Advocacy Matters - Spring 2024

factums. In the event the case management
judge believes the motion is too complicated to
be dealt with by way of case conference, it can
be rescheduled to be heard on the regular motions
list - but only after the case management
judge has performed a gate-keeper function.
3. Increasing Flexibility of Movement
Across Judicial Centres
One of the authors of this article recently argued
a motion in London, Ontario. Oral argument
was not completed within the allocated
time, and another half day was needed. The
presiding judge sits in both Windsor and London,
which meant when selecting dates for the
balance of the motion, the parties could only
pick dates where the presiding judge was scheduled
to be sitting in London, which was months
away. This restriction existed even though the
motion was being heard virtually. The clients
were confounded as to why the judge could not
hear the balance of the motion until the judge
was scheduled to be “sitting” in London, when
the reality was that that judge was going to be
“sitting” in front of their computer.
Delays could be reduced if the courthouses
worked more collaboratively and allowed judges
increased flexibility to hear cases across different
courthouses when judges are assigned
to more than one courthouse.
4. Reducing Time for Oral Argument
Everyone is entitled to their day in court. But
not everyone should be entitled to a full day in
court. Long motions should be the exception to
the rule and granted only with leave and in rare
circumstances. Counsel are required to prepare
detailed facta and written material prior to any
significant contested motion. However, at the
oral hearing, counsel habitually reiterate and
repeat what’s in their written material. The oral
hearing should be dedicated to responding to
the opposing party’s factum, fielding questions
raised by the presiding judge, and grappling with
unresolved issues. This approach could greatly
increase efficiencies, reduce court delays, and
provide the presiding judge with more time to
review the written materials that were filed.
None of these proposals, in and of themselves,
will resolve the endemic court delays
that the public, clients, and lawyers are suffering
through. Systematic and fundamental changes
are necessary - we reiterate The Advocates’ Society
“Call to Action”
However, every potential solution should be
explored. The recommendations in this article
can assist in alleviating some of the issues.
Without a concerted effort by all stakeholders
to address these issues, the public will continue
to have their rights trammelled due to the negative
impacts from the unacceptable delays in
the civil justice system.
We must all continue to strive for a better,
fairer, and more efficient justice system.
Notes
1. Hameed v. Prime Minister and Minister of Justice, 2024 FC 242
2. See Miller v. Ledra, 2023 ONSC 4656 at paras. 31-37.
17