PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS | BEST PRACTICES | CODE OF CONDUCT PROTOCOLS

ARTICLE ● Hybrid Zoom Hearings ● OTTAWA CITIZEN Dec 28, 2021

“We still haven’t figured this out”:  Courts face technical challenges as Ontario accelerates modernization plan

December 28, 2021 | By Aedan Helmer
        

With COVID-19 creating a state of flux in Ontario courthouses, the provincial government is “accelerating” plans to outfit courtrooms with videoconferencing capabilities in the next phase of its modernization strategy.   The long-range plan, according to Ministry of the Attorney General spokesperson Brian Gray, will “break down barriers in the justice system and speed up access to services — remotely, in-person and online,” and will deliver “the most significant upgrade to justice services in Ontario history.”

But some critics say that change is happening too gradually, with in-person access still under restrictions at Ontario courthouses while remote access — by Zoom or other teleconferencing — has presented some technological challenges.

“The courts belong to the public, and the public ought to have full access, and nearly two years into the pandemic we still haven’t figured this out,” said Ottawa criminal defence lawyer Leo Russomanno on behalf of the Defence Counsel Association of Ottawa.  “We’re not only talking about members of the public who are observing, but also family members of parties that, for reasons beyond their control, cannot attend at the courthouse. People want to be responsible and limit their attendance in these indoor gatherings, or they may have a condition that prevents them from attending. But for whatever reason, if they can’t attend by Zoom because that access is being restricted, there is simply no excuse for that nearly two years into the pandemic. “There is an open court principle that ought to be adhered to, and it’s not in some of these cases.”

The ministry “remains committed to the open court principle and providing access to justice services for all participants,” Gray said.   “The judiciary have the exclusive authority to control the process of their courts, including deciding whether the court proceeding is held in-person or remotely.”   Some proceedings at the Superior Court of Justice can only be held virtually where the parties consent, and all judicial officials are “encouraged to be flexible and mindful of the position and circumstances of all participants … ” Gray said. “In instances where a matter will proceed virtually, the ministry will work with the victims and witnesses to ensure they are able to participate.”   Gray cited investments and recent “breakthroughs” in moving justice services online with remote hearings and other key changes to judicial procedures and the court process to improve access, including in rural, northern and Indigenous communities.

The ministry has provided courts with 635 new teleconference lines, a portal to access and recover recordings, and technology to enable remote hearings in 349 courtrooms since resuming operations in July 2020, Gray said.  Judicial officers and court staff have also been equipped to work remotely and securely.   The ministry is currently “accelerating investment” in videoconferencing equipment, Zoom licenses and bandwidth upgrades, with plans to retrofit another 70 courtrooms with videoconferencing capabilities.  The ministry took a phased approach to resuming in-person court operations and, as of early December, had resumed proceedings in 74 courthouse locations, with 721 courtrooms open across Ontario, 11 satellite court locations and four off-site jury locations.

Russomanno said the DCAO has long been calling for some of the changes the province implemented in its modernization strategy.  “The defence bar has been saying for a while now that we need to find efficiencies in the system in terms of filing documents electronically and finding a more efficient way to appear in court on administrative matters,” Russomanno said. “It took a global pandemic to sort of drag the justice system kicking and screaming into modernity.” There are still some glaring gaps in the government’s plan, Russomanno said.   “While I applaud the government for (its modernization efforts), it’s hard to give too much credit when we’re still having bail hearings where an accused person is on the phone at the jail, where there’s no video capability … We still don’t have the ability to have remote hearings from the jail, and almost two years into the pandemic that’s unacceptable.”

Several high-profile murder trials went ahead in Ottawa prior to the Dec. 19 announcement that all new jury selections would be halted.   Russomanno said there are still technical challenges with “hybrid” trials — involving an in-person jury with some witnesses testifying by Zoom — and lingering concerns over the integrity of the court process.

“Hybrid trials are a nightmare, setting up cameras and microphones, sometimes passing a single microphone between (Crown prosecutors and defence lawyers) so we have the ability to be heard by a witness testifying over Zoom,” Russomanno said.

There are also concerns with witnesses who could be observing anonymously via Zoom, which would violate an exclusion order.

The ministry said officials have worked with justice participants “to keep Ontarians safe and maintain the administration of justice, including the integrity of court proceedings, as determined by the presiding judicial official,” according to Gray.

“There are definitely challenges with hybrid proceedings and with Zoom, and these are all things we’re dealing with as we go,” Russomanno said. “So there is a bit of a gap between what the government says it’s doing and what is actually happening on the ground.”

 

ARTICLE ● Courts’ hiding their COVID-19 vaccination policies legally flawed, against public interest: experts ● THE LAWYER'S DAILY Sep 24, 2021

Courts’ hiding their COVID-19 vaccination policies legally flawed, against public interest: expert

Friday, September 24, 2021 @ 12:56 PM | By Cristin Schmitz and Terry Davidson

Experts are rejecting as legally flawed, and contrary to the public interest, an argument that a few Canadian chief justices are making to justify not revealing how many of their court’s judges are vaccinated for COVID-19 and what — if any — mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policies their courts have in place.

As a separate branch of government, the Canadian judiciary has institutional obligations of transparency and public accountability and is said not to be subject to federal or provincial vaccine mandates that might emerge in the workplace. Therefore The Lawyer’s Daily is contacting every chief justice and chief judge across the country to ask how many of their judges are vaccinated for COVID-19, and what mandatory vaccination policies the publicly funded courts have for their judges and staff.

 
Amy Salyzyn, University of Ottawa

"This is about more than just transparency for transparency's sake,” commented University of Ottawa law professor Amy Salyzyn, president of the Canadian Association for Legal Ethics. “The public should be given all available and material information about any health risks they may incur when attending a courthouse. This includes, in my view, information about the judiciary's vaccination status."

“As a practical matter, shouldn’t the public know the court’s policy if they must, or may wish to, attend court?” said Gavin MacKenzie of Toronto’s MacKenzie Barristers.

MacKenzie, an expert on professional ethics, endorsed “the policies adopted by the Supreme Court of Canada and other courts to protect people who attend court proceedings during a public health crisis.
“In my view, courts should announce their policies on the subject in the interest of  transparency and accountability.”

The Supreme Court of Canada and others, such as the Manitoba Court of Queen’s Bench, have been transparent.

The Supreme Court told The Lawyer’s Daily, for example, that its nine judges are fully vaccinated, and that Chief Justice of Canada Richard Wagner is requiring court staff be vaccinated before entering the courtroom in the fall session.

As another example, the country’s largest superior trial court, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, has said the public can expect that any of its judges who conduct in-person courtroom proceedings will be fully vaccinated against COVID-19.

But a handful of courts are refusing to disclose anything around their judges’ or staffs’ COVID-19 vaccinations (or lack thereof), including whether any (and how many) of their judges are vaccinated for COVID-19; what mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policies their courts have — if any; how any vaccination policies are enforced; and what the judiciary is doing to ensure that court staff are vaccinated.

 
Emmett Macfarlane, University of Waterloo

University of Waterloo political science professor Emmett Macfarlane rejected those courts’ key argument that revealing a COVID-19 vaccine mandate for judges, or divulging judges’ vaccination status, would bring into question their impartiality.

“Frankly, I think it’s a bizarre argument,” he said. “Impartiality shouldn’t extend to taking basic, reasonable health and safety measures.” MacFarlane explained

“I don’t see why a judge would be expected to have a personal view based on policies of their courts. I don’t see why a judge’s impartiality would be impacted by their decision to have become vaccinated. Would we expect judges to recuse themselves, or see their impartiality [impacted] in a disability rights case if the judge used a wheelchair, or was themselves in some way disabled? I don’t understand it.”

Still, given the controversial nature of vaccine mandates, generally, Macfarlane sees how judges “have fallen into this trap of thinking that there [is] some sort of perception issue at play.”

“But there are all manner of issues that might come before courts that are implicated in the daily working lives of judges, or their own personal choices, but we would          never  call into question their impartiality on those bases, so this shouldn’t be treated any differently just because we’re in the middle of a pandemic,” he suggested.

On Sept. 21, all three levels of court in Nova Scotia became the latest to decline to disclose anything at all to The Lawyer’s Daily about their internal policies on COVID-19 vaccination, or the vaccination status of their judges — echoing the same argument made earlier by the Federal Court of Appeal and Manitoba Court of Appeal whose chief justices each declined to provide any information on the basis that telling the public about their courts’ COVID-19 vaccination policies (or lack thereof) risks undermining public confidence.

In a written response to The Lawyer’s Daily, communications director Jennifer Stairs, on behalf of Nova Scotia’s judiciary, underscored the “vital” importance of public confidence in the courts’ impartiality.

“It would be inappropriate for the judiciary or a specific court to disclose its views or institutional policies on vaccinations, regardless of what those are, given that it is an issue that may come before the courts for adjudication,” Stairs said. “With that in mind, there are no plans to publicly disclose the vaccination status of Nova Scotia judges, or the position of any court on mandatory vaccination for judges.”

Legal ethicians and professional conduct experts contacted by The Lawyer’s Daily were not persuaded that a court’s decision to hide whether it has a vaccination policy (or the nature of any policy) will preserve public confidence in its judges’ impartiality.


  “If there actually are impartiality concerns [around disclosure] — and I do not think there are — it is difficult to understand how the issue of impartiality would turn on the court being secretive as to whether there is a vaccination policy: either the policy exists or it does not,” said Salyzyn.

MacKenzie agreed.

 

 
Gavin MacKenzie, MacKenzie Barristers

          

 “I have difficulty with any suggestion that a court that adopts and announces a vaccination policy may somehow be compromising judicial impartiality,” he said. “Neither the adoption of such a policy, nor the announcement of it, raises any issue of judicial ethics.”

MacKenzie predicted that “an argument that the adoption and announcement of such a policy may give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias would be doomed to fail.”


In his written response to queries from The Lawyer’s Daily about his judges’ vaccination status, and his court’s policies around COVID-19 vaccination, Federal Court of Appeal Chief Justice Marc Noël noted that issues related to mandatory COVID-19 vaccination are likely to come before his court.

 “To preserve the actual and apparent impartiality of the court on this issue and related issues — as the court must — the court will not disclose whether it has any     personal  views or institutional policies on this issue, one way or the other,”

 Chief Justice Noël said.

“The court’s paramount responsibility, especially on an issue as controversial and unprecedented as this, is to ensure that Canadians are confident in this court’s    capacity and commitment to decide cases on the facts and the law and nothing else — not even any personal views and institutional policies we may happen to have.        Thus,  in no way should this response be seen as a desire to conceal the vaccination status of the judges.”

Manitoba Court of Appeal Chief Justice Richard Chartier agreed, stating that “courts are called upon to provide an impartial forum to resolve these important issues. In my view, the answers to your questions may be interpreted in a way that will bring into question our court’s impartiality.”

But both Salyzyn and MacKenzie said a judicial bias argument would not fly in court.


"It is difficult to understand how a court merely confirming whether it has instituted a mandatory vaccination policy for its judges could be successfully used by litigants in individual cases as evidence of a judge’s lack of impartiality,” said Salyzyn. “The fact that a court, as an institution, has announced that it is, or is not, requiring its judges to be vaccinated doesn't rationally imply that any of its judges have personally prejudged whether such mandates are legal or indeed, are legal in entirely different    contexts.”

Nor are courts’ refusals to publicly disclose their COVID-19 vaccination policies consistent with their public orders implementing other health and safety measures in their courts.

“Courts have implemented and publicly announced a whole host of other safety measures in response to the pandemic, and the announcement of such measures   has not interfered in the courts’ hearing of cases about the legality of pandemic safety measures implemented by other actors in other contexts,” noted Salyzyn.

MacKenzie noted that judges are accorded a strong presumption of impartiality.

 “In my view [it] could not be displaced by an institutional policy designed to protect the public during a pandemic,” he said. “This is a time at which transparency and        accountability must prevail.”

MacKenzie also suggested that courts which choose to keep secret their COVID-19 vaccination policies, and the vaccination status of their members, could undermine public confidence in their judges’ impartiality rather than enhance it.

“If a court’s policy on public health measures during a pandemic were concealed for fear that their announcement may somehow compromise the appearance of judicial  impartiality, that would be more likely, rather than less, to raise concerns,” he said.

 
Stephen Pitel, Western University

Western University law professor Stephen Pitel, vice-president of the Canadian Association for Legal Ethics, agreed that arguments based on possible cases about vaccine mandates coming before the court “do not hold much water.”           

“I do wonder, if the court heard a challenge to a similar policy in a different workplace, whether at minimum the chief justice would have to not hear the case,” Pitel said. “Having established such a policy for the court workplace seems to suggest he or she personally considers it to be legal, which seems close to expressing a view of the issue, even in a different workplace context. But that does not preclude disclosure of the policy,” Pitel advised. “If at all, only the administrative judge, the chief justice or associate chief justice responsible for imposing the policy, might have to recuse. No other judge of the court would.”

Pitel added that while the bias argument is not “very solid,” a court might have other unspecified reasons not to disclose its COVID-19 vaccination policy. “My sense is that best practice calls for disclosure of both having a policy, and its contents,” he said. “The policy aims to protect users of the court and to reassure them as to their safety. That is best achieved through transparency. But that is nonetheless an argument, rather than a ‘rule’ which would mandate disclosure.”

Inquiries by The Lawyer’s Daily about COVID-19 vaccination polices for the thousands of judges and court staff who work across Canada have revealed that judicial leaders are taking very different approaches to disclosing their internal policies on mandatory COVID-19 vaccination for judges and staff, and the vaccination status of their judges.

Both the Federal Court and the Supreme Court of Canada have disclosed that all their judges are fully vaccinated.

Similarly, the New Brunswick Court of Appeal and New Brunswick Court of Queen’s Bench informed The Lawyer’s Daily that they do not have a mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy — but that all eight appeal judges and all 33 superior court trial judges have received their full round of shots.

As well, Saskatchewan’s provincial court, Queen’s Bench, and Court of Appeal have all disclosed that they have “no formal protocols with respect to the vaccination of judges.” Newfoundland and Labrador’s Supreme Court told The Lawyer’s Daily it is not requiring its judges or staff to be vaccinated against COVID-19, but is urging them to get their shots.

Taking a less transparent approach, British Columbia’s courts have declined to disclose their judges’ COVID-19 vaccination status — although the courts said this might be revisited as the COVID-19 situation in the province evolves, and as the latest public health guidance changes. The B.C. courts were transparent, however, in disclosing that their chief justices are not requiring that their nearly 300 judges, or court staff, be vaccinated for COVID-19 before entering courthouses:

The Ontario Court of Appeal and the Ontario Court of Justice, Canada’s busiest and largest trial court with 383 members (including part-time judges), have said they are working on COVID-19 vaccination policies for their members,

None of Alberta’s courts have yet answered written questions from The Lawyer’s Daily.

 

ARTICLE ● Ceremonial Opening of the Court Conducted Via YouTube ● THE LAWYER'S DAILY Sep 15, 2021

CEREMONIAL OPENING OF THE COURT
CONDUCTED VIA YOUTUBE
Ontario’s chief justices address backlogs, stress need for accessibility as courts modernize
Wednesday, September 15, 2021 @ 3:34 PM | By Amanda Jerome

 

The quick modernization of the justice system in the wake of a global pandemic and the “historic backlog” of cases that COVID-19 has created were consistent themes throughout Ontario’s opening of the courts ceremony, held virtually on Sept. 14. One thing was made clear: technology is needed to keep justice moving, but ensuring the courts remain accessible to the most vulnerable is an important priority.

“Our modernization has been rapid. In the coming months and years we will need to evaluate what we have done and continue to invest in technology to ensure that we have the best tools and support to provide efficient and effective access to justice. We will also need to ensure our courts remain accessible to everyone, not just those equipped with laptops, cellphones, and high-speed Internet, but also the most vulnerable amongst us who may lack those tools or the abilities to use them,” stressed Chief Justice of Ontario, George Strathy in his remarks.

 

George Strathy, Chief Justice of Ontario

Chief Justice Strathy noted that “prior to the arrival of the coronavirus, our courts had functioned in ways unchanged for generations” and during his 50 years as “an observer of the law,” it often struck him that “the law was changing much faster than the way in which lawyers practised, judges judged and courts functioned.”

“In the course of 18 months, our courts have successfully catapulted themselves out of a dusty and fusty 19th or 20th century existence into a world of remote appearances, digital records and electronic filing,” he added, noting that this change was “driven by the pandemic, but realized through unprecedented collaborative efforts of the bench, the bar, and the Ministry of the Attorney General.”

Chief Justice Strathy stressed that “public trust is also fragile” and will “be eroded if those responsible for the administration of justice fail to understand and respect all those we must serve.”

“Public trust in the judicial branch as an institution, and public confidence in the administration of justice, are undermined when some of the most vulnerable members of society believe in their hearts that the system is beyond their reach, doesn’t understand or appreciate their concerns, takes too long, or it is too expensive and cumbersome to serve their needs,” he explained, noting that COVID-19 “shone a bright and critical light on the vulnerabilities of our society, magnifying pre-existing inequalities.”

 

Geoffrey Morawetz, Chief Justice of the Superior Court of Justice

Chief Justice of the Superior Court of Justice, Geoffrey Morawetz, recalled that when he began his role two years ago his “long-term vision was to bring the court into the 20th century.”

“Then the pandemic happened, which, in a surprising turn of events, pushed us rather quickly into the 21st century instead,” he added.

Chief Justice Morawetz noted that this “new environment has shown us the need to implement a new technological foundation to deliver more accessible justice at this moment and into the future.”

However, he made clear that this approach “comes with its challenges, and we are assessing the situation as we seek to improve.”

“Remote work has had its consequences on mental health, and technology poses a challenge for people who work within the justice system as they adapt to these new processes. The pandemic also exposed issues that we need to fix and improve, namely access to justice and the backlog,” he added.

Highlighted as a success, Chief Justice Morawetz noted the “over 180,000 virtual or hybrid hearings” the Superior Court has held “since the beginning of the pandemic, most commonly in family and civil.”

“This pandemic has bluntly reminded us not only of the need for our software and services to modernize, but for our workforce’s skills to modernize as well. We must equip our staff with the skills necessary to utilize new technology to effectively serve the public in the digital age,” he explained.

Chief Justice Morawetz said a “prime example of technological advancements in the courts is CaseLines, a document sharing platform that allows us to access documents for hearings anytime and anywhere.”

“We began implementing CaseLines August of 2020, and it was quickly adopted across the province. It is an important part of our strategy for tackling the backlog of cases. Last summer, the Ministry of the Attorney General procured CaseLines for our court. CaseLines can change how we do business, allowing us to access files from across the province and beyond. Its ability to make the justice system work will be integral to our services moving forward,” he added.

Chief Justice Morawetz also noted that the Superior Court’s “family law work has been incredibly busy” and throughout the pandemic it has “conducted over 96,000 virtual or hybrid hearings in family alone, including an unprecedented number of urgent requests.”

“Since the start of the pandemic, family cases have been a high priority to ensure the safety and well-being of children and families who have turned to the court for assistance,” he explained, noting that “despite these efforts, many challenges remain.”

“COVID-19 has caused delays that have aggravated the already significant difficulties of making post-separation arrangements, whether relating to children or financial support,” he said, adding that the court is trying to address delays by implementing improvements, such as the “new province-wide Notice to the Profession specific to family law cases and the introduction of the court’s Binding Judicial Dispute Resolution pilot.”

He stressed that the court is “working collaboratively with the bar and working groups to determine how virtual hearings can continue to be utilized once physical attendances can resume.”

“This remains a priority for the court moving into the future,” he added.

With regards to the criminal courts, Chief Justice Morawetz said the Superior Court has “heard over 34,000 proceedings over the course of the last 18 months.

He stressed that this “is in no small measure attributable to the input and dedication of the prosecutors and criminal defence lawyers to the criminal justice system and ensuring that it kept moving.”

“This required technological solutions and rules of practice to allow for appearances by accused persons and witnesses virtually,” he added, noting that with “the health and safety protocols in place in our courthouses, we have been able to resume and continue to expand our capacity for in-person hearings including jury trials.”

Chief Justice Morawetz explained that “as with civil and family,” moving forward the Superior Court has taken “temporary measures and made them a permanent feature of criminal practice: including e-filing, virtual proceedings and document sharing during proceedings.”

“We will also be developing a set of guidelines for the determination of which proceedings should be virtual and which in person in criminal which will be mindful of the particular access to justice issues involved,” he added, recognizing the “unique constitutional obligations and other issues that delay in criminal cases raise.”

He stressed that the “delay in conducting jury trials has compounded this concern.”

“I have identified addressing the backlog in criminal as a priority for our court,” he said.

Chief Justice Morawetz noted that “brick and mortar courtrooms” are needed for family and criminal cases, so the pandemic “necessitated an exponential increase in virtual hearings” for civil matters.

“Since the beginning of the pandemic, we have conducted over 50,000 civil hearings virtually,” he said, highlighting the civil court as a “prime example of the power of the CaseLines software” as the platform has been “embraced by judges and the bar.”

Chief Justice Morawetz stressed that virtual hearings “will be extremely helpful in the shorter term to help address the court’s pandemic backlog, and are here to stay in the longer term for routine appearances in each court system where appropriate.”

 

Lise Maisonneuve, Chief Justice of the Ontario Court of Justice

Lise Maisonneuve, the chief justice of the Ontario Court of Justice, said that though “justice participants can feel proud of many accomplishments during the past 18 months, some challenges remain.”

“One challenge we cannot ignore is the backlog of cases in our courts. This past year has seen an extra 60,000 criminal cases added to our backlog. There is also a backlog in provincial offences court. While the number of family matters in case management court has been reduced, there remains a concerning backlog in family trial matters,” she noted.

She stressed that the Court of Justice is “working to address pandemic-related trial backlogs in criminal, family and provincial offences act court” and a “number of initiatives have already been identified to reduce the criminal case backlog.”

“These initiatives include judge-led case management courts; an increase in availability of judicial pretrials to get these matters ready for trial or resolution; and additional plea and trial courts,” she said.

Elizabeth Dowdeswell, lieutenant governor of Ontario, noted in her address that there are “lessons we must continue to heed.”

“One of those is that we really understand and accommodate our interdependents(sic). For climate change is the next existential crisis that we’re facing, and technology and geopolitics will surely intensify global instability and forced migration. We are ultimately and mutually vulnerable on this earth and the challenge of how to protect and support the vulnerable will only deepen and be magnified,” she stressed.

She noted that a “return to normalcy” is “an opportunity to design something better.”

“This pandemic has laid bare for all of us the reality of inequity in our society. We need to have a place for genuine respectful conversations about who and what is essential, who and what matters. We need to break down silos between social and economic sectors. We need to think and act in a holistic and systemic way if we’re going to build resilience in this era of profound and fast-paced change. And we need to listen, really listen, to those who ask questions about justice,” she said.

 

Doug Downey, Attorney General of Ontario

Attorney General of Ontario, Doug Downey, noted that the pandemic revealed “the gravity of Ontario’s outdated justice system.”

“We cannot be an offline justice system in an online world. So, when we look at how outdated parts of the system still are and the added stresses of backlogs due to COVID-19 it’s clear to me that greater action is needed and I’m here today to tell you new help is on the way,” he said.

Downey noted that in March the Ministry launched the “Justice Accelerated strategy to break down long-standing barriers in the system, overhaul processes and move more services online closer to Ontarians no matter where they lived, including rural, northern and Indigenous communities.”

“We believe justice accelerated is justice delivered and we can get there by refocusing the system around people and their expectations for how justice can be done,” he said, noting the dramatic expansion of “e-filing, reducing the lineups at courthouse terminals by allowing online searching and saving people’s time and gasoline by allowing 24/7 online filing from anywhere.”

“If the banks can let you do so many of these day-to-day tasks at home, I’ve always thought ‘why can’t we?’ But that’s just the tip of the iceberg,” he explained, noting that the Ministry recently “enacted a small change that will save time and money for lawyers and their clients by enabling the table of contents in the Rules of Civil Procedure to be hyperlinked in e-logs in the same way other table of contents on e-logs are.”

“We’re pivoting to new and retrofitted courthouses engineered for the future, built with people in mind in the same way most public buildings are designed these days, like airports and hospitals, incorporating intuitive technology,” he said, noting that as jury trials resume in some jurisdictions, prospective jurors “can now do their pre-screening and check in online.”

“We’ve screened well over 70,000 potential jurors this way. It’s a great example of how technology can help people improve their experience with the justice system and at the courthouse,” he added.

Downey stressed that “demand for trials is forecasted to be 33 per cent higher than in 2019 until at least March 2023.”

“While we continue to take measures to keep people safe and address the threats of the pandemic we’re applying a strategy to address this historic backlog of cases on all fronts. That means working closely with each other, the courts, the police, other justice sector partners, on our shared priorities, ensuring justice continues to be done and that public safety is always prioritized in our communities,” he noted.

 

Teresa Donnelly, treasurer of the Law Society of Ontario

Teresa Donnelly, treasurer of the Law Society of Ontario, said the “ravages of the pandemic will continue to be felt for years as we grapple with the long-term medical, economic and mental health challenges.”

“While society will struggle with these impacts, so will the justice system,” she stressed.

“During last year’s opening of the courts, Chief Justice Strathy posited that we were at a turning point in history and pondered whether we could and would apply the same energy and resources devoted to COVID to the viruses of systemic racism, economic inequalities and other barriers to justice. Have we?” she asked.

Donnelly stressed that it is “incumbent upon each of us to harness that same spirit of co-operation and innovation that confronted the pandemic to continue to confront and overcome barriers to justice. And central to that work is transforming to a modern, responsive justice system.”

“We need a system that is diverse, inclusive and reflective of the public, from the judiciary, to the legal professions to clients. A justice system values the diversity of views and recognizes that perspective from varied experiences enrich the fabric of our judicial system and increase access to justice,” she said, furthering stressing that a “modern, responsive system is one that is timely or there is no justice.”

“Our already overburdened system has additional pandemic related backlogs and unabated these delays will wash away the integrity of our system,” she added.

The ceremony concluded with the chief justice of Ontario presenting the annual Catzman Award for Professionalism and Civility to Jennifer McAleer, a partner at Fasken.

McAleer said she was “truly honoured” to receive this award and told the family of the late Justice Marvin Catzman that she would “endeavour” throughout the rest of her career to “honour this award and your father’s legacy.”

 

ARTICLE ● British Columbia’s three courts not requiring COVID-19 vaccinations for judges — at least for now ● THE LAWYER'S DAILYS ep 13, 2021

Criminal       

British Columbia’s three courts not requiring COVID-19 vaccinations for judges — at least for now
Monday, September 13, 2021 @ 1:13 PM | By Cristin Schmitz

 

British Columbia’s three court levels say they are not requiring their nearly 300 judges to be vaccinated for COVID-19 — although this could change in the future.

“Given the very effective safety measures in place at all courthouses, the B.C. courts do not require members of the public, litigants, counsel, courthouse staff or judicial officers to disclose their vaccination status before entering courthouses,” the B.C. Court of Appeal, the B.C. Supreme Court and the B.C. provincial court said in joint statement responding to inquiries from The Lawyer’s Daily.

The Sept. 9, 2021, statement adds, however, that “as the COVID situation in British Columbia continues to evolve and as the latest public health guidance changes, this may be revisited.”

As an essential service, the three courts emphasized they are “committed to ensuring a safe environment for members of the public, litigants, counsel, courthouse staff, and judicial officers.”  

“The B.C. courts will continue implementing the physical distancing, masking, screening, cleaning and other measures that have been in place throughout the pandemic to contain the spread of COVID-19,” their statement said. “These measures were introduced to ensure that all courts could continue to perform their critical functions while also protecting the health and well-being of all court users, including the public, litigants, counsel, courthouse staff, and judicial officers. These measures are considered highly effective at reducing COVID transmission.”

The three courts also noted that in matters of public health, they “take guidance” from B.C.’s Provincial Health Officer, the B.C. Centre for Disease Control (CDC), and the B.C. Public Service Agency (PSA). “At this time, the BC CDC and BC PSA have not announced a cross-organizational vaccine mandate for public service employees,” the courts said in response to a question about mandatory vaccination for court workers.

As of Sept. 1, the British Columbia Court of Appeal has (approximately) 24 judges; the B.C. Supreme Court has 107 judges; and the B.C. provincial court has 152 judges.

The highly transmissible delta variant of COVID-19 is driving a fourth wave of infections, mostly among unvaccinated people, in B.C. and other provinces. 

As a separate branch of government, at least some members of the Canadian judiciary have publicly taken the position that any vaccine mandates that might be imposed by the federal or provincial governments on public servants (court staff, for example) does not apply to the judges themselves, even though judges are paid from the public purse.

To this point, however, the judiciary has not adopted a uniform position on the question of mandatory COVID-19 vaccinations for judges —nor on whether disclosure (and how much) is owed to the public, as a matter of appropriate transparency and accountability from the third branch of government

The B.C. courts’ decision to neither disclose to the public how many of their judges are vaccinated, nor to require COVID-19 vaccination of its members, contrasts, for example, with the transparency of the Supreme Court of Canada and the Federal Court of Canada, which courts have disclosed that all their judges are vaccinated against COVID-19.

The top court has also disclosed that Chief Justice Richard Wagner is mandating  that all staff entering the Supreme Court’s courtroom during the upcoming fall session must also be vaccinated against COVID-19.

In a similar vein, the Manitoba Court of Queen’s Bench has disclosed that all but one of its 42 members are vaccinated, and that only people who are vaccinated for COVID-19 may enter judicial chambers.

Meanwhile the nation’s largest superior trial court, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, says the public can “expect” that judges hearing cases in person “will be fully vaccinated.”

The Lawyer’s Daily is asking the chief justices and chief judges of all the courts in Canada what policies, if any, they have with respect to mandatory COVID-19 vaccination for the judges of their courts and court staff.

 

ARTICLE ● Courts working on policies on judges’ COVID jabs; Ont. C.A. staying with virtual hearings for now ● THE LAWYER'S DAILY Sep 8, 2021

Courts working on policies on judges’ COVID jabs; Ont. C.A. staying with virtual hearings for now
Wednesday, September 08, 2021 @ 2:18 PM | By Cristin Schmitz

The Ontario Court of Appeal and the Ontario Court of Justice, Canada’s largest trial court, are both working on COVID-19 vaccination policies for their judges.

“A policy regarding vaccination for the judiciary is being developed, but has not been finalized,” Jacob Bakan, special counsel to the Office of Chief Justice of Ontario George Strathy, explained in an e-mailed response to The Lawyer’s Daily which asked what one of Canada’s most influential appellate courts is doing to ensure COVID-19 vaccinations of its members and court staff.

Chief Justice of Ontario George Strathy

Bakan said the Court of Appeal is presently considering a possible return to in-person hearings in mid-October but, in the meantime, continues with only virtual hearings.

“In formulating our plans and policies regarding a return to in-person hearings, we will continue to be guided by public health advice, as we have been throughout the pandemic,” he said.

When it comes to courthouse staff, Bakan noted that workers are members of Ontario’s public service and, as such, “will be required to be fully vaccinated or undertake regular testing.”

The Appeal Court is also discussing with Ontario’s Ministry of the Attorney General about what policies apply to other people who attend at the courthouse, he said.

 
Chief Justice Lise Maisonneuve

As for Canada’s busiest trial court with 383 members (including part-time judges) — the Ontario Court of Justice led by Chief Justice Lise Maisonneuve, is also “considering vaccination requirements for the judiciary,” said court spokesperson, Dahlia Saibil, in an e-mailed statement.


Asked to elaborate, the provincial court replied “at this time, we do not have any further information to provide to you regarding vaccination requirements for the judiciary.”

The provincial court referred questions about vaccination for court staff to Ontario’s Ministry of the Attorney General, given that its staff are members of Ontario’s public service. “The rules governing courthouse safety are the responsibility of the Ministry of the Attorney General,” the court said.

The Lawyer’s Daily is asking the chief justices and chief judges of all the courts in Canada what policies, if any, they have with respect to mandatory COVID-19 vaccination for the judges of their courts and court staff.

 

ARTICLE ● When will the Tax Court of Canada resume in-person sittings?● CANADIAN ACCOUNTANT Sep 3, 2021

When will the Tax Court of Canada resume in-person sittings?

Some notable decisions recently announced from videoconference hearings

 Canadian Accountant

TORONTO, September 3, 2021 – The Tax Court of Canada is currently holding virtual hearings and proceeding with written submissions due to the Covid-19 pandemic. That may come to an end in less than a week, however, as Chief Justice Eugene Rossiter previously announced an end date of Friday, September 10, 2021 to the cancellation of in-person sittings.

The Tax Court has faced numerous challenges during the pandemic in holding court sittings and has struggled with a backlog of cases. As reported by Canadian Accountant, the Tax Court first closed in March 2020 due to the onset of the pandemic, and released a 17-point prioritization plan for a reopening later that summer. Part of that plan was to “aggressively” move forward in modernizing and digitizing active files and transitioning to videoconferencing when possible.

So unusual were the circumstances at the time that, in May 2020, Canadian Accountant took a fond look back at the last Tax Court of Canada case, which had occurred that March. “Sometimes it’s the small details in the Tax Court decisions that are delicious,” we declared, which Bennett Jones LLP summarized as: “The taxpayer was the sole shareholder in the gas station and his vague, uninformed, and consistent failure to keep any reliable records was [a] hallmark reflecting standard of gross negligence.”

The Tax Court shut down a second time in January 2021 as Ontario entered a second state of emergency, as reported by Canadian Accountant. This time the closure was marked by a far more significant case involving Dow Chemical and transfer pricing. The Court would then announce a series of cancellations of in-person hearings throughout 2021, the most recent of which was announced on June 1, 2021, affecting hearings scheduled between August 16, 2021 and September 10, 2021.

Notable Tax Court decisions published this summer

While the publication of decisions has slowed significantly, the Tax Court has published several notable decisions of cases finalized through written submissions, and virtual hearings through videoconferencing. Most notable was a decision by Justice Spiro in Paletta Estate v. The Queen, which involved the Paletta family of Burlington, Ont., and a foreign currency trading scheme.
The Paletta family business, led by patriarch Pasquale (“Pat”) Paletta, was no stranger to the Tax Court, as the Court deemed a previous Paletta investment a sham. This investment strategy, which most notably was also pursued by former Toronto Maple Leafs Shayne Corson and Darcy Tucker, was declared perfectly legitimate by Justice Spiro.

Unfortunately, the two sides — the Paletta Estate was represented by two lawyers from KPMG Canada — were unable to reach an agreement on costs, despite Justice Spiro stating that it was “abundantly clear” that the Estate was “substantially successful in its appeals,” so Spiro awarded $2,241,025 to the appellant (the Estate wanted $3.5 million).

(Spiro noted, however, that Paletta (who died in 2019) made false statements or omissions in his 2002 tax return attributable to neglect, carelessness “under circumstances amounting to gross negligence.”)

A similar case involving written submissions occurred in Hansen V. The Queen. The appellant, Ottawa builder Rick Hansen, sold five houses in the span of six years, which piqued the interest of the Canada Revenue Agency. As reported by the Toronto Star, Hansen was ultimately successful in convincing the Tax Court that these buildings were principal residences.

It appears that Hansen offered a settlement to the Crown in 2018 but the judgment was more favourable than the appellant’s offer. After Hansen’s lawyers requested that the Tax Court award Hansen enhanced costs for both the period prior to the settlement offer and the period after, Justice Johanne D’Auray awarded Hansen “an enhanced substantial indemnity” of 85 per cent.

Hansen was represented in Court by Tataryn Law, tax and business firm led by accountant and lawyer Susan Tataryn, a CPA, CA called to the Saskatchewan bar in 1993 and the Ontario bar in 2000.


Canadian Accountant will continue to follow developments at the Tax Court as it decides whether to resume in-person sittings this fall.

 

ARTICLE ● Quebec Appeal Court ruling shows danger of modifying oral decisions, law prof says ● THE LAWYER'S DAILY Sep 1, 2021

Civil Litigation
Quebec Appeal Court ruling shows danger of modifying oral decisions, law prof says
Wednesday, September 01, 2021 @ 12:57 PM | By Luis Millán

Case(s):
R. v. Teskey 2007 SCC 25
R. v. Wang 2010 ONCA 435
R. v. Thompson 2010 ONCA 463
Directeur des poursuites criminelles et pénales c. 3095-2899 Québec inc. 2021 QCCA 1222

The Quebec Court of Appeal overturned a lower court decision after it held that the judge went well beyond the limits of making minor modifications to a revised transcript of oral reasons by providing supplemental motives that gave the impression that they were crafted after the fact to substantially improve and bolster her reasons.

The ruling, besides issuing guidance over the scope of a provision in the Quebec Dam Safety Act (Act), underlines the tension faced by trial judges who are expected to render decisions in a timely fashion without sacrificing the need to provide sound and thoughtful reasons, remarked University of Ottawa law professor Emmanuelle Bernheim.

 “Rendering timely decisions is important as we have seen judges take an incredible amount of time before issuing decisions,” explained Bernheim, co-author of the book Applied Judicial Ethics. “But there is pressure now exerted on the magistrature to decide quickly, and we see the consequences of this in this decision. That is, if judges do not have the time to take the time to develop their decisions, it is not in the interest of parties.”

The case involves a Quebec numbered company, Ski Bromont, that was found guilty by Court of Quebec justice of the peace Tanya Larocque of violating article 5 of the Act for failing to seek authorization from the Quebec Ministry of Environment to perform structural work on a dam on Lac Sheffington, an artificially created body of water the ski hill operator uses to make artificial snow. Ski Bromont was fined $2,000 in August 2020, a decision that was quashed three months later by Quebec Superior Court Justice Claude Dallaire in an oral ruling. A week later the Crown asked for a transcription of the oral ruling but Justice Dallaire informed the Director of Criminal and Penal Prosecutions (DCPP) that the transcription would not be ready by the holidays and to file an application for leave to appeal before the Quebec Court of Appeal if it intended to appeal her decision. The revised transcript was issued in February 2021, nearly three months after the oral decision was rendered, and the DCPP filed an amended leave to appeal.

The DCPP asserted that Justice Dallaire exceeded the limits of her right to revise her reasons in the revised transcript. It also maintained that the revised transcript was provided after the expiry of the time limit to appeal and that it was issued after the application for leave to appeal was filed.

The Quebec Court of Appeal pointed out that case law, notably the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Teskey 2007 SCC 25 as well as the Ontario Court of Appeal in R. v. Wang 2010 ONCA 435 and R. v. Thompson 2010 ONCA 463, held that it is inappropriate to change, modify or add to a transcript of oral reasons rendered in court unless it was editing the transcript for readability or to correct grammatical errors. Case law also holds that the integrity of the trial record and court proceedings is fundamental to the judicial system and to the transparency of those proceedings, pointed out the Appeal Court. Further, case law suggests that counsel who are present when oral reasons are delivered should have confidence that the reasons will not be changed to something substantially different. Moreover, jurisprudence intimates that reasons rendered quite sometime after a verdict and after a notice of appeal was filed may lead a reasonable person to “apprehend” that the trial judge may have, even subconsciously, reached a result-driven reasoning. In other words, judges have to be careful to avoid framing reasons to justify the verdict rather than articulating the reasons that led to the verdict, held the Quebec Court of Appeal.

There are some circumstances, pointed out the Appeal Court, when there may be good reason for announcing a decision prior to delivering the full reasons. But in those cases, judges should give a clear indication that the transcription of the decision will be supplemented by more comprehensive reasons.

“At the time when an oral decision is rendered, it is like a skeleton, a framework, that should not change,” said Bernheim. “The basis for the decision should be already present and already be clear. Judges cannot change reasons after they rendered the decision orally, particularly if it will be the basis of the appeal. Which leads to the question as to whether we are faced with situations where oral decisions are rendered because we want swift rulings or whether decisions are rendered orally and then comes the realization that the reasons are perhaps not very solid and therefore there is a temptation to modify it. Both situations pose problems for different reasons.”

When Justice Dallaire delivered her oral decision in November 2020, it amounted to a couple of paragraphs. But when she issued her revised transcript of her reasons in February 2021, it contained 177 paragraphs, 29 of which were dedicated to a new exposé of the evidence, another 29 over her re-evaluation of expert evidence and 19 more new reasons dealing with the scope of the Act. “These additions suggest that they were formulated to substantially improve and solidify her reasons,” held the panel of three Quebec Appeal Court justices in Directeur des poursuites criminelles et pénales c. 3095-2899 Québec 2021 QCCA 1222.

The Appeal Court added that the fact that there was a delay between the time Justice Dallaire rendered her oral ruling and the release of the transcription was not in and of itself grievous. Nor was the fact that the revised reasons were obtained after the DCPP manifested its intention to appeal or that she invited them to file a modified leave to appeal upon reception of the revised reasons. But Justice Dallaire should have mulled over, before rendering her oral judgment, whether she needed a few more days after hearing the case “to convey a complete and coherent message to the parties,” said Appeal Court Justices Jacques Chamberland, Geneviève Marcotte and Guy Cournoyer in the unsigned 37-page decision issued on Aug. 4.

Justice Dallaire should have also at the time she rendered her oral decision, if she intended to “refine” her reasons given the complexity of her analysis, be candid and transparent with the parties, particularly since she implied that there would be only a slight elaboration in the revised transcription, held the Appeal Court. “Insofar as she judged it necessary to improve her reasons, the question is whether this was or could reasonably be thought to be the result of a motion for leave to appeal or because she felt that the reasons given at the hearing were incomplete or inadequate,” added the Appeal Court.

“The decision sends a very clear message that judges must find the balance between rendering timely decisions and be ‘ready’ to issue decisions that have well established reasons, that are well-anchored, so that when the parties receive the reasons they are not new motives,” said Bernheim. “That is the challenge.”

The Quebec Court of Appeal also examined the meaning of article 5 of the Quebec Dam Safety Act which states that the construction, structural alteration or removal of any high-capacity dam requires the authorization of the minister of environment. Contrary to what Justice Dallaire held, the Appeal Court plainly stated that the DCPP does not have the burden of proving that the work represented a security risk to prove an offence. It also does not matter whether the work that is undertaken is relatively minimal or inexpensive, as Justice Dallaire held.

“While not all work requires authorization, only those that modify a structure, it would be prudent nevertheless to at least consult the Ministry to determine whether they consider the work as something that modifies the structure of the dam,” noted Marc Bishai, a lawyer with Centre québécois du droit de l’environnement, a charitable organization that offers independent environmental law expertise.

Justice Dallaire also erroneously adopted the technical meaning of the term structural and substituted her interpretation for that of the trial judge, without providing reasons for her decision, held the Appeal Court. She also ignored the presumption that legislation should be interpreted in favour of the ordinary meaning of words, something that Justice Dallaire failed to do when she interpreted the word structure.

“That is an interesting finding because dams are structures that requires technical knowledge,” said Bishai. “But the Quebec Court of Appeal insists that the word as defined by a dictionary should hold true and that the ordinary meaning of the word should be retained. So it’s interesting because the Appeal Court reminds us that laws are made for ordinary people, unless the contrary is proved.”

 

ARTICLE ● People unvaccinated against COVID-19 unable to serve jury duty in murder trial, judge rules ● THE LAWYER'S DAILY Aug 26, 2021

Criminal

 People unvaccinated against COVID-19 unable to serve jury duty in murder trial, judge rules

Thursday, August 26, 2021 @ 2:26 PM | By Amanda Jerome

In a pretrial ruling, Justice Kevin Phillips of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice determined that the jury for an upcoming murder trial must be fully vaccinated against COVID-19.


“I intend as part of the jury selection process to ask each prospective candidate if they have been fully vaccinated. If the answer is a negative one, that candidate shall be excused in accordance with s.632(c) of the Criminal Code,” he wrote in a decision released Aug. 25.

Justice Phillips noted in R. v. Frampton, 2021 ONSC 5733, that “[P]ursuant to s.626 of the Code, a person’s eligibility to serve as a juror is governed by the Juries Act” and s. 4 of the Act “provides that a person is ineligible for service if he or she is physically unable to discharge the duties of a juror and cannot be reasonably accommodated in such a way as to allow them to perform those duties.”

The judge explained that serving jury duty “requires a physical ability to attend court each day of the trial, along with an ability to observe the proceedings with focused attention.”

“The job also requires interaction and sometimes spirited communication in a confined indoor space,” he added, noting that COVID-19 is a “serious and contagious disease that is spread through respiration.”

Justice Phillips stressed that COVID-19 is “potentially fatal and well worth being concerned about.”

“There is a particularly vicious mutation currently circulating — the so-called Delta variant — and cases of Covid-19 in the community are increasing in a worrisome ‘fourth wave,’ ” he wrote, noting that “[D]ata accumulated from around the world appears to show that the available vaccines are very effective.”

Even though “preventive measures like plexiglass, distancing, masks, et cetera, likely have some salutary effect in reducing Covid-19 spread, it has become clear that the best available method to reduce the risk of transmission and the development of serious illness (or worse) is vaccination,” he stressed.

“To my mind, in the context of the burgeoning ‘fourth wave’, allowing an unvaccinated person to serve as a juror would irresponsibly introduce risk to the trial. An unvaccinated juror is a potential conduit for the Covid-19 virus to make its way into the jury room. Obviously, such a result would derail the proceeding. Indeed, worrying about such an outcome would likely become a constant distraction,” the judge added.

Justice Phillips went on to explain that “including an unvaccinated person on the jury introduces a real risk that the trial could be compromised” so such a person is “physically unable to perform the role of juror.”

“In the context of the pandemic’s fourth wave, an unvaccinated person is not physically able to contribute to the jury process in the manner called for in the circumstances. Simply put, a juror candidate who is unvaccinated against a serious and contagious illness that is currently spreading out of control and about which there is much concern introduces untenable risk of physical harm as well as distracting anxiety to the others compelled by law to serve alongside,” he added.

The judge said he could not see “how an unvaccinated juror could be reasonably accommodated.”

“I have considered three ideas before coming to that conclusion. First, that testing of the unvaccinated juror could ensure that s/he does not carry the virus. Second, that protection methods other than vaccination can be relied upon to ensure everyone’s safety. Third, that we allow the unvaccinated to mix in with the vaccinated in many other contexts without difficulty and that jury service should be no different,” he wrote, noting that, regarding his first point, “[T]esting the unvaccinated juror every day, or at some interval, or at least when possible symptoms emerge, all while keeping the trial moving forward on schedule strikes me as practically impossible.”

“For that matter, I would expect the vaccinated jurors would also want to be tested if their unvaccinated colleague is manifesting symptoms as vaccines are never one hundred per cent effective. This will all likely cause persistent and meaningful delay. We will spend more time waiting for test results than hearing evidence,” he reasoned.

The court acknowledged that Ottawa had a “special courtroom set up for jury trials during the pandemic” where the jury room and jury box were “divided by plexiglass, everyone wears masks, there is hand sanitizer everywhere and care is taken to keep physical distance.”

“I have two issues with relying on this sort of thing to address the problem,” Justice Phillips explained, the first being that “plexiglass and the like does not always work as it is supposed to.”

“This is not my first jury trial during the pandemic. I did a long trial in 2020 in the same special courtroom. What I found is that human nature being what it is, people often slip up on the distancing and related rules, especially as they get familiar with each other and their surroundings. I repeatedly saw jurors do things like leaning in to make comments to each other or to assist one another in finding something in a photobook. I actually had to tell a particular gentleman to stop holding the door for the person exiting after him because it caused them to come too close,” he wrote, noting that the second “reason to reject the non-vaccination measures is that they are simply not the best way.”

The judge stressed that the “available science makes clear that vaccination is the superior approach to minimizing risk of Covid-19 illness both per individual and on a collective basis.”

“The stakes are high. Covid-19 is potentially fatal. In endeavouring to minimize risk of transmission, why would we opt to use a method that is not the best method? Surely, the reputation of the administration of justice would be compromised if a court declined to adopt the optimal approach toward preserving the health of those compelled by law to participate in the judicial process,” he determined.

Justice Phillips acknowledged that in other contexts “accommodations are made for unvaccinated persons.” However, he noted, the same reasoning for contexts such as keeping kids in school, “cannot be presently said for Covid-19 which is now endemic and spreading in a significant and uncontrolled manner.”

“It continues to qualify as a global pandemic and is causing substantial harm. As a result, in my judgment, the cost-benefit analysis breaks the other way when it comes to Covid-19 vaccination and jury duty. Any upside in accommodating an unvaccinated juror is outweighed by the downside of exposing the remaining jurors to risk of physical harm as we try to make this fourth wave the last one,” he stressed.

The judge also stressed that he had “considered the issue of privacy” and that is it “unusual for a judge to directly ask a prospective juror about particular information related to their health.”

“While we are told about all kinds of health limitations from those who wish to be excused, we typically do not proactively inquire on the subject in any specific sense,” he reasoned.

Justice Phillips noted that it’s “important to consider that the law understands privacy to exist on something of a sliding scale.”

“In my view, the privacy interest inherent in whether a person has or has not been vaccinated against Covid-19 would sit toward the low end of the privacy spectrum. Unlike, say, a sexually transmitted disease or the accessing of mental health services, a Covid-19 vaccination is not a potentially stigmatizing medical procedure. It is not surprising that many vaccination centers were set up in gymnasia or other non-private open spaces. It even became fashionable for ‘influencers’ and others to post photos on social media of themselves getting the jab,” he wrote.

The judge believes the “real privacy interest lies in the desire an unvaccinated person might have to avoid having to reveal or explain a considered decision to forego the shot.”

“Covid-19 vaccination has been quite well received by the broader public and those who have decided not to get onboard are sometimes portrayed as contrarian or even irrational. This is not a problem, however, for the simple reason that I will be asking only whether a candidate has been vaccinated, not why not. Everybody knows that some people cannot be vaccinated due to a medical reason. No one would fault or look askance at anyone in such a circumstance. When a potential juror answers my question about whether s/he has been vaccinated in the negative, no one will know whether it is as a result of a medical excuse or another reason. As such, the prospective juror’s conscience-based decision-making process is not revealed or inquired into. A person who has decided to avoid vaccination is indistinguishable from those with medical excuses and cannot therefore have any concern about a negative reaction from me or anyone else,” he determined, ruling that any prospective juror will be excused from duty in this case if they have not been fully vaccinated.

ARTICLE ● Defence lawyer praises judge's decision to dismiss non-vaccinated jurors ● CBC NEWS Aug 30, 2021

Ottawa

Defence lawyer praises judge's decision to dismiss non-vaccinated jurors

Social Sharing
Murder trial for Martin Frampton is set to begin Sept. 7
Natalia Goodwin · CBC News · Posted: Aug 30, 2021 4:00 AM ET | Last Updated: August 30, 2021

An upcoming first-degree murder trial at the Ottawa courthouse will attempt to exclude any jury members who haven't been vaccinated against COVID-19 — a ruling the defence lawyer in the trial is totally in favour of.  The defence lawyer in an upcoming first-degree murder trial in Ottawa is applauding the judge's decision to only allow jurors who've said they've been fully vaccinated against COVID-19.

The trial of Martin Frampton is set to begin next month. He's facing one count of first-degree murder in the death of Kenneth Ammaklak, who was found dead on Donald Street in 2019.   In a pre-trial ruling, Justice Kevin Phillips said he'd ask all potential jurors if they are vaccinated and would dismiss those who said they're not. He will not ask for proof of vaccination.  Phillips said the fourth wave of COVID-19 and the spread of the contagious delta variant pose too big a threat, and that if someone were to be exposed to the virus it could potentially delay the proceedings. 

"It's an excellent idea," said James Harbic, Frampton's defence lawyer.

Harbic said courts have been struggling to minimize exposure to COVID-19, and he has no concern about potentially excluding certain jury members.

"The defence wants intelligent people on the jury [that] understand complicated notions like the presumption of innocence, concepts like proof beyond a reasonable doubt," Harbic said.

"In my own [opinion] the great majority of people who are not getting their double vaccination do not trust science ... I think [they] lack a considerable amount of sophistication, and also lack a certain amount of social responsibility to other members of the community. So they're not the kind of jurors I would want on my jury anyway."

Defence lawyer James Harbic said it's his opinion that any jurors who'd disclose they haven't been vaccinated against COVID-19 likely lack the 'sophistication' to understand the concepts of justice associated with a murder trial. (Laurie Fagan/CBC)

Legal experts weigh in

Carissima Mathen, a law professor at the University of Ottawa, said she understands why a judge would make such a decision, given that Canadians are legally required to serve as jurors when they get the call.

"We're imposing that duty on these members of the jury, and we should do what we can to protect them," Mathen said.

"The courts are trying to balance the really important benefits of being in court, especially in a criminal context, versus the risks of the pandemic."

Mathen thinks the ruling could hint at similar decisions to come.

In his ruling, Phillips also addressed privacy concerns, stating he felt asking jurors to disclose their vaccination status was on the "low end of the privacy spectrum."

That assessment of the privacy risk is one that Jennifer Quaid, an associate law professor and a vice-dean of research at the University of Ottawa, agrees with.

"The privacy interest in [disclosing] whether or not you're vaccinated is small. That's different from being forced to provide the rationale for why you're not vaccinated," said Quaid.

 "To the extent it's a yes or no answer ... this doesn't reveal a lot about you. Or it certainly doesn't reveal a lot about your health to say, 'yes or no, I got a vaccine.'"

Frampton's first-degree murder trial is slated to get underway Sept. 7.

 

ARTICLE ● Post-COVID courts could see less oral advocacy, more paper-based and remote adjudication: SCC’s WAGNER ● May 21, 2020

Post-COVID courts could see less oral advocacy, more paper-based and remote adjudication: SCC’s Wagner
Thursday, May 21, 2020 @ 3:12 PM | By Cristin Schmitz

Canada’s top judge says the demands of a post-pandemic world will require an openness to innovation and the creation of a “new normal” in the justice system — one which could feature fewer opportunities for oral advocacy by lawyers, particularly in physical courtrooms and appellate courts; more frequent remote hearings and paper-based adjudication; and even the reduction or elimination of the civil jury trial in those provinces where it still exists.

Those were some of the potential reforms canvassed during a May 20 webinar titled, “Will COVID-19 be the catalyst we were waiting for to modernize the courts?” — sponsored by the Canadian Institute for the Administration of Justice — which featured presentations from Supreme Court of Canada Chief Justice Richard Wagner, and British law professor and legal futurist Richard Susskind, who advocates for extensive use of “on-line” paper-based courts which eschew oral advocacy.

 
Chief Justice Richard Wagner

As courts and tribunals grapple with overwhelming case backlogs caused by the COVID-19 hiatus in their normal operations, “we must see this as an opportunity to critically reflect on the status quo,” Chief Justice Wagner urged.

He noted that the chronically underfunded Canadian justice system was already “in crisis” long before the COVID-19 pandemic physically shut courtrooms last March, compelling the judiciary to organize alternatives for delivering justice, such as remote hearings via Zoom and other online platforms.   

“I believe that this health crisis we are facing now is one more reason to change our way of releasing justice in this country,” the chief justice said, speaking from his Old Montreal home against the backdrop of a stone fireplace.

“This means that we cannot simply view the changes to date as temporary measures to bridge us back to normal,” he advised. “They must be seen as opening the door to imagining a new normal. Indeed many of the challenges that were present in the status quo have now been compounded with increased backlogs resulting from adjournments and adjustments of filing deadlines.”

The chief justice said Canadians expect courts to find ways to swiftly address the case backlogs. “Further, Canadians have now come to see that effective alternatives to in-person hearings are possible — and I would endeavour to guess that justifying removing them as an option will become increasingly difficult,” he remarked.

 
Richard Susskind, British law professor and legal futurist

The chief justice asked lawyers and judges to keep an open mind when considering reforms to improve the system, including those recommended by Susskind.

Commented Chief Justice Wagner, Susskind “has suggested some of the ways we can transform the manner in which we deliver justice, including online judging that leans on paper-based adjudication and asynchronous means to communicate with parties. I agree that we must be open to considering such alternatives.”

However, the chief justice stipulated, “we must remember that confidence in our justice system relies not only on justice being done, but also on justice being seen to be done. To me this means that we must take concerns that are raised by litigants and other members of civil society about transparency, privacy and procedural fairness seriously, and we must critically reflect on the broader function that certain features of our current system carry out. This means letting go of some traditional ways of working which do not serve us well. This also means recognizing that sometimes efficiency and accessibility may not be perfectly aligned.”

The chief justice remarked that he sees within the bar and bench “a lot of resistance to changes” — for example to any idea of limiting the use of oral advocacy in court.

He cited rarely used and long-standing provisions which enable parties and lawyers to submit their cases in writing to the Quebec Court of Appeal, without oral submissions. “Apparently, rightly or wrongly, lawyers and some parties believe that they need their day in court — in other words that they have to get the chance to convince the judges that they should win their case.”

Chief Justice Wagner, who with federal Attorney General David Lametti is leading a national action committee to help the courts across Canada eventually resume full operations, suggested oral advocacy, and in-person hearings, are not always necessary, particularly in appellate courts.

Driving any permanent changes in that regard “will be a long-term exercise,” requiring the gathering of empirical information to determine the effects, he agreed with Susskind.

“I think, just like professor Susskind mentioned … that innovation will prevail because of necessity — and oral arguments are not that needed to succeed,” the chief justice suggested. “I think that lawyers will react positively eventually. Judges will react positively, and will realize that we don’t need to be present in court … at the appeal level. It’s a different story at the trial division level where witnesses come to … court. They are examined. They are cross-examined. Judges have to assess their credibility. That’s a different story, and it’s a new challenge now for the future. But for the appeal courts, whether it be at the court of appeal or the Supreme Court [of Canada] you can decide cases on the [written] material that is before you.”

The chief justice, whose own court will begin conducting appeal hearings via Zoom next month, added “sometimes, of course, oral argument is relevant.”

“But everybody should realize that in the majority of cases [appellate judges] have a pretty good idea where a case will lead us, even before hearing the parties,” he said. “So I think that’s reality. But [oral advocacy] is also part of our DNA in the legal system, and we have to convince the stakeholders — lawyers and judges — that we may not need this time in court in order to make sure that the system works.”

Chief Justice Wagner said the most immediate and pressing problem facing superior courts across Canada is the necessity to get jury trials going again. All jury trials have been postponed and courts are facing large backlogs in the fall. “It’s a great, great challenge,” he emphasized, noting the national action committee he co-chairs with Lametti “will attack this problem.”

“There are several solutions that will be put forward [to maintain the jury trial], but it’s a matter of remedy on the short term,” he explained. “We have to find a way to hold those trials, and the superior court judges throughout the country are struggling on that issue. This is probably the most urgent issue in the legal system right now because of the pandemic, because you cannot have 12 people together in the same room, and all the other problems that follow that, so it is a very important problem. It’s a very important challenge that may bring eventually some changes to our way of doing things, bring changes to our laws as well.”

The chief justice remarked that the pandemic may bring some people to reflect “on the opportunity eventually to change” the jury system. “But in Canada of course it’s a constitutional right for some people to have a jury trial. So it’s not tomorrow that that will be changed.”

He also pointed to Quebec where civil jury trials were abolished after 1978, whereas jury trials for civil matters continue to be available in other provinces. “So maybe eventually that will be one option to change it, but for the time being we are trying to find ways to accommodate,” the chief justice remarked.

 
Justice James O’Reilly

The moderator of the webinar watched by about 700 people, Federal Court Justice James O’Reilly, a former executive legal officer of the Supreme Court, noted that the top court has had the technical capability to hear appeals remotely for decades — yet the bar has not seized that opportunity.

“The response that was given, when [I] asked why lawyers did not want to use it, was because [lawyers feel] ‘I’m not giving up my chance to travel to Ottawa and stand in that beautiful courtroom on Wellington Street in Ottawa and look the judges in the eye,” Justice O’Reilly said. He suggested lawyers may be somewhat addicted to the pageantry, or even the romance, of advocating in person at the Supreme Court or other appellate courts.

Susskind, who last year published a book titled Online Courts and the Future of Justice, noted that when it comes to evaluating whether a justice system will inspire confidence and trust in the public “we tend, as lawyers and judges ... to think about a system in which we have confidence and trust.”

“And it seems to me, for example, for a younger generation, for our children, they may well have more confidence and trust in an efficient online service than they would in what they may regard as a rather antiquated traditional service,” Susskind suggested.

He said studies must be done to evaluate whether court users have lost or gained trust or confidence in the justice system as a result of the use of remote hearings during the pandemic.

He also noted that the way that litigation is traditionally conducted — and the fees it generates — “works rather nicely” for some lawyers. “Anyone who reads about change theory knows that the first step to change is creating a sense of urgency” and this is what the pandemic has done, Susskind said. “How do we maintain this sense of urgency? How, when the storm passes, as we hope it will, do we discourage the profession from reverting to type? How do we motivate them to continue … to deliver us a service that is more accessible, more sustainable, better regarded? And that takes us into the realms of psychology, as well as economic incentive.”

Conveying questions posed in writing by the webinar audience, Justice O’Reilly asked Susskind whether the use of remote hearings will enhance or detract from courts’ ability to determine difficult evidentiary or credibility issues — particularly since the ability of judges to accurately determine credibility at in-person hearings is already in question.

“I think we have to concede that there will be some cases that turn on questions of facts, that turn on credibility, where no one will be comfortable about conducting this electronically, and which will be open to directing these cases back to the physical courtroom,” Susskind replied. “We also have to concede that it is really widely debated the extent to which human beings are actually very good at determining ... the truth or falsity of statements made by people.”

He noted that videoconferencing can actually enable closer scrutiny of a person during a remote hearing, than would be possible if one were physically present in the courtroom. He said some judges have told him that there are many cases they handle, including low-value civil cases, which don’t turn on fine issues of evidence or on credibility, and which could be appropriately handled by paper-based adjudication.

However, Susskind noted he is not in favour of virtual jury trials, particularly in criminal cases. “I still feel that most criminal trials, of a serious nature, should be held in the traditional way.”

However, if pandemic-caused court closures drag on and lead to “absurd delays in hearings, we may need to think differently,” he suggested.

 

 

 

ARTICLE ● COVID-19 and ONTARIO Superior Court of Justice: What You Need to Know ● DAVIES WARD PHILLIPS & VINEBERG Jun 15, 2021

COVID-19 and ONTARIO Superior Court of Justice: What You Need to Know
Authors: Chantelle CsehTrevor N. May and Sarah Gorguos
June 15, 2021
Davies Ward Phillips & Vineberg

Across the globe, courts have rapidly adapted their practices and procedures in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. As waves of infections have spread throughout Canada, its courts have fluctuated between resuming activities and easing restrictions, then scaling back services and reintroducing restrictions. In most jurisdictions, hearings that were adjourned have now been resumed; limitation periods that were previously suspended have restarted; and procedures and timelines for filings have continued on an amended basis. However, the courts have modified their normal operations substantially, and continue to update and adjust them on an ongoing basis. We have summarized below the need-to-know information about civil proceedings in a number of courts and tribunals in Ontario ....

Filings and Procedural Deadlines

Ontario Superior Court of Justice

  • In-person hearings. In-person matters are not being held, with the exception of only the most serious child protection matters, urgent family matters and critical criminal matters, where other options are absolutely unavailable.
    • The Court will remain open during the provincial lockdown, but all Superior Court of Justice courtrooms will be subject to a 10-person capacity limit. Litigants are asked to arrive at least 30 minutes early due to extra screening requirements.
    • Proceedings that are in progress may continue subject to the discretion of the trial judge.
    • As of January 1, 2021, a party seeking a hearing or other step in a proceeding that permits or requires the parties to attend must propose whether the hearing should be heard (1) in person; (2) by telephone conference; or (3) by video conference.
      • Parties may object to the proposed method of hearing by delivering a notice of objection (Form 1A). If a party delivers such an objection, the Court will determine the method of hearing at a case conference.
      • Unreasonable objections to proceeding by telephone or video conference may be considered in awarding costs.
  • Remote hearings. The Court is currently deferring as many matters as possible, including remote hearings. Priority will be given to the most serious child protection matters, urgent family matters, critical criminal matters, and urgent commercial or economic matters where there are employment or economic impacts.
    • The Court has requested that parties abide by its Best Practices and Etiquette for Remote Hearings.
    • As of January 1, 2021, all case conferences will be held by telephone conference unless the court specifies otherwise.
    • Other matters that may be heard remotely include the following:
      • unopposed motions and applications;
      • opposed short motions and applications;
      • long motions and applications;
      • requests for chambers appointments and case conferences;
      • class action case management conferences as well as pre-certification, certification and post-certification motions.
  • CaseLines. CaseLines will be used in Toronto civil cases starting the week of September 21, 2020. Parties will be notified by email that CaseLines will be used in their hearings. The Court has announced that it expects all judicial regions in Ontario will be using CaseLines by the end of 2021.
  • Jury.  Jury selection and jury trials may resume in July, August, or September 2021, depending on the public health situation both across the province and in each region, and subject to regional direction from the Regional Senior Justice.
  • Filings. The Court will accept filings via email at the specific email addresses indicated in a region’s Notice to the Profession only for urgent matters or those identified in a region’s Notice to the Profession. Any materials filed via email must then be filed in paper format, with the requisite filing fee, at the court counter when regular court operations resume.
    • Parties should file Claims or Statements of Claims through the Civil Claims Online Portal. For matters that are not “urgent” or have not been identified to be dealt with in a region’s Notice to the Profession, counsel and parties are discouraged from physically attending courthouses to file documents in person.
    • Effective January 11, 2021, documents submitted electronically to the Court must follow a standard document naming protocol.
    • Time periods for steps in civil proceedings as established by statute, regulation, rule, bylaw or order of the Government of Ontario were suspended between March 16 and July 16, 2020.
    • The Court has also relaxed procedures related to commissioning affidavits. Where it is not possible for a commissioner to administer an oath in the presence of a deponent, the Court will accept affidavits commissioned by video. As of January 1, 2021, remotely commissioned affidavits are generally acceptable in Ontario. If it is not possible to commission an affidavit by video, an unsworn affidavit may be delivered to the Court, but the deponent must be able to participate in any telephone or videoconference hearing to swear or affirm the affidavit.
    • More generally, the Court has indicated that it will relieve compliance with procedural rules, regulations and statutes as necessary to manage matters before it during the emergency.

Ontario Superior Court of Justice – Commercial List

  • Hearings. All matters are proceeding virtually. Unlike other Superior Court matters, Commercial List matters are not being deferred. Unless the Commercial List Office advises parties otherwise, matters scheduled on the Commercial List are generally proceeding as planned.
  • The procedures set out in the Notice announced on March 16, 2020, remain in place. The Commercial List is remotely hearing urgent matters, as well as select motions and applications, case management conferences, pre-trial conferences and judicial settlement conferences.
  • Filings. Documents must be filed with the court through the Civil Submissions Online portal (except for bankruptcy matters to be heard by a judge, which must be emailed to This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.).
  • CaseLines. Upon receiving an email invitation from CaseLines, parties will upload documents into the CaseLines document sharing platform in accordance with the Supplementary Notice to the Profession and Litigants in Civil and Family Matters Including Electronic Filings and Document Sharing (CaseLines Pilot) and rule 4.05.3 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Ontario Superior Court of Justice – Divisional Court

  • Hearings. On February 18, 2021, the Divisional Court issued a Notice to the Profession replacing its June 29, 2020 Notice to the Profession. The Court is hearing all matters remotely by teleconference or videoconference.
  • CaseLines. CaseLines will be used in Divisional Court hearings starting in October 2020. Parties will be notified by email that CaseLines will be used in their hearings.
  • Filings. All materials must be filed via email. Electronic documents are required for all hearings, even if parties have previously filed paper documents. Paper copies of all documents filed electronically will be required once ordinary court operations resume.
    • The Court’s February 18 Notice to the Profession details submission guidelines, naming conventions and deadlines for all materials.

Ontario Court of Appeal

  • Hearings. As of November 16, 2020, the Court of Appeal will no longer be conducting in-person appeals until further notice. All appeals will be conducted remotely during this time.
    • The Court has advised that in July and August 2021, it will only hear appeals on grounds of urgency.
    • Effective July 16, 2020, and subject to certain exceptions, the times prescribed to take any step in a civil proceeding were reinstated.
  • Filings. All documents that are required for the hearing of any matter must be filed electronically. If hardcopy materials have already been filed, parties must file electronic copies as set out in the Consolidated Practice Direction Regarding Proceedings in the Court of Appeal During the COVID-19 Pandemic dated March 15, 2021. Among other things, the documents containing text must be filed in text-searchable PDF and must be filed electronically according to the Guidelines for Filing Electronic Documents at the Court of Appeal for Ontario.
  • Affidavits. In the event that an affidavit of service cannot be commissioned due to COVID-19, the affidavit must still be completed, signed and e-filed, accompanied by an explanation as to why the acknowledgment could not be obtained.

 

ARTICLE ● Ontario’s platform for electronic filing of criminal charges to expand to six courthouses ● LAW TIMES NEWS May 24, 2021

Ontario’s platform for electronic filing of criminal charges to expand to six courthouses

Initiative aims for seamless flow of information from police to courts

BY Bernise Carolino 24 May 2021

 

eIntake is a digital platform that enables police to electronically file criminal charges

 

The provincial government has announced its plans to expand its eIntake platform for filing criminal charges in six courthouses across Central Eastern Ontario including Peterborough, Newmarket and Oshawa this May and to implement the initiative provincewide by 2022.

The eIntake system aims to benefit the police, the courts’ justices of the peace and the wider community by expediting the criminal charge filing process and by reducing the time spent on paperwork, to allow for a seamless flow of information from the police to the courts and for a more efficient, connected and resilient criminal justice system, said the news release from Ontario’s solicitor general’s office.

The eIntake platform seeks to ensure that frontline police officers can spend more time preventing and investigating crime and can access the tools and resources required to better protect communities. The tool aims to enable justices of the peace to electronically enter their decisions, sign documents and request additional information from police.

The provincial government piloted the eIntake initiative in Barrie and Orillia from November 2019 to September 2020 and launched the platform in Northeastern and Northwestern Ontario.

“This is yet another step we are taking towards building a more connected criminal justice system,” said Sylvia Jones, Ontario’s solicitor general, in the news release.

“Expanding the electronic filing of criminal charges to Central East Region is another step forward in our work to support the essential work of prosecutors, courts and police, including in rural communities,” said Doug Downey, Ontario’s attorney general.

The eIntake platform is one of the provincial government’s digital initiatives seeking to build a seamless, simple and efficient justice system and one of over 30 projects aiming to improve how individuals and businesses interact with government, which make up “Ontario Onwards: Ontario’s COVID-19 Action Plan for a People-Focused Government.”

“We are moving Ontario Onwards by ensuring our critical services are more convenient, reliable, and accessible,” said Peter Bethlenfalvy, Ontario’s treasury board president, finance minister and minister responsible for digital and data transformation.

 

Full article refer to link

https://www.lawtimesnews.com/practice-areas/criminal/ontarios-platform-for-electronic-filing-of-criminal-charges-to-expand-to-six-courthouses/356430?utm_source=GA&utm_medium=20210525&utm_campaign=LTW-Newsletter-20210525&utm_content=DDAE9723-37CC-4882-9348-F96C471DA306&tu=DDAE9723-37CC-4882-9348-F96C471DA306

 

PT•CRAO DOCUMENT ● Opening Statement House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights Apr 29, 2021

House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights
Opening Statement 

Good morning, Thank you, members of the Committee for inviting me here today to represent the Professional Transcriptionists and Court Reporters Association of Ontario in your discussions with respect to the impact of COVID-19 on the judicial system. Just a very brief intro...read more here

 

Presented By: Joanne Hardie, C.C.R. 
President Professional Court Transcriptionists and Court Reporters Association of Ontario

 

 

PT•CRAO ADVISORY UPDATE ● ZOOM proceedings in the Age of Virtual Justice Apr 19, 2021

 PTCRAO Letterhead

April 19, 2021

 

TO                    Ontario Bar Association

                        Criminal Lawyers’ Association

                        Association of Law Officers of the Crown

                        Ontario Association of Senior Crown Attorneys

                        Ontario Crown Attorneys’ Association

                        Law Society of Ontario

 FROM               PT CRAO Executive

 SUBJECT         ZOOM/Teleconference Audio recordings


 

 PT CRAO is a not-for-profit business association with membership spanning across the Province of Ontario.  Through 55 years of operation, PT CRAO membership has adapted and evolved to meet many challenges.  Our mandate has never changed.  We are committed to ensure the profession of court reporting and transcription services are provided to the highest professional standard possible in both the private and public sectors.  Over the decades, many traditions, relationships, and technologies have changed, and the profession has withstood each challenge head on.  Now, we have COVID, and we face the biggest challenge ever.

 The PT CRAO executive team has been tracking various articles and opinions about how COVID has pushed modernization of the courts.  Unfortunately, modernization has gone straight to ZOOM and teleconference calls as a way to continue in a virtual world that COVID created and digital audio recording technologies have been pushed backwards to primitive standards.

We say this with all seriousness.  Everyone who has a vested interest in the justice system - judges, Crowns, lawyers, every stakeholder from the top down, decisions-makers - have completely overlooked the most important foundation of the justice system: the official court record.  The public would and should be outraged if they only understood exactly what that means.   The official court recording is the only checks and balances to the entire justice system.  Without a stable audio recording, properly preserved and securely stored so that a certified transcript can be produced, there is no accountability.   A certified transcript cannot be produced where audio is obscured or lost.   Lost or obscured words cannot be substituted by something, “it might be”.  That's not the measure.   We work in absolutes, the truth, not what might be, or what was maybe said, or "...that might be something that someone wanted to say, I'll put that in there".  We can't do that, no one can regain lost audio, lost words.   The voice of a victim, or a witness to a crime once their words are lost because the audio is lost, their voices are no longer heard, there’s no record.   It's that important.   Without a safely preserved audio recording of every spoken word, anyone can say whatever they want, even judges, and there can be no challenge.  No one should be above the law, and no voice should go unheard or be lost.

 Here we are in April 2021, and the official court recording, the most important foundation of the justice system, has become a one channel ZOOM or teleconference chat line. This could not be more backwards or more primitive.  All speakers on one channel from multiple unknown remote locations.  On one channel you cannot separate speakers if they talk over one another.   That's lost audio.   On one channel, if there is nothing to identify same gender speakers, then they are simply noted as UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE/MALE VOICE.   ACTS or transcriptionists can't guess who's speaking.  That would be too risky.  Dogs are barking, babies are crying, doors slamming.   One judge was presiding in his kitchen while the sound of his wife washing dishes is audio recorded in the background.  There are bail hearings where lawyers are sitting in their cars on cell phones in parking lots participating via teleconference; the audio recording cannot pick up what they are saying.  People actually laugh at what's going on.   More times than not, transcripts cannot reflect where anyone is, because locations are not identified.  Sometimes participants phone in so they are

not visible, often from custodial institutions, sometimes they appear via ZOOM, but the most the transcript can reflect is that they are all participating from multiple unknown locations.    Here’s another virtual solution, there are examples of Bell recordings of family court proceedings being uploaded into a DRD to store the recording, which is likely located in someone’s living room, and then converted to .dcr files.   There’s a reason why the Bell audio recording has to be converted to a .dcr file, but that is a separate concern.  

However, the effect is the same with the Bell recordings, all speakers through one channel and all the problems associated with that, but also without Form 1s, without annotations or timestamps.  The problem is, regardless of whether there is lost audio, it’s impossible to certify a transcript in Form 2 without a Form 1 certified by a court monitor.

Ultimately, transcripts must reflect the truth ... AUDIO MUFFLED  WORDS OBSCURED =  Audio lost.    Any time something in the background interferes with someone speaking, that's lost audio.  It’s impossible to separate interference that is audio recorded in the background.  You can mute mics and that will silence a remote location, but it’s not often done.  If a speaker has a headset with the mic too close to their mouth, or some kind of volume level at the source that is set too high, then you get HIGH VOLUME AUDIO DISTORTION which equals lost audio.  That lost audio cannot be fixed or somehow preserved through a ZOOM or teleconference recording.   There is no way to eliminate distortion; distortion obliterates spoken words =  Lost audio.   Or, if the Wi-fi connection is unstable, or weak, then, guess what?   AUDIO CUTS IN AND OUT   AUDIO WORDS GARBLED   DISTORTION   AUDIO FADES IN AND OUT   WARBLED AUDIO. These are all descriptions of deficiencies, of lost audio, that must be reflected in transcripts.   Otherwise an ACT who does not reveal the problems, or overlooks the deficiencies, or hides the fact there is lost audio, would be falsely certifying the Form 2 which is a serious breach, because that would be ignoring the truth with potential consequences.   

 INDECIPHERABLE is a word that was given to ACTs when they struggle with the audio, and is entirely not applicable.  Indecipherable means something that cannot be read or understood because something is illegible.  It does not reflect lost audio.

 

In a recent Toronto Star article, there was an examination of a ZOOM or teleconference transcript where there were 44 INDECIPHERABLE’s in 24 minutes of audio recording. That degree of lost audio is unacceptable in any level of civil or criminal court, bail hearings, or tribunals, NCR or ORB hearings, or even an adjournment court. 

 INDISCERNIBLE is another word that is frequently used but does not and cannot demonstrate lost audio in any way whatsoever.  Indiscernible is something that cannot be seen.  It’s not lost audio.

 

Are these words, these definitions, supposed to be used to replace the voice of a witness or a victim?

We are all for whatever makes justice run smoother and more quickly.  But by doing so, by making those things priorities, we are sacrificing the most important element that keeps the justice system safe.  The audio recording captures the truth, the words that victims deserve, words that need to be preserved, that lawyers and Crowns spend hours on defending their positions.   The public deserves the truth, not gaps, not faded or unsure guesses at what someone might have said. 

 The Liberty digital recording and software system that was implemented in 2010 by the original MAG Court Reporting Services team was almost flawless.   We had moved from four-channel analogue tapes, to state-of-the-art digital recording and transcribing equipment.   This push to modernize the courts during COVID has stripped away any progress and effort and time that went into developing this state-of-the-art digital recording technology and has pushed the fundamental importance of the checks and balances in the court system to non-existence. 

 PT CRAO has been advised that Liberty Recorder Systems, which is the approved recording system in every courtroom across the province, has presented a virtual platform solution to the Ministry of the Attorney General which would restore 8 channel digital recording.   We view that as a viable solution.   SEE BELOW

We are not asking a lot.   ACTs just want to be able to produce, and truthfully certify transcripts to the professional standard the people of this province are entitled to.   We can no longer wait this out, without knowing what the solution will be now.   PT CRAO believes it is time ACTs speak now.  We have been patient long enough.  Without a rapid vaccine response in our communities, we are fearful this ZOOM/teleconference solution will continue to do harm.   We ask that you consider the consequences that will arise because the official court digital recording system has been overlooked and replaced with a quick-fix solution.  

We believe our organizations have common interests.   We both have members across the province, and as associations it is our duty to inform our members and ensure the public and the administration of justice is well served.   Transcripts that cannot be certified, serve no one   All courts in the justice system matters.   Your members and the people of this province deserve better.   We would ask you to please share PT CRAO's position that we have submitted to you with your members, or invite them to visit our website at  http://www.ptcrao.ca.   

We welcome further discussion, and if you need examples of transcripts that are being produced as a result of this COVID solution, please do not hesitate to contact us by REPLY ALL email.

 

Best regards,

 

                                           

 

Joanne Hardie                                                     Gloria Scheerer                                           Linda Lebeau
President, PT CRAO                                          Treasurer, PT CRAO                                  Secretary, PT CRAO
  This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.">                              

 

 

ARTICLE ● Bail in time of COVID ● THE LAWYER'S DAILY Feb 10, 2021

Bail in time of COVID | Nathan Baker

Wednesday, February 10, 2021 @ 12:23 PM | By Nathan Baker

 

Nathan Baker %>
Nathan Baker

Bail in the time of COVID-19 is an interesting thing. An accused person appearing by video for their bail hearing has been the norm in many court locations for years. However, up until a year ago, the rest of the players in the courtroom drama would be appearing in person. The shift to online hearings has been an example of the opportunities and great work that can be accomplished by a system defined by its hard-working participants. There remain a number of new issues along with these new times and new technologies.

Almost all bail hearings are being conducted with participants attending virtually over Zoom or similar platforms. There are some advantages to this. Lawyers can now attend at locations further from their office or in multiple jurisdictions in a day without having to travel. Sureties too, can attend via a phone or video link which can give greater access to a bail hearing in a shorter time. However, there are drawbacks to this as well. It is much more difficult, almost impossible, for a justice to determine the credibility and reliability of a surety where that surety is testifying by means of an audio connection alone. The quality of connections can be an issue all its own.  

A recent article in the Toronto Star highlighted the problems which courts face. In rural jurisdictions especially, lack of access to stable Internet or strong cell signals can affect the sound quality of participants in a hearing. The increased demands on Internet connections in courts, struggling to deal with multiple online courts with individuals connecting from Crowns’ offices, judicial officials and court staff in the court all stress a system which was not designed for such high usage. Upgrades are ongoing but until they are complete, the system can falter at times.

Audio via Zoom meetings is mono-channel. In courts, each location in court has a separate microphone and a separate channel that can be isolated when preparing transcripts. This was lost when hearings moved online. The court transcriptionist’s bane of multiple parties talking over each other has grown into an, at times, insurmountable hurdle. Interference and background noise further complicate matters. Accurate recordings of proceedings are integral to the justice system. The answer to a question can be the difference between guilt or innocence at times. Whether a condition was worded one way or another in a bail release can have long-ranging effect on an accused party but also on the people that such conditions are imposed to try to protect.

The ability to obtain an accurate transcription of a hearing is a key component to judicial review. Simply put, appeals require transcripts. They rely on them as they set out the facts which courts rely on to justify decisions and recount the decisions themselves which are to be reviewed. Access to judicial review of decisions is foundational to our system of justice.

Appeals have been allowed and mistrials declared when part of a case was not properly recorded. This problem is serious. In a time when all court time is precious, the risk of needing to use an increasing amount of it to deal with this issue is a risk that needs to be mitigated.

The steps taken to allow matters to be dealt with in new ways have been impressive. Change is difficult but has been largely attained due to the stresses of COVID-19. Many of these changes have been beneficial but that does not mean they are not without issue. The justice system cannot rest on its laurels at this time but must continue to push ahead to make things continually better.

The adaptation to new technologies by lawyers, judges and other justice participants has been significant. The problems that are now faced can be dealt with through better use of the technology already adopted. The new systems now in place do not require the kind of sea change which was necessary last March but do require the kind of ongoing investment in improvement to make sure that being good enough does not get in the way of an even better system.

Nathan Baker is a criminal defence lawyer in Peterborough, Ont., and is a sole practitioner at Nathan Baker Law. He takes special interest in impaired driving cases, especially those involving drug impaired driving and impaired boating. E-mail him at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..

Photo credit / Mingirov ISTOCKPHOTO.COM


Full article refer to link
https://www.thelawyersdaily.ca/articles/24515/bail-in-time-of-covid-nathan-baker

ARTICLE ● When in-person appearances are necessary ● THE LAWYER'S DAILY Mar 30, 2021

When in-person appearances are necessary
Tuesday, March 30, 2021 @ 1:35 PM | By Nathan Baker

Nathan Baker %> 
Nathan Baker

In these trying times of pandemic, lawyers, judges and all justice system participants should be looking to the use of alternative means to proceed. Use of video links, greater use of agreed statements of fact and resolution of issues where possible needs to be encouraged. The Ontario Court of Justice states clearly in its communication that “the Court is committed to facilitating the conduct of proceedings by remote technology (video or phone) wherever possible and urges all judicial officials, parties and counsel to use remote proceedings unless an in-person appearance is required to ensure meaningful access to justice.”


The Superior Court of Justice states: “all non-jury matters should proceed virtually unless it is absolutely necessary to hold the proceedings in-person. To the greatest extent possible, all other avenues should be explored and implemented.” Simply put, matters should not be physically before a court of first instance where other modes of procedure can accommodate the hearing.

However, both courts refer to the exceptional situation where an in-person appearance is necessary to ensure that justice is achieved. Such an issue arose in the case of Woods (Re), 2021 ONCA 190. In that case, the Ontario Review Board (ORB) proceeded with a disposition review hearing via videoconference over the respondent’s objection. Section 672.5(13) of the Criminal Code allows for a videoconference to be used “if the accused so agrees,” but in this case the accused did not.

The review board proceeded nonetheless as it felt that there were sufficient reasons requiring it to and the imposition of the emergency order justified this. The Superior Court disagreed and quashed the board’s decision. It found that interpreting s. 715.21 of the Code that requires “except as otherwise provided in this Act, a person who appears at, participates in or presides at a proceeding shall do so personally,” requires that the person must be physically present.

The Court of Appeal upheld the finding of the Superior Court. “The statutory regime provides no authority for the Board to conduct its hearing by videoconference without the consent of the NCR accused.” The Court of Appeal went on to state that “the rights provided in the Criminal Code and the principles of natural justice must be zealously guarded in disposition hearings, even in the face of a global pandemic.”

The vast majority of cases can proceed through some use of technology to limit the number of individuals, and the number of appearances for those individuals, who need to attend in person for criminal matters. There certainly are cases that require in-person appearances, but they should be reserved for required cases. As the court stated: “I am not prepared to treat the difference between an in-person hearing and a videoconference hearing as insignificant. The court must be cautious in endorsing such a broad proposition about the rights of vulnerable people in a time of crisis.”

Parliament can amend the Code to deal with this issue should it become more widespread and certainly should, at least, consider the pros and cons of doing so. Taking into account technology that exists now that did not a decade ago and the comfort level of many people to participate via technological means, Parliament should assess the benefits of its use to the challenges which it may present.

The Code allows judges to preside remotely where certain factors support doing so. A court can order an accused to appear remotely and can allow evidence to be taken remotely. There are tests in place to allow this. The fact that something is allowed does not mean that it should be done.

There will continue to be cases where in-person hearings are necessary and better. In the midst of the ongoing pandemic, every justice system participant needs to give a hard look at whether it is necessary in the present case. If the ability to insist on in-person hearings is abused, then Parliament may look at limiting their use even further, which would be a loss for everyone. In-person proceedings should be avoided during the pandemic when possible but protected for those cases where the interests of justice require.

Nathan Baker is a criminal defence lawyer in Peterborough, Ont., and is a sole practitioner at Nathan Baker Law. He takes special interest in impaired driving cases, especially those involving drug impaired driving and impaired boating. E-mail him at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..

Photo credit / Mingirov ISTOCKPHOTO.COM


Full article refer to link
https://www.thelawyersdaily.ca/articles/25714/when-in-person-appearances-are-necessary

ARTICLE ● Swearing in court: The upside ● THE LAWYER'S DAILY Mar 19, 2021

Swearing in court: The upside 
Friday, March 19, 2021 @ 2:42 PM | By Marcel Strigberger

 

Here’s why you should swear at work, according to science. And here’s an Ontario judge who recently did just this. More about that to follow.


Udi Ledergor, B2B marketing executive at Gong, penned an article reviewing studies that demonstrate the benefits of dropping verbal bombs. It notes that people who swear have higher levels of emotional intelligence, a larger vocabulary and even a higher IQ. The IQ part certainly is interesting. I am thinking about Einstein. I wonder how he reacted when the cynics assailed his theory of relativity.

HOT SHOT SCIENTIST: Professor Einstein, your theory of relativity is unintelligible nonsense. Balderdash! Who do you think you are? Sir Isaac Newton?

EINSTEIN:   #@%&= you2

The study also notes that people who swear have a higher level of integrity. I am not aware of any studies in the legal context but if this is true, it could be of vital benefit for lawyers in preparing their witnesses for trial. We could soon see judges give interesting reasons for their decisions:

JUDGE: I accept the evidence of the plaintiff Henderson. It has a ring of truth in it. He was forthright, had a positive demeanour and dropped about a dozen F-bombs.

However, we all know the justice system is slow to change. Alas!

The research also indicated that cursing increases the effectiveness and persuasiveness of an argument. Salespeople who used profanity trusted each other more, resulting in 18 per cent more wins.

Which lawyer would not want that? When can we now expect a bar association webinar titled, “Increase your court victories by 18 per cent; no sh*t.”

It seems not only humans but even chimpanzees swear. They do so by sign language. Cats are also suspected of swearing although the data is skimpy on this one. So far, the only four-letter word they are known to emit is a meow. I suppose we can also count a purr.

Now for that Ontario Court of Justice judge incident. As a Zoom impaired driving trial in Toronto was apparently concluding, Justice Paul Robertson believing he was now muted, annoyed by defence lawyer Sherif Foda’s cross-examination, expressed some anger, saying, to wit, “I have Mr. F—ing Foda here.”

Unfortunately, the said Mr. Foda (I am not repeating His Honour’s graphic adjective; I concede my intelligence is not up to the task) overheard the judge’s unequivocal comment. He immediately pleaded for a mistrial. This was a wise move by Mr. Foda. Alternatively I suppose he could have sworn back at the judge. Remember his chances of winning the argument would have been upped by 18 per cent. However given the judge’s slight acrimonious disposition at the moment, the mistrial route was probably the prudent one.

Fortunately, the judge agreed that he had lost his temper and he granted the mistrial. I would say this was a wise decision on his part.  Otherwise what would Foda’s factum record have looked like in the Court of Appeal:

“1) It is respectfully submitted that the learned trial judge compromised the appearance of fairness by making a disparaging comment about defence lawyer’s sexual activities …”

Either way this incident certainly took access to justice to a new dimension.

Justice Robertson of course also apologized. Another victim of Zoom going boom. COVID-19 has  led to the justice system adopting Zoom type technology but occasionally it gets it wrong. (I need not use a more graphic expression for “gets it wrong.”)

I am thinking of that Texas lawyer who recently Zoomed in but by accident came on via a video filter as a cat. Maybe there are some possibilities for swearing via Zoom. How about a judge coming on via a filter as a chimpanzee? Hey, a progressive leap; justice meets science?

I must note that the article concludes that notwithstanding the alleged benefits of swearing according to science, there is still a general taboo of doing so in the workplace.

In other words, don’t try this in your courtroom. Yet.

Marcel Strigberger retired from his Greater Toronto Area litigation practice and continues the more serious business of humorous author and speaker. Visit www.marcelshumour.com. Follow him @MarcelsHumour.

 

Full article refer to link

https://www.thelawyersdaily.ca/business/articles/25475/-swearing-in-court-the-upside-marcel-strigberger-

ARTICLE ● COVID-19’s profound impact on justice ● CANADIAN LAWYER MAG Jun 2, 2020

COVID-19’s profound impact on justice

Trials are being cancelled when they could be conducted remotely, argues Michael Spratt

By Michael Spratt
OPINION 02 Jun 2020

 

If an innocent person is held in jail and not allowed to set a trial and a guilty person on bail is not allowed to plead guilty, can we really call it a justice system?

There is no need to construct a fanciful hypothetical to answer the question. All you need to do is take a trip through the looking glass and into Canada’s COVID courthouses.

Following the outbreak of the global COVID-19 pandemic, courtrooms across Canada shut down operations. This was a necessary measure. Our outdated and archaic justice system relied on close physical contact, paper documents, and personal appearance. To continue business as usual would have created a breeding ground for the spread of the virus.

In fact, it was defence lawyers, led by the fearless president of the Criminal Lawyers’ Association, John Struthers, who were a key group in pushing for enhanced safety measures, including the temporary suspension of normal court operations.

That was in March. And today, months later, our courts are still shuttered.

But don’t say the word “closed” to Geoffrey Morawetz, chief justice  of the Superior Court of Justice of Ontario. In an April fireside chat hosted by the Advocates’ Society, Chief Justice Morawetz set the record straight, saying, “And let me be very clear, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice has never closed. March 17, effective that day, we suspended in-court operations, but made it very clear right from the get-go that the court was operating. It continues to operate, and it is never going to stop operating.”

Superior courts are open for business — unless that business includes a trial, scheduling a trial, arguing a motion, pleading guilty, or doing almost anything else. 

And the same is true across the country.

In Ontario, since March 17, all courts have been scheduling emergency matters only. Bail hearings are being conducted by video or over the phone. Some guilty pleas can now be accommodated. In-custody accused can plead guilty in limited circumstances, mostly to get out of jail. And out-of-custody accused, in some jurisdictions, can plead guilty if all parties agree that jail is off the table.

So no, our courts are not open – they have been closed for weeks. And they are not set to open, at the earliest, until July, and jury trials are not set to resume until September.

I have clients who have waited for months in jail for their day in court, only to have their trials cancelled. At present they are not even able to set new trial dates. Our justice system is now forcing the presumed innocent to suffer an indeterminate wait behind bars.

I also have clients who have been released on strict bail conditions but want to plead guilty and serve their short sentences. But they can’t. Instead, the justice system is forcing them to wait on house arrest, or separated from their children, or suspended from their jobs.

This is not justice.

Some COVID-19 court disruptions were necessary to protect the public. There is no going back to business as usual.

And years of neglect and ossification mean the justice system started the pandemic with one technological hand tied behind its back. But, that does not change the current staggering and unprecedented lack of any meaningful access to justice.

It is possible to do more business remotely. The Ontario Review Board is conducting hearings by Zoom. Why can’t our courts conduct trials in the same way? Even before COVID-19 parts of trials were often conducted via video; complainants in many sexual assault cases and all cases involving child witnesses testified over video link. Why could this technology not have been expanded for trials during COVID-19?

Too often our justice system reflexively resists any change. It is time for that to end. Remote trials may not be appropriate in all cases, but the majority of trials, especially in our busy lower courts, can be conducted remotely in whole or in part. It may not be a perfect option, but where the accused consents it is surely better than the inefficient limbo we seem to be stuck in now.

Maybe this is all too much for a system that was stuck in the 1980s; but that does not excuse the seeming lack of any proactive planning after the pandemic hit.

Detained accused and their lawyers have yet to be told how trials will be rescheduled when courts do open back up. Who will get priority? What factors will be considered? Will extra courts be added? Will new judges be hired? Will defence counsel receive additional funding to do extra work?

With hundreds of judges and crown attorneys sitting at home (and receiving a salary), this was the time to plan, triage and schedule.

There is no question that all the individual actors in the justice system are doing their best in a tough situation. I have seen extraordinary acts of accommodation, creativity and compassion. But individually we can only do so much. And it is not enough.

The truth is, no judge, crown attorney or politician is facing detention without trial. They have not received the call from a distraught client who is at their breaking point. If they had, maybe there would be trials, or the ability to set trials, or a plan on how we will set trials, or a plan on how to plan. There is an avalanche about to hit our already overburdened justice system, and I’ve seen no indication of a real plan to address the looming catastrophe.

We are all doing our best to keep the justice system functioning, but our best efforts are not good enough when, with all due respect to Chief Justice Morawetz, our courts are closed.

And a system that does not dispense justice can hardly be called a justice system.

 

Full article refer to link
https://www.canadianlawyermag.com/news/opinion/covid-19s-profound-impact-on-justice/330162

ARTICLE ● Zoom has brought a welcome revolution to Ontario courts. Now, about those teething problems... ● TORONTO STAR Mar 18, 2021

Zoom has brought a welcome revolution to Ontario courts. Now, about those teething problems...
By Alyshah Hasham Courts Reporter
Thu., March 18, 2021

 

Late on a February afternoon in Zoom court, someone interrupted the testimony of a witness.

The judge was no longer in the virtual court.

It was not the first time an unstable internet connection had caused delays in the trial or even the first that a key participant suddenly dropped out of the call. On this occasion, court adjourned for the day when it became unclear how long it might take for the judge to return.

Many of the tech issues that come with Zoom court — echoing audio, freezing video, background noise — feel familiar now despite being unheard of this time last year….

 

Full article refer to link

https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2021/03/18/zoom-has-brought-a-welcome-revolution-to-ontario-courts-now-about-those-teething-problems.html

ARTICLE ● Zoom hearing abruptly ends when court realizes suspect is in same home as victim of alleged assault ● CTV NEWS Mar 9, 2021

Zoom hearing abruptly ends when court realizes suspect is in same home as victim of alleged assault

Tom Yun

Tom YunCTVNews.ca writer
@thetomyun Contact
Published Tuesday, March 9, 2021 8:16PM EST 
Last Updated Wednesday, March 10, 2021 1:54PM EST

 
TORONTO -- A U.S. court hearing via Zoom for a man accused of assault was abruptly adjourned after he was discovered to have been attending the hearing from the complainant's home.

 Nearly 900,000 people have watched the video of the hearing, which was livestreamed on YouTube.

 Coby James Harris, 21, appeared in court via Zoom after being charged with assault with intent to commit bodily harm, according to news verification agency Storyful.

 At the start of the hearing on March 2, Mary Lindsey, who was the complainant in this case, took the virtual witness stand to answer questions.

 But soon after, prosecutor Deborah Davis noticed something was off after she saw Lindsey looking away from the camera while answering her questions.

"Your honour, I have reason to believe that the defendant is in the same apartment as the complaining witness right now and I'm extremely scared for her safety. And the fact that she's looking off to the side and he’s moving around, I want some confirmation that she is safe."

Judge Jeffrey Middleton asked Lindsey and Harris where they were. Both stated that they were at their respective homes in Sturgis, Mich.

 But when Middleton asked Harris to bring his phone outside and show his house number on camera, Harris began to make excuses.

 "I don't even think this phone has the charge for that. I'm at like two per cent right now. I’m hooked up to the wall charger right here," said Harris.

 Police arrived at Lindsey's apartment and found Harris there, contrary to his bail conditions.

"Your honour, me and Mary both don’t want the no-contact. I ask that that be dropped. I'm sorry I lied to you. I knew the cops were outside," Harris told the judge, while being handcuffed by police.

 "(Mr) Harris, my advice is don’t say anything else," Middleton replied. "The hearing is adjourned. Your bond is cancelled. If you have $10 million, you can’t bond out. In addition, the prosecutor’s probably also going to charge you with obstruction of justice."

The hearing was adjourned and rescheduled for March 16.

"This is an issue we didn’t have when we had live court. This is the first time to my knowledge, if he is in the same venue, that this has occurred," Middleton told the courtroom.

"That's the first time I ever had anybody sitting in the next room, potentially intimidating a witness."

 
 
Full article refer to link
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

VIDEO ● Administering Justice During a Pandemic ● TVO Mar 9, 2021

Episode: Administering Justice During a Pandemic
Aired: Mar 09, 2021

 

 https://www.tvo.org/video/the-courts-during-covid-19?fbclid=IwAR00G3-KsHCjGeYP7KL5Ui7Ie3fEG-WaJz_KhV2UNH1qouzmDUzFdLhNwVo

 

During the pandemic, Ontario's trials have moved from the courtroom to Zoom. How is that workaround been going? Might some changes become a permanent part of judicial procedure? Chief Justice George Strathy, Court of Appeal; Chief Justice Geoffrey Morawetz, Ontario Superior Court of Justice; and Chief Justice Lise Maisonneuve, Ontario Court of Justice discuss how courts are working through COVID-19.

 

 

 

ARTICLE ● Does a judge’s physical location matter? ● THE LAWYER'S DAILY Mar 5, 2021

Does a judge’s physical location matter?
Friday, March 05, 2021 @ 12:27 PM | By Nathan Baker

 

In the past weeks, there have been suggestions that judges of both the Ontario Superior Court and the Ontario Court of Justice have been hearing matters while outside the country. This is causing great debate about whether this should be allowed and whether it even can be allowed.

The use of technology to bring greater efficiencies to the courts during the global pandemic has been nothing short of transformative. Courts are supporting each other in ways that only a year ago were undreamt of. Access to a courtroom with a presiding judicial officer is one bottleneck that can slow proceedings. Programs that have existed to allow courts to assist one another, like the bail assist program in British Columbia, ensure that if one court completes its list early, it can assist other courts remotely to reduce the time until a bail hearing is heard.

Prompt access to a courtroom is essential, especially at the bail stage where justice delayed is very much justice denied.

Superior courts have inherent jurisdiction while provincial courts are creatures of statute. As a result, the powers of each level of court may need to be considered separately. In Endean v. British Columbia 2016 SCC 42, the Supreme Court considered the issue of superior courts sitting outside their territorial jurisdictions in relation to a civil matter. In that case, the Supreme Court considered a matter where the particular court had both personal and subject-matter jurisdiction and involved litigation wholly within Canada. However, the findings of the court may be instructive on certain issues.

The Supreme Court accepted a “deep-seated sense” in the common law that courts conduct their business within their geographical boundaries.” Issues relating to “concerns about sovereignty, dignity of the courts or extraterritorial exercise of coercive powers” were highlighted as those to be considered when determining the appropriateness of judges sitting extraterritorially. In the case, it was found that the courts could hold a hearing outside their territory as the concerns identified were not engaged.

The majority decision commented that before resorting to inherent jurisdiction that courts should look to their statutory authority. In Endean, the Class Proceedings Act in each province gave discretionary powers to sit outside their jurisdiction. That power is not replicated in the same way in criminal proceedings. For example, s. 17 of Ontario’s Justice of the Peace Act limits their jurisdiction to Ontario. Section 478 of the Criminal Code states that “a court in a province shall not try an offence committed entirely in another province” except in very limited circumstances such as a plea in another province with the consent of the accused.

The philosophical question is where is the location of a court when it is held virtually? Section 714.1-714.6 of the Code allows witnesses to appear virtually. Section 650 allows the accused to appear virtually. Generally, the judicial officer is the court. If a judge is not located in a physical courtroom in a matter, then do they cease to be a court in that province if they are not present themselves? The issue of whether public confidence in the administration of justice can be maintained where judges are not present is an entirely larger matter that needs to be considered as well.

There is great utility in having judges who are resident to a jurisdiction. Their knowledge of the region and the issues facing a particular region can be especially helpful when dealing with trends in the criminal justice system distinct to that region. Local issues can be addressed more intimately this way. While judges appointed in a province can sit anywhere in that province, it is preferable to have a judge who is familiar with the issues facing the local community.

Judges assigned to a location can have greater interaction and understanding of programs available there. They build relationships between the court and stakeholders, from service providers to Indigenous communities and beyond. The question of whether a judge can hear a matter in a location they are unfamiliar with will likely be answered differently than whether they should. In a system that is as overworked as Ontario’s court system, compromises are required.

However, while it may be tempting to accept the first available court, a better resourcing of courts would allow them to achieve the better practice of having judges locally available.

Nathan Baker is a criminal defence lawyer in Peterborough, Ont., and is a sole practitioner at Nathan Baker Law. He takes special interest in impaired driving cases, especially those involving drug impaired driving and impaired boating. E-mail him at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..

 

 

Full article refer to link

https://www.thelawyersdaily.ca/business/articles/25144/does-a-judge-s-physical-location-matter-

 

ARTICLE ● Catch me if you can: Case shows 'fake evidence' and witness coaching among perils of digital-age trials ● FINANCIAL POST Mar 5, 2021

Catch me if you can: Case shows 'fake evidence' and
witness coaching among perils of digital-age trials

 This custody trial had all the hallmarks of a made-for-television courtroom drama

Author of the article: Adam N. Black, Special to Financial Post
Publishing date: Mar 05, 2021  •  6 days ago  •  6 minute read  •  Join the conversation


In pursuit of fair and just outcomes, judges must assess the reliability and credibility of the evidence. In a world of deepfakes and artificial intelligence, that task is made immeasurably more difficult. PHOTO BY GETTY IMAGE/ISTOCKPHOTO

Owing to the changing landscape of technology, the evidentiary records over which judges must pore today are full of countless forms of electronic evidence. In what has become an all-too-often pattern in family law disputes, warring spouses point to text messages, social media posts and emails to bolster their positions.

The evolution of technology, of course, does not end with the creation of social media. Further technological developments have cleared a path for more insidious activities, such as the alteration of electronic documents to create a simulated and false reality. Consider, for example, “deepfake” technology in which artificial intelligence is used to undetectably swap one person for another in a video or picture.

In pursuit of fair and just outcomes, judges must assess the reliability and credibility of the evidence. In a world of deepfakes and artificial intelligence, that task is made immeasurably more difficult.

Justice Heather McGee of Ontario’s Superior Court of Justice recently encountered precisely that complexity in a four-week custody trial in which the credibility of the wife and her evidence were front and centre.

The case involved a dispute between two parents over their two-year-old daughter. According to the facts of the case laid out in the judge’s ruling, which was released earlier this year, the parties met in March 2017 in Oregon, where the husband lived and the wife was working, although she was a permanent resident of Canada and citizen of India. The wife was already married at the time, although she did not disclose her marriage to the husband. The relationship progressed quickly and the parties married three months later. Just weeks after the marriage, the wife travelled to Vancouver because she claimed — falsely, according the to the judge — her temporary return to Canada was necessary in order to maintain her Canadian permanent resident status.

In August of that year, the wife announced her pregnancy with the parties’ daughter. Shortly thereafter, the wife moved to Brampton, Ont., where the wife’s job contacts, family and family restaurant were purportedly located. In October 2017, the husband visited Brampton only to discover Ontario was home to neither the wife’s family nor a family restaurant. Following his visit, he returned to Oregon.

By the end of January 2018, following several months of a volatile, long-distance relationship, the husband considered his marriage to be over. The next month, according to the judge’s ruling, the wife lied to the husband, telling him their baby was born prematurely, was in intensive care and on a ventilator. In fact, the baby was not born until March.

The events that unfolded next, including the trial over whether the child should reside with the mother in Ontario or the father in Oregon, had all the hallmarks of a made-for-television courtroom drama.

“In an era of ‘fake news’ it should come as no surprise that from time to time, courts will be presented with fake evidence,” the judge wrote, pointing to the challenges she faced in dealing with the evidence before her, which included “forged” and “bogus” documents.

In what could only be an attempt to strike at the underpinnings of the husband’s status as a parent, the wife produced and relied upon a paternity test which stated the husband was not the biological father of the daughter. According to Justice McGee, the test was “a clear forgery” in which the “conclusion and probability of paternity fields had been altered, and the footnotes below the conclusions had been typed over.”

Buttressing the forged paternity test was a forged sperm donor agreement, allegedly signed by the husband, the wife and the wife’s first husband. When asked, the wife stated the document was prepared by her previous lawyer against the wife’s instructions. In a rare development, the wife’s former lawyer was called as a witness and testified that it was the wife who had provided the forged sperm donor agreement to her.

The wife produced an 11-page document which purported to be a summary of the evidence to be given by a witness she intended to call during the trial. While the wife chose not to call the witness, the husband was given the opportunity to so. According to the ruling, the witness confirmed she did not write the document and that “she had never met or spoken with (the wife) or any lawyer acting on (the wife’s) behalf, and that no one had ever contacted her about giving evidence in this proceeding on (the wife’s) behalf.”

Sadly, the wife’s apparent efforts to mislead the court did not stop there. The wife provided three emails that she asserted were sent by the husband to various professionals involved in the child’s life. The through-line of those emails was the husband’s wish for the child to be put up for adoption. In dismissing the emails as fakes, Justice McGee accepted the husband’s evidence that he did not create the account from which the emails were sent and he had never used it.

Interestingly, however, Justice McGee admitted the evidence for other purposes, noting that although the emails were inauthentic, they demonstrated the wife’s “extensive efforts to damage the husband’s character, particularly in the eyes of their daughter’s service providers and the Court.”

Perhaps the most egregious effort to mislead the court occurred when the wife called her first husband as a witness during the trial, which was conducted over Zoom. Justice McGee disqualified the witness “when it became clear that he was not who he was presented to be.”

According to Justice McGee, the witness “read answers to prepared questions and then in cross examination looked at his phone.” Continuing, Justice McGee noted that at the same time the witness was looking at his phone, the wife “was on her phone or outside the view of the camera.” When Justice McGee asked the wife to step into the frame of the camera, the witness “froze his screen and was no more.”

When asked about the case, Andrew Chris, the lawyer for the husband, said that virtual trials had led to increased concerns about witness coaching in general.

“With most trials currently taking place virtually due to the pandemic, it is extremely difficult to ensure a witness is not being coached through electronic means while giving their evidence over Zoom,” Chris said.

He also noted that the ease with which text and email messages can be altered puts an added onus on the legal profession.

“It is incumbent on lawyers to critically review our clients’ electronic evidence before putting it into a court record,” he said.

In Justice McGee’s closing remarks, she notes that in “a digital landscape, spoofing is the new ‘catch-me-if-you-can’ game of credibility.” In a plea to those directly or peripherally involved in matters before the family courts, Justice McGee urges “lawyers, family service providers and institutions to be on guard, and to be part of a better way forward. Courts cannot do this work alone, and the work must be done well. High-conflict litigation not only damages kids and diminishes parents; it weakens society as a whole, for generations to come.”

In the result, Justice McGee found that it was in the child’s “best interests to transfer her residence from Ontario, Canada to Oregon, U.S.A., where she will have a stable residence, extended family supports, medical care and good education.”

Of course, the story does not end there. In a companion decision released on Mar. 1, Justice McGee ordered the wife to pay costs to the husband in the amount of $438,188.77. In arriving at her decision to make such a substantial costs order against the wife, Justice McGee states: “There is no question that (the wife) acted in bad faith throughout this proceeding. She actively deceived (the husband), made false allegations, falsified documents and spoofed emails and social media. Her actions were clearly designed to inflict maximum emotional and financial harm, to deceive service providers and ultimately to manipulate the evidence before the Court.”

 Adam N. Black is a partner in the family law group at Torkin Manes LLP in Toronto.

 

 

Full article refer to link

https://financialpost.com/personal-finance/catch-me-if-you-can-case-shows-fake-evidence-and-witness-coaching-among-perils-of-digital-age-trials

 

 

 

ARTICLE ● Toronto van attack trial, verdict gave glimpse into new reality of virtual court cases ● GLOBAL NEWS Mar 5, 2021

Toronto van attack trial, verdict gave glimpse into new reality of virtual court cases

By Paola Loriggio  The Canadian Press

Posted March 5, 2021 6:36 am Updated March 5, 2021 12:03 pm

 

TORONTO — Thousands of people tuned in earlier this week as the judge overseeing a high-profile trial into one of the deadliest attacks in Toronto delivered her guilty verdict from the basement of her home, with a fireplace and tightly shut blinds as a backdrop.

For some, the highly anticipated ruling in the murder trial of Alek Minassian provided a first glimpse of the criminal court process under the constraints of the COVID-19 pandemic, which has seen many proceedings move online and prompted some in the justice system to work from home.

Over months of hearings culminating in Wednesday’s verdict, the case — which captured public attention across Canada and beyond — shone a spotlight on the challenges and particularities of remote proceedings, from dress codes and home decor to the presence of pets.

One witness, a forensic psychiatrist, testified from a room where several guitars hung from the walls. Court staff as well as the judge, Ontario Superior Court Justice Anne Molloy, warned that their cats may make an appearance during hearings.

Meanwhile, lawyers dressed in business clothes rather than their usual robes throughout the trial — as did Molloy, though she donned her gown for the verdict.

“It may not look like a real courtroom, it may not feel like a real courtroom sometimes, it may seem to be more relaxed, but I can assure that rules of evidence, the rules of law, are not relaxed,” the judge said on the trial’s opening day in November.

Ontario’s courts issued guidance to those in the justice system when the health crisis began last year, as did several legal organizations.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice, for example, suspended the requirement to wear a gown, but noted participants, including judges, would be “expected to dress in appropriate business attire.” It also advised that participants find an appropriate space to log on.

“We understand that you may not have complete privacy and silence in your current environment, which may be a shared living space, but please do your best to participate from a private, quiet space,” the court wrote.

A task force convened early in the pandemic also laid out best practices for remote proceedings, which included a recommendation that participants consider using an “appropriately dignified artificial digital background” if necessary.

Kathryn Manning, a civil litigator and co-chair of the E-Hearings Task Force, said the group had many discussions on how to maintain a serious tone in the more relaxed setting of the home.

Seeing lawyers and judges in their homes, dressed in less formal clothing, humanizes them and the court process, “and of course all the people in the justice system are people,” she said.

“But on the other hand, it’s still a formal court proceeding and I think you need to respect that and make sure you can replicate it as much as possible.”

The task force is working on updating its best practices now that the justice community has more experience with remote hearings, and there will be some additions related to those kinds of issues, Manning said.

Trevor Farrow, a professor at York University’s Osgoode Hall law school, said the loosening of the rules regarding attire and location for remote hearings has made the court more accessible in some ways, beyond making it easier for people to participate and observe.

The practice of wearing gowns was meant to put everyone on a level-playing field as well as instill a certain sense of formality, but it can also intimidate and alienate people at times, he said.

“So the idea of relaxing the rules around dress codes, in some ways, makes court more accessible to more people in ways that are less intimidating and alienating,” he said.

What’s more, judges, who maintain a significant amount of discretion in how their cases operate, have also had to acknowledge the realities of people’s lives, be it the presence of young children or the sudden ringing of a doorbell, Farrow said.

“Some judges are still saying they don’t want to hear any dogs barking, others are saying, ‘Don’t worry, feel free.’ And so, you know, judges still run their own courtroom and there’s a wide range of practices … within the Zoom community,” he said.

At the same time, being able to see into someone’s home as they’re addressing the court can be distracting and could potentially draw away from their words, he said.

“I do know that lots of lawyers and judges are using the sort of fake backgrounds, or blank backgrounds… because ideally justice is about the merits of a case not, you know, how interesting the background is,” Farrow said.

“Not only from an accessibility perspective, not only from a people taking it seriously perspective, but also as a matter of persuasion, you want the judge to listening to you, not thinking about the guitar behind your head.”

 

— With files from Liam Casey.

 

 

© 2021 The Canadian Press

 

 

Full article refer to link

https://globalnews.ca/news/7678816/toronto-van-attack-trial-verdict-virtual-court-cases-reality-coronavirus/

 

 

ARTICLE ● Zoom-bombing Ontario courts rare but troubling, says task force chair ● CBC NEWS Feb 24, 2021

Kitchener-Waterloo

Zoom-bombing Ontario courts rare but troubling, says task force chair

Ministry of Attorney General commits to reviewing system with staff

Paula Duhatschek · CBC News · Posted: Feb 24, 2021 5:38 AM ET | Last Updated: 8 hours ago

 The Pillars of Justice sculpture outside the Ontario Court of Justice, in Toronto, on Feb. 12, 2021. Since the pandemic began, thousands of virtual court cases have proceeded without incident, says Kathryn Manning, co-chair of an Ontario task force on court e-hearings. (Evan Mitsui/CBC)

 

The co-chair of an Ontario task force on court e-hearings says the Zoom-bombing of a Brampton virtual courtroom on Tuesday is rare, but troubling.

The court was trying to hear a civil matter between Kelly Donovan and the Waterloo Regional Police Services Board. As the defense began to address the court Tuesday morning, the session was interrupted by people attending over Zoom, who disrupted the proceedings by sharing their screen to show pornographic and hateful images.  

"It's obviously shocking, because if you're in a courthouse for an in-person hearing, nothing of the sort could happen because you're not on the internet," lawyer Kathryn Manning told CBC News.

Anyone who interrupted an in-person hearing in a similar way could be found in contempt of court, Manning said, and may face a fine or even jail time. In theory, this could happen during a virtual court hearing as well. The problem is the practical matter of tracking down the person responsible. 

Arrested on the spot

"Figuring out who that person is could be tricky," said Manning, who is also a litigator with the Toronto firm DMG Advocates LLP. "As opposed to a person who's physically in a courtroom doing something [and] could be arrested on the spot if police felt that was necessary." 

In a statement to CBC News from the Ministry of the Attorney General, a spokesperson said videoconferencing platforms create "unique challenges that do not present with in-person hearing."

The ministry said there are ways to prevent the people attending a remote hearing from sharing unauthorized and offensive material. 

It committed to "reviewing these mechanisms with the courts and court staff to ensure the dignity and integrity of court proceedings are not subjected to unauthorized and offensive interruptions."

Since the pandemic began, Manning said thousands of court cases have proceeded virtually without incident. This is a good thing, she said, because otherwise the justice system would have "ground to a halt" and it's important to provide public access to the courts. 

"Our court system is really important and it needs to be open and accessible to the public but it also needs to proceed in the way it would've in the courthouse the best it can."

But, she said, there remain several issues that have yet to be fully resolved — from Zoom bombers to the question of how to prevent people from recording or taking screen shots during sensitive virtual hearings. 

CBC's Journalistic Standards and Practices | About CBC News

 

Full article refer to link

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/kitchener-waterloo/zoom-wrps-kelly-donovan-court-trial-hearing-1.5925201

 

ARTICLE ● Ontario judge guilty of 'extremely poor judgement' must be terminated: OPSEU/SEFPO ● OPSEU News Wire Feb 17, 2021

Ontario judge guilty of 'extremely poor judgement' must be terminated: OPSEU/SEFPO


NEWS PROVIDED BY

Ontario Public Service Employees Union (OPSEU/SEFPO) 

Feb 17, 2021, 17:22 ET


TORONTO, Feb. 17, 2021 /CNW/ - OPSEU/SEFPO President Warren (Smokey) Thomas says a judge with the Superior Court of Justice who presided over her Toronto-area court cases from the Caribbean is guilty of extremely poor judgement and must be terminated immediately. 

Thomas is calling for swift action against the unnamed judge and the regional senior judge who approved her plans to travel and work from abroad.  One media report indicated she was hearing cases from Turks and Caicos.

Thomas calls it ludicrous that she was granted such permission just days after travel and work directives were issued to all Superior Court justices in Ontario.

"This case takes the cake or maybe it takes the Caicos," said Thomas. "We've seen a string of high-profile public figures getting axed for their non-essential travel abroad, but it's unbelievable that a judge is presiding over her cases from a Caribbean resort while front-line courthouse staff are forced to work in unsafe courthouses."

 According to Chief Justice Morawetz, the judge in question was granted permission as a result of "an oversight." She has since been advised to stop. 

But the union says that's not good enough. 

"With great power comes great responsibility," said OPSEU/SEFPO First Vice-President/Treasurer Eduardo (Eddy) Almeida. "Judges hold people's fate in their hands, they must be held to the highest ethical standard and passing sentence poolside in the Caribbean doesn't cut it." 

As the union representing court staff, OPSEU/SEFPO raised major concerns over the Chief Justices' decision to re-open the courts last July without the proper protections in place to protect workers and the general public. 

"Our members working in the courts are helping to keep this province running during a global health crisis," said Thomas. "They deserve a safe and healthy workplace, at a minimum." 

Thomas called the situation a dangerous double-standard. 

"It's mind-boggling," said Thomas. "To have judges presiding over cases from a tropical resort while forcing court staff to return to an unsafe work environment goes beyond poor judgement, it's an outright abuse of power and privilege. 

"There is no room for Baywatch justice in Ontario," said Thomas. "This judge has failed in the court of public opinion and to restore order and trust in our judicial system, she must go." 

SOURCE Ontario Public Service Employees Union (OPSEU/SEFPO)

For further information: Warren (Smokey) Thomas, 613-329-1931, This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

 

ARTICLE ● Ontario’s court transcriptionists are struggling with ‘horrible’ audio quality at Zoom hearings ● TORONTO STAR Feb 4, 2021

 

Ontario’s court transcriptionists are struggling with

‘horrible’ audio quality at Zoom hearings

 By Alyshah HashamCourts Reporter   TORONTO STAR

Thu., Feb. 4, 2021

 

“Are we able to do anything about the feedback,” asks a defence lawyer at the start of the virtual bail review hearing last month.

The participants try muting themselves, but the garbled background sound — as if the speakers are caught in an electronic windstorm — remains. When the accused gets on the line from jail, it’s even worse. She appears to be speaking via a glitchy drive-thru speaker at the bottom of a well. Whole sentences can barely be made out.

The transcript, based on an audio recording of the court hearing, looks like this:

THE COURT: This prescription that (the accused) was on, can you help me to understand what is (indecipherable) directed at, was it directed at anger, or was it directed at depression, or (indecipherable).

THE WITNESS: It was...

THE COURT: (indecipherable).

THE WITNESS: Sorry.

THE COURT: Sorry, go ahead, ma’am.

THE WITNESS: It was directed at a (indecipherable).

THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. That’s helpful.

THE DEFENCE LAWYER: Yes, Your Honour, just — just because it’s (indecipherable) this time. As far as I know (the accused) never had a formal diagnosis beyond (indecipherable) of society.

 

Over 24 minutes, the term “indecipherable” is used 44 times in the transcript, sometimes in place of single words, sometimes standing in for a stretch as long as 15 seconds. This is one of four official court audio recordings heard by the Star in which it is extremely hard or impossible to make out what’s being said for parts of the hearing, which include legal submissions in a case involving allegations of child abuse.

Transcriptionists in Ontario have dozens more examples from family, civil and criminal court — cases involving serious charges and sensitive testimony.

“It would make filing an appeal near impossible. Cases have been ordered for retrials on those grounds before,” said Daniel Brown, vice-president of the Criminal Lawyers’ Association.

“If we don’t have an accurate record of what was said in court, how can any court assess where there is an issue,” he said. “This should be a huge concern for everyone in the justice system. It doesn’t just relate to wrongful convictions but also wrongful acquittals. Either side may choose to challenge a judge’s ruling, and that could be almost impossible given the state some of this audio.”

When these happen in a normal courtroom, each speaker from the judge to the witness to the lawyers has their own microphone with their own audio channel. So if it’s hard to hear something, the transcriptionist can isolate a channel or see if another microphone picked it up. It also easier to tell who’s speaking, especially if voices sound the same.  With Zoom, that multi-channel recording doesn’t exist — all the audio comes from one source.  Virtual hearings also create more opportunities for muffled voices, feedback or background noise....

 

 

Follow link for full story

https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2021/02/04/ontarios-court-transcriptionists-struggle-to-deal-with-horrible-audio-quality-at-zoom-hearings.html

 

ANNOUNCEMENT ● Moving forward together

The Executive Committee of the Court Reporters’ Association of Ontario is happy to announce that the CRAO has now officially changed its name to become the Professional Transcriptionists and Court Reporters Association of Ontario.   This is not only a change in name but also a change in mandate, core principles and values in order to ensure professional standards for both court reporting and transcript production in the Province of Ontario are maintained.   PT•CRAO membership matters to the consumer because it is a tangible way to measure commitment to both the profession of court reporting and the profession transcript production.   Neither profession can stand alone or stand apart. 

Read more: ANNOUNCEMENT ● Moving forward together

Transcriptionist List ● INFORMATION RELEASE www.courttranscriptontario.ca

Commencing June 9, 2014 stakeholders and participants involved in all levels of court proceedings in the Province of Ontario will be able to choose a court transcriptionist of their choice from a website list operated by Arkley Professional Services  www.courttranscriptontario.ca.  The search criteria to select a court transcriptionist can be entered by name, business, level of court, and location of proceedings. The list of names that pop up under the location search criteria, for example, are not listed alphabetically.  The reason for that is so the choice process is fair and balanced and not influenced or skewed by alphabetical order.  Individual profiles contain contact information, areas of practice and services provided.  The website is bilingual, contains relevant information, various documents, instructions and an electronic transcript order form accessible on the website.  If you don’t know the name of the court reporter of record, and you wish to contact that person, there are instructions on how to find and verify if the person is on the registered list or not.

Read more: Transcriptionist List ● INFORMATION RELEASE www.courttranscriptontario.ca

Latest News & Updates