A "judge alone" trial is exactly what it sounds like: a criminal trial where a single judge, not a jury, decides both the facts and the law, and ultimately whether the Crown has proven guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Judge alone trials are extremely common in Ontario, both because many offences can only be tried this way and because some accused people who could have a jury trial choose a judge alone trial instead. This guide explains when judge alone trials are the only option, when they are a choice, and how the process generally differs from a jury trial. It is general information only, not legal advice about a specific case.
What a Judge Alone Trial Is
In a judge alone trial, the judge performs the role a jury would otherwise play: listening to the evidence, assessing the credibility of witnesses, and deciding what facts have been proven. The judge also continues to perform the role a judge always plays, ruling on legal issues, admissibility of evidence, and applications brought during the trial. At the end, the same judge delivers the verdict, generally with reasons explaining how the decision was reached. See our overview of how criminal trials work for the broader trial process.
When Judge Alone Is the Only Option
Judge alone trials are the only available option in two broad situations:
- All matters in the Ontario Court of Justice. This court does not have juries at all. Summary conviction offences, and indictable offences classified as "absolute jurisdiction" offences under section 553 of the Criminal Code, are tried there by a judge alone, with no election available to the accused.
- Hybrid offences where the Crown proceeds summarily. When the Crown elects summary conviction on a hybrid offence, the matter proceeds in the Ontario Court of Justice by judge alone. See our guide to summary, indictable, and hybrid offences for how that election works.
For these matters, there is no jury trial to weigh against a judge alone trial. The accused proceeds by judge alone as a matter of the offence's classification, not by personal choice.
When an Accused Can Elect Judge Alone
For most other indictable offences, where the Crown has not proceeded summarily and the offence is not one of the small category listed in section 469 of the Criminal Code (such as murder), the accused is generally given an election under section 536 of the Criminal Code among three modes of trial: trial by a judge of the Ontario Court of Justice without a jury, trial by a judge of the Superior Court of Justice without a jury, or trial by a judge and jury in the Superior Court. In each of the first two options, the accused is choosing a judge alone trial, just in a different court. Our jury trials guide covers the jury option and the section 469 category in more detail.
For section 469 offences, a judge alone trial is only available if both the accused and the Attorney General consent; otherwise a judge and jury trial is required.
Why an Accused Might Choose Judge Alone
Even where a jury trial is available, an accused and their lawyer may prefer a judge alone trial for reasons specific to the case. Common considerations discussed generally in the case law and legal commentary include cases involving technical or complex evidence that a judge, as a legal professional, may be well positioned to assess; cases where pretrial publicity or community sentiment could make an impartial jury harder to select; and cases where the defence anticipates making legal arguments that might be easier to present, and to have addressed with detailed reasons, in front of a single judge. None of these considerations dictates the right choice in every case, and this decision is always highly specific to the facts and should be made with legal advice.
Where a genuine choice exists between judge alone and jury, that choice is significant and generally difficult to change later. A lawyer can walk through the considerations specific to the charge, the evidence, and the venue before an election is made.
How the Procedure Differs From a Jury Trial
Several procedural steps that apply to jury trials simply do not arise in a judge alone trial:
- No jury selection. There is no jury panel, no questioning of prospective jurors, and no process for challenging or excusing them.
- No jury instructions. A judge does not need to explain the law to themselves the way they would to a jury, though the judge's reasons will still show how the relevant legal principles were applied to the facts.
- Legal argument can happen more fluidly. Because there is no jury to remove from the room, legal arguments about the admissibility of evidence can sometimes be addressed more efficiently, though the judge must still separate what is legally admissible from what actually proves the case.
The core stages, opening the case, calling evidence, cross-examination, and closing submissions, are otherwise similar to a jury trial. See our guides to testifying and cross-examination for more on those stages.
Reasons for Judgment
A defining feature of a judge alone trial is that the judge generally gives reasons for the verdict, whether delivered orally in court or in a written judgment. These reasons explain how the judge assessed the evidence, resolved any conflicts in the testimony, and applied the law to reach a conclusion. This differs from a jury verdict, which is simply announced without any explanation, since jury deliberations are protected by strict secrecy rules discussed in our jury trials guide. Reasons for judgment can matter a great deal if the result is later challenged on appeal, since an appellate court can review the judge's reasoning in a way it generally cannot review a jury's.
Ontario Court of Justice vs. Superior Court
A judge alone trial can take place in either the Ontario Court of Justice or the Superior Court of Justice, depending on the offence and any election made. Broadly, the Ontario Court of Justice handles summary conviction matters, absolute jurisdiction offences, and any indictable matter where the accused elects trial there, while the Superior Court of Justice handles matters where a judge alone trial there, or a jury trial, has been elected, along with the small category of offences under section 469. Procedurally, both are judge alone trials; the difference is mainly which court and judge presides, and whether a preliminary inquiry may have preceded the trial.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is a judge alone trial less fair than a jury trial?
Both are recognized, legitimate ways of determining guilt in the Canadian justice system. A judge alone trial is still bound by the same standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt and the same rules of evidence as a jury trial.
Can I change my mind after electing a judge alone trial?
There are specific, limited rules in the Criminal Code about re-electing a different mode of trial, and time limits generally apply. A lawyer can advise whether re-election is available in a specific case.
Does a judge alone trial take less time than a jury trial?
It often does, partly because there is no jury selection process and no need to accommodate a jury's schedule, but the length of any trial depends heavily on the complexity of the evidence and the number of witnesses.
Who decides sentencing in a judge alone trial?
The same judge who presided over the trial generally handles sentencing if there is a guilty verdict, at a separate hearing. See our guide to sentencing hearings.
Are all summary conviction trials judge alone?
Yes. Summary conviction matters are tried in the Ontario Court of Justice, which does not use juries.
What happens if my offence is on the section 469 list?
Section 469 offences, such as murder, generally must be tried by a judge and jury in the Superior Court, unless both the accused and the Attorney General consent to judge alone. See our jury trials guide.