure to make full disclosure of evidence before trial and also that the coroner changed his story at trial from the testimony he provided at the preliminary hearing. Former justice minister David Lametti concluded that Klassen’s conviction raised sufficiently serious concerns to warrant ordering a new trial. That decision was not made lightly. Successive federal justice ministers have historically exercised this extraordinary power only where confidence in a conviction has been fundamentally shaken.

But instead of proceeding to a new trial, British Columbia prosecutors stayed the charge. Legally, a stay ends the prosecution. Politically, it allows governments to move on. Morally, however, it leaves an uncomfortable question unanswered.

If the evidence was no longer reliable enough to justify maintaining the conviction, why should the man who lost a quarter-century of his life continue to bear the consequences?

Governments often distinguish a person who is acquitted after a new trial and one whose prosecution is stayed. The first may qualify for compensation. The second is frequently left to pursue years of costly civil litigation while carrying the lingering suspicion that accompanies an unresolved criminal allegation.

That distinction may satisfy legal formalists. It should satisfy no one else.

The purpose of compensation is not to reward innocence. It is to acknowledge governmental responsibility when the justice system has failed.

A person who has spent decades in prison does not recover those years because a conviction is quashed. Lost careers are not rebuilt overnight. Families are not restored. Parents die. Children grow up. Marriages collapse. Opportunities disappear forever. Time, unlike money, cannot be repaid.

Compensation recognizes that reality.

Miscarriage of Justice Canada has urged Prime Minister Carney to ensure that Klassen receives meaningful redress without forcing him into another decade of litigation. That recommendation reflects both common sense and basic fairness.

Wrongfully convicted individuals should not have to prove, over and over again, that they have already suffered enough.

Canada’s compensation record has long been inconsistent. Some victims of wrongful conviction eventually receive settlements after years of legal battles. Others receive little or nothing, depending upon the procedural route that led to their release. Justice should not depend upon whether a prosecutor chooses to withdraw a charge, enter a stay of proceedings or proceed to an acquittal.

Those are procedural differences. They should not determine whether someone receives compensation after spending decades imprisoned under a conviction that the justice system itself no longer supports.

The criminal law requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt before a person can be convicted. Surely governments should be held to an equally high moral standard before refusing to compensate someone whose conviction they have effectively abandoned.

Some will argue that compensation should be reserved for those who can conclusively establish factual innocence. That argument misunderstands both the purpose of compensation and the role of government. The issue is not whether Gerald Klassen can now prove precisely what happened decades ago. The issue is whether the state imprisoned him for 26 years under a conviction that it ultimately acknowledged could not safely stand.

The answer to that question is yes.

A justice system earns public confidence not because it never makes mistakes, but because it responds honourably when mistakes are discovered.

Canada has made significant progress in recognizing wrongful convictions. Parliament recently established an independent Miscarriage of Justice Review Commission to investigate potential miscarriages more effectively. That reform recognizes that wrongful convictions occur more often than many once believed.

Yet correcting a wrongful conviction involves more than setting someone free.

Justice demands restoration as well as release.

Prime Minister Carney now has an opportunity to demonstrate that Canada’s commitment to correcting miscarriages of justice extends beyond courtrooms and legal technicalities. The government should not compel Klassen to spend the years he has left fighting yet another battle against the very institutions that failed him.

If Canada acknowledges that its justice system can imprison the wrong person, it must also acknowledge a corresponding duty to compensate that person when the conviction collapses.

Freedom is not enough.

After 26 years behind bars, Gerald Klassen deserves his good name, his dignity and fair compensation for what the justice system can never give back.

John L. Hill practised and taught prison law until his retirement. He holds a JD from Queen’s and an LLM in constitutional law from Osgoode Hall. He is also the author of Pine Box Parole: Terry Fitzsimmons and the Quest to End Solitary Confinement (Durvile & UpRoute Books) and The Rest of the (True Crime) Story (AOS Publishing). Contact him at johnlornehill@hotmail.com.

The opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the author’s firm, its clients, Law360 Canada, LexisNexis Canada or any of its or their respective affiliates. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.

Interested in writing for us? To learn more about how you can add your voice to Law360 Canada, contact Analysis Editor Peter Carter at peter.carter@lexisnexis.ca or call 647-776-6740.