Tag: Virtual Court

01 May

Getting Back into Court

Paul Emile Trudelle In the News, Litigation Tags: , , , , , , 0 Comments

Representatives of the Courts of Ontario, the Ministry of the Attorney General and various stakeholder representatives are meeting regularly in order to deal with the COVID-19 crisis and the courts’ response to it.

At present, the Ministry and the courts are working towards a further expansion of the courts. To date, since the declaration of the emergency, the Superior Court of Justice has heard about 1,000 matters, being motions, conferences and pre-trials. However, it is hoped that the types of matters to be heard and the number of matters can be expanded in the near future.

Committees are currently considering the expansion of court services. Priorities being discussed include:

  • Identifying a Document Sharing Platform to be used by judges, counsel and parties;
  • Identifying a Video Conferencing Platform to be used by judges, counsel and parties; and
  • Determining a protocol to be used by court staff for supporting virtual hearings.

It is expected that the selection of a Document Sharing Platform will be made by next week, with the other items to be in place shortly thereafter. While there is no set time frame, once the systems are put in place, there will be an announcement with respect to the expansion of court services.

It would appear that once these systems are put in place, there will be no turning back. Virtual hearings, at least to a certain extent, will be the new norm. Previous attempts to modernize the court by allowing virtual attendances, through a service called CourtCall, did not gain much traction. However, I suspect that there is now a greater appetite for and comfort with virtual hearings. Further, it is likely that the hearings will be supported by better document management and document filing facilities; something that was lacking under past experiments.

Stay tuned!

And stay safe.

Paul Trudelle

17 Apr

Virtual Court Hearings: Putting Them into Practice

Paul Emile Trudelle Litigation Tags: , , , 0 Comments

Virtual court hearings are becoming the new norm. More and more, the courts are prepared to proceed without the physical attendance of counsel or the parties.

Recently, the Divisional Court made a detailed Case Management Endorsement setting out how a hearing was to proceed. The case, Ontario v. Association of Ontario Midwives, is to proceed as a 3-day hearing before a 3-judge panel. Particulars of the procedure to be followed include:

o   The hearing is to be conducted as a Zoom conference;

o   Counsel are not to gown. Instead, business attire is required for anyone with a speaking role at the hearing. Although babies and dogs are not specifically prohibited from participating, the court directed that “All parties must ensure that they participate in the videoconference from appropriate surroundings and that they (and the Court) will not be interrupted or disturbed during the hearing.”;

o   Specific directions with respect to the filing of electronic materials are provided. These include:

·      No individual email can be larger than 10 MB;

·      All affidavits and each exhibit are to be sent as separate pdf attachments, and are to be clearly identified;

·      Factums are to be filed in Word format; and

·      Books of Authorities are not required. However, Factums should have hyperlinks to CanLII versions of cases;

o   The hearing is to follow a “webinar format” and will accommodate up to 500 members of the public. Particulars will be confirmed to the parties in due course by the court. (It is not clear how the public is to find out the particulars: see Stuart Clark’s blog on open courts and E-Courts, here.)

Virtual hearings, while becoming more common, have not yet become universal or mandatory. In an endorsement dated April 14, 2020, Justice Morgan addressed a proposed 2-day virtual hearing for May 4 and 5, 2020. The Defendants wanted to proceed, but Plaintiffs’ counsel was “reluctant”. Plaintiffs’ counsel argued that the materials were voluminous, and this would create logistical difficulties for counsel. Further, they would not be able to have their entire team together in the same room in order to provide the support required during the hearing. The hearing, seeking leave to proceed with a class proceeding, could spell the end of the Plaintiffs’ and the class’s claim if not successful, and counsel did not want to put their client and putative class members at risk in what would be “a rather novel format for a complex and lengthy motion with a heavily documented record.”

While the court did not want to delay the litigation, it did not require that the matter proceed by way of a virtual hearing. Per Morgan J., “…I do not think it appropriate to compel the moving party to proceed under conditions where Plaintiffs’ counsel perceive that they may not be able to present the case as effectively as they would in person.”

Sometimes you Zoom, sometimes you don’t.

Paul Trudelle

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR BLOG

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.
 

CONNECT WITH US

TRY HULL E-STATE PLANNER SOFTWARE

Hull e-State Planner is a comprehensive estate planning software designed to make the estate planning process simple, efficient and client friendly.

Try it here!

CATEGORIES

ARCHIVES

TWITTER WIDGET

  • To Consolidate or Not to Consolidate: James v. Estate of Clarence Roy James et al. Read about the three separate b… https://t.co/0dHaTzWdhB
  • The latest episode of our podcast is now live! Hull on Estates #627 – What is the Role of the Office of the Public… https://t.co/gIVTsdvjIC
  • Costs in SDA Proceedings: A Lesson from Rudin-Brown Today's article delves into the costs decision of Rudin-Brown… https://t.co/xoakfVgo4n
  • The Intersection of Family and Estate Issues – Does an estate have to pay retroactive child support? Last Monday's… https://t.co/Q1gCHnS6xY
  • Hundreds affected by IVF doctor’s alleged improper actions. Read today's article here: https://t.co/dDxepM30Ci… https://t.co/D0il5nbkuI
  • Today's article highlights some key take aways from the paper: “The Annotated Guardianship Application – The View F… https://t.co/WaEM4anqQv