Modernization Initiatives – An Overview: 2015 to 2025

Introduction

The introduction of technology to modernize Ontario’s courts and the justice system as a whole has been a constant challenge for decades but the years 2015-2025 saw an acceleration of the adoption of new technologies – for a host of reasons. As with all institutions, the COVID-19 pandemic, in particular, played a significant role in the adoption of new technologies and modernization of processes, and like as for many other institutions, the transition to new technologies was not always easy.

The pandemic called for unprecedented and significant changes to court operations. The Court has jurisdiction over assigning judicial resources, scheduling criminal, family, and Provincial Offences court matters. Individual presiding judicial officers control the conduct of proceedings in their court rooms. The provincial government has the responsibility for funding, staffing, and administering provincial courthouses and courts. To further complicate matters for the Ontario Court of Justice, Provincial Offences Act matters^[1] are generally prosecuted by municipal staff and heard in courts administered by 56 different municipalities across the province. This adds an additional independent level of government to the OCJ court administration^[2] and adds another dynamic in any modernization efforts.

From March to July 2020, essential criminal and family court proceedings continued largely by remote hearing while provincial courthouses were mainly closed, and health and safety protocols and equipment were installed in courtrooms and courthouses. Justices of the Peace were always available even during this early stage of lock down given their critical role in the initial stages of criminal investigations (e.g., considering search warrant applications) and criminal intake procedures. Municipally operated Provincial Offences courts were operationally shuttered for much longer than the provincially administered courthouses.

The challenges of addressing the backlog from the courthouse closures, together with the ongoing operational challenges of operating essential court services during COVID-19 in 2021 and 2022 provided an unparalleled impetus for court modernization.

As former Chief Justice of Ontario George Strathy commented in January 2021: “We didn’t anticipate that COVID would push us into the 21st century in terms of technology, but it’s actually opened up some huge opportunities for us. It’s resulted in my colleagues and I becoming far more familiar with the capacity of technology to assist us in our work. Some of our colleagues who used computers very infrequently are now real converts. Well, we now know that people are getting comfortable with the technology.”

Court administration is always a delicate dance between two independent branches of government as well as the bar and other independent parties and agencies involved in the justice system. The introduction of new technology and modernizing court processes required coordination not only within Ontario’s three courts but also with the provincial government ministry responsible for court administration, the Ministry of the Attorney General, the Ministry of the Solicitor General responsible for the correctional system and other independent justice partners – local, provincial, and federal policing services, lawyers, paralegals, Legal Aid Ontario and other justice and community-based agencies and services.

The unhappy circumstance of a worldwide pandemic accelerated the modernization initiatives the Court had been wishing for since early 2000s.

A brief review of some of the previous significant court modernization efforts may be useful to provide context for current court modernization initiatives.

Court modernization initiatives can be categorized in two main streams:

• Justice system information sharing, document processing and scheduling among justice system participants (notably the police, prosecution, defence and family lawyers and paralegals, parties, witnesses, child protection services, support services, probation, and corrections). Among the major modernization initiatives undertaken in this respect are:
  • Common Information
  • Defence Remote Access
  • Electronic Scheduling Program (ESP)
  • Criminal Case Scheduling Best Practices
  • eHub, eIntake, etelewarrant, eReports to a Justice
  • Digital Information and Repository (DIR)
• Public-facing technologies that allow parties and the public to participate in the justice system more easily, using readily available technologies.
  • e-orders
  • Virtual Hearings
  • Access to Court Records enhancements
  • e-filing
  • POA Online
  • CaseLines in family matters
  • Dockets Online

Fortunately, there are some initiatives which have benefits to both justice system participants and the broader public and court participants. CaseLines, e-orders and e-filing being but a few examples.

Previous Ontario Court Modernization Initiatives

As noted in other essays, the provincial government attempted two ambitious court technology overhauls in late 1990s and early 2000s. The Integrated Justice Project (IJP) was initiated in 1996 by the Ministries of the Attorney General and Solicitor General with a consortium of private technology companies. The Project was cancelled in 2002 following an Ontario Auditor General’s report that highlighted cost overruns, slow progress, and potentially unresolvable disruptions. While widely criticized as overly ambitious and unrealistic in its scope, the IJP did have some lasting benefits that lay the groundwork for future initiatives, including introduction of a computer system linking some police forces.

Given the significant cost overruns and litigation following IJP^[3], the provincial government was hesitant to launch another technology project, despite the overwhelming need for justice system modernization. In 2009, the Court Information Management System (CIMS) was initiated with the ambitious goal of establishing a streamlined online court service, including a centralized scheduling and case management system for all three Ontario courts^[4] and online court filings accessible to the legal profession and public. In the fall of 2014, then Attorney General Madeline Meilleur confirmed that the CIMS approach, like the IJP, had proven too ambitious and the project had been wrapped up in 2013.^[5]

Following the wrap up of CIMS and further litigation, the Ontario government announced they would turn away from further ambitious technology overhauls and focus instead on incremental technological changes to modernize court processes and improve access to justice. By 2016, then-Attorney General Yasir Naqvi announced these enhancements would include the expansion of video conferencing, posting next-day court dockets online and an online service to set up or change child support payments ^[6].

Justice Joseph Kenkel, prior to his appointment to the bench, was the Criminal Lawyers’ Association (CLA) representative on the IJP. Following his appointment to the OCJ in 2000, former Chief Justice Brian Lennox asked Kenkel to sit on the Chief Justice’s Technology Committee and to represent the Court on the IJP planning team. A major advocate for the use of technology and modernizing court processes, in fall 2021, Kenkel would also be named as one of two OCJ Advisory Judges on Technology^[7]. Kenkel notes that although he was frustrated by the loss of opportunity the cancellation of the IJP and CIMS presented, he wasn’t convinced that the bar, justice system partners, and the public were really prepared for the sweeping technology change in the 1990s and early 2000s.^[8] Given the fast pace of public adoption of technology in a smart phone universe, it is hard to remember that the introduction of Microsoft’s Windows 3.0 operating environment was in 1990; the World Wide Web was made available for public use in 1991^[9]; Windows 95 and the popular Internet Explorer browser was introduced in 1995^[10]; the smartphone BlackBerry was only released in 2002^[11] and iPhones weren’t introduced until 2007^[12].

As the spread of personal computers, smartphones and reliance on the web quickly spread, and use of related technologies emerged in retail, banking and financial institutions, many judicial officers tired of the perception that courts were out of touch institutions relying on quill pens and paper records. In addition, the growing pressure of backlogs requiring more rigorous case management in the face of Askov^[13], then R v. Jordan^[14], made the introduction of modern technology not only necessary but inevitable.

The independent but interdependent roles played by the Ministry of the Attorney General and the judiciary in the administration of the courts can pose challenges in the speedy introduction of new technologies. To further complicate the introduction of new technologies in court, there are inevitably differing priorities among Ontario’s three levels of courts, to address the varied pressures in criminal, family^[15], child protection, civil, administrative judicial review, and appellate litigation. For the OCJ, there is also the additional challenge of municipal court administration to address in managing provincial offence matters.

Laying the Groundwork for Change – Early Accomplishments and Champions

Justice Kenkel highlights the introduction of Digital Audio Recording (DAR) in Ontario’s courts in 2013 as a significant step in modernizing court procedures as well as providing important lessons in the Court and court users adapting to new technologies.^[16] The new digital recording technology was not universally welcomed by court staff; members of the judiciary and parties. The transition process from audio recordings to digital technology was not always smooth. New staffing issues arose along with legal and privacy issues about open courts and access to court records, for lawyers, paralegals, self-represented litigants, members of the media and public. These issues required deliberations, consultation and the development of new rules and procedures^[17] in each of Ontario’s courts.  But once accepted, DAR made a huge difference to the reliability and efficiency of court records and transcripts. Kenkel sees many important lessons in this early example of  technological modernization for the OCJ.

Around the same time as DAR was being introduced, many judicial officers and court staff felt increasing frustration at the pace of modernization. A few innovators started looking for local solutions to modernize court procedures using existing technology. Recognizing that sometimes big modernization overhaul projects could get caught up in decision-making complexities and IT delays, local efforts often proceeded under the radar so as not to get sidetracked, over blown or slowed down.

Among these early efforts were a couple of projects initiated by two modernization champions in Central East Region. Justice of the Peace Brian Norton was an early and consistent champion for using existing technologies to make court processes more effective and streamlined. Recognizing opportunities to make applications and orders for search warrants more effective, Norton, initiated the use of a discrete and secure email address for warrant applications in the Central East Region thus allowing a group of specially trained and supported justices of the peace to review and initiate judicial approval of search warrants from a variety of court locations. The project evolved over time, initially expanding to the region and then, years later, became provincially recognized for its innovative and common-sense approach.

Around the same time then Associate Chief Justice (ACJ) Peter Griffiths, who served as ACJ from 2007 to 2013, was a strong advocate for court modernization and increased use of technology. ACJ Griffiths asked Justices Fergus O’Donnell, Bruce Duncan and Peter DeFreitas to work on developing a standard form Probation Order. The three judges developed a relatively simple template for common probation orders that judicial officers and/or court clerks could complete in court rather than relying on a often lengthy process of taking notes or checklists completed in court, getting a runner to take the notes to the court office to be prepared, sent back to court or to judicial chambers for the judge to review, correct, as needed, (sometimes many times) before having the accused person receive and sign the order. The process would sometimes keep people waiting in courthouse halls for hours while court orders were prepared, corrected, and finalized. Having court orders completed in court with all parties present improved efficiency and more importantly increased the clarity and accuracy of conditions and orders for all those involved in the proceeding – most notably the accused person and their counsel.

In December 2012, Chief Justice Bonkalo and ACJ Griffiths invited Justice DeFreitas to present on his e-orders template to a meeting of Regional Senior Justice Council. Senior representatives from Court Services Division were also invited to attend to listen to Justice DeFreitas and discuss modernization projects the ministry was involved with.

Then Regional Senior Justice Lise Maisonneuve from the East Region was an animated participant in the discussion about the potential of e-orders following Justice DeFreitas presentation.

The following year, RSJ Maisonneuve would replace ACJ Griffiths as Associate Chief Justice and assume lead for modernization in the OCJ. In less than three years, Chief Justice Maisonneuve, and Associate Chief Justice DeFreitas, as they were to become, became prime forces for the modernization of the Ontario Court of Justice.

Another critical impetus for court modernization was the introduction in 2013 and eventual province-wide implementation by 2020 of the provincial Crown prosecution case management system SCOPE (Scheduling Crown Operations Prepared Electronically).  Justice Kenkel, among others, identified the implementation of SCOPE as a significant milestone for court modernization, even if the new technology was not directly used in the Court. Modernizing criminal prosecutions had a significant impact on the courts generally and highlighted to many in the legal community what the possibilities and benefits of modernization and technology could be.^[18]

As reliance on technology became more broadly accepted by judiciary and in the legal community, the OCJ also began to increase judicial education on use of technology. Judicial education is within the sole jurisdiction of the Court which allowed for unilateral leadership in this area of technological advancement. Justice Mavin Wong, an early advocate and leader in court modernization was also an early leader in judicial technology education.  She was responsible for introduction an electronic bench book to the judges of the Court. Justice of the Peace Brian Norton, and other early adopters of technology, including Justice of the Peace Renee Rerup, Justice of the Peace Kelly Visser, Justice of the Peace Keon Lee, Justice of the Peace Karim Premji, Justice of the Peace Karen Valentine, Justice of the Peace Susan Whelan, together with many others, played an important role in technology education for the justice of the peace bench, which is so significantly affected by changes in technology given their front-line responsibilities.

These early and discrete initiatives were important foundations and test cases for broader, more comprehensive modernization initiatives to come.

The Creation of the Ontario Court of Justice Criminal Modernization Committee

Upon her appointment as Chief Justice in May 2015, one of Chief Justice Lise Maisonneuve’s earliest initiatives was to address the pressing need for modernization in the criminal justice system. Maisonneuve and then Deputy Attorney General Patrick Monahan^[19] launched the Ontario Court of Justice Criminal Justice Modernization Committee in 2015. The committee, co-chaired by the Chief Justice and Deputy Attorney General, provided the necessary forum for senior criminal justice leadership to collaboratively identify priorities, develop and implement initiatives to manage resources by encouraging timely resolution of criminal cases. The committee included senior representation from the criminal justice system from start to end – including the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police, the Ministries of the Attorney, Solicitor General and Correctional Services^[20], Children and Youth Services^[21], Public Prosecution Service of Canada (PPSC), Criminal Lawyers Association of Ontario and Legal Aid Ontario.

In 2015 the committee established their inaugural mandate, making the commitment to “ensure collaboration and leadership with a focus on improving the processing of cases in the criminal justice system. The Committee will:

• Respect the independence, discretion, and leadership of the respective justice participant groups, as well as accused rights.
• Ensure collaboration and information sharing among key leaders and stakeholders.
• Prioritize modernization and innovation initiatives related directly to the processing of cases in the provincial criminal justice system.
• Ensure collaboration for projects, initiatives, and activities.
• Leverage the benefits of Justice on Target (JOT)^[22] and previous efforts to streamline the criminal justice system.”

The committee identified initial priorities and initiatives as follows:

OCJ Criminal Modernization Committee Goals and Initiatives 2015
Goals	Initiatives
Effective and timely intake and release practices; meaningful remand appearances	e-Telewarrant Process Court Process Information to the Accused Judicial Endorsement Form Support Decision-Making about Release from the Station Timely Crown Bail Vetting Print Common Information
Effective pretrial and trial management; meaningful and timely court appearances	Judicial Pre-trial Best Practices Enhanced Crown Vertical File Management Streamlined Set Date Practices MAG/OACP MOU on Disclosure
Streamlined and timely processes for in-custody accused	Defence Remote Access to In-Custody Accused Remote Accused Appearances LAO Courthouse/Institutional Application Process

Associate Chief Justice, as he then was, Justice Peter DeFreitas noted that the Chief Justice’s commitment to identifying priorities, maintaining focused attention on the identified project, and landing a completed project before moving on to another was critically important. Too often in the past too many simultaneous projects meant that sustained attention was not possible, and progress fizzled.

The creation of the collaborative forum for senior criminal justice partners turned out to be particularly prescient and useful when less than a year later the Supreme Court decision in Jordan^[23] was released in July 2016 – and once again when the COVID-19 pandemic forced the closure of all public institutions, including the courts in early 2020. The imperative for rapid response across the criminal justice system to address the tight time requirements identified by the Supreme Court in Jordan was obvious. The Ontario Court of Justice Criminal Justice Modernization Committee – or “Crim Mod Committee” –  was the critical forum to address those new challenges.

Responding to the Jordan decision both underlined the importance of the coordinated response outlined by the committee and temporarily distracted from the committee’s intended focus on technology and modernization. The significance of the Jordan decision can not be underestimated for all parts of the criminal justice system.

Another element of modernization of the criminal justice system and response to Jordan was the introduction of Access: Defence in 2016. Initially Access: Defence started as a telephone service to provide defence counsel an option to communicate and get instructions from their clients in custody without having to physically attend the correctional facility. Delays in defence counsel being able to consult clients in custody was identified at the Crim Mod Committee as a significant factor in unnecessary appearances and criminal court backlogs. The initial telephone service was seen as a step forward, but almost immediately it faced many challenges, including requiring processing of legal aid certificates and payment to defence counsel. Justice Mavin Wong identified the enhanced Remote Defence Access as one of the most significant, yet simple, modernizations that positively affected the courts and justice system participants. COVID once again was a major factor in underlining the critical importance of remote contact among justice participants and helped spur the transformation in fall 2022 to the video-based Remote Defence Access (RDA) service. There continue to be concerns about the effectiveness of the RDA service to support defence counsel and court operations.

To address the backlog of cases resulting from the Jordan decision, the provincial government announced a range of new funding in November 2016^[24] including for an additional 13 provincial judges, 32 assistant Crown attorneys, 16 duty counsel and 26 court staff. This increase in the judicial complement was a historic development for the Court.

To regroup after the distraction of responding to Jordan, the OCJ Criminal Modernization Committee reviewed and revised their goals and initiatives in 2018. At that time, they identified the following priorities:

OCJ Criminal Modernization Committee Goals and Initiatives 2018
Goals	Initiatives
Better focused justice system	Alternatives to Administration of Justice Offences Police initiatives to reduce charges (e.g. London model) Endorsing warrants with discretion to release Alternative Approach to Impaired Driving Examining Entry into the Justice System (pre and post charge) WASH courts Crown charge review (e.g. embedded Crown) Moving some administrative appearances out of court
Effective justice partnerships	Overrepresentation of Racialized / Marginalized / Vulnerable individuals Preparedness to Address Legislative and Emerging Changes in Justice System Effective use of Intermittent Sentences Use of GPS technology
Better harnessing of technology	End-to-end Video Processes and Making Progress on Technology Solutions that Increase Efficiency Criminal Justice Digital Design (CJDD) Video Strategy

A noticeable shift from technology to more systemic issues can be noticed in the renewed priorities of the committee. However, a stronger commitment to enhancing video and other technology to improve access to justice was a clear priority.

Baby Steps and Building Blocks

From 2018 to 2020 a number of initiatives were in development that were critical foundations for the leap forward required once COVID hit in 2020. These foundational pieces were:

• Justice Video Strategy
• Common Information
• Electronic Scheduling Program and OCJ Criminal Case Scheduling Best Practices
• Enhancement and development of e-orders
• Telewarrants

In hindsight, post COVID, it is hard to imagine the time and effort put into the development of a Justice Video Strategy and the introduction of Wi-Fi in courthouses. Justice Mavin Wong, an experienced judicial innovator, noted the enormous frustrations and lost opportunities from the years of reliance on the Justice Video Technology prior to COVID.^[25] Connectivity between courts, police stations and correctional facilities was limited and scheduling a constant frustration for all parties involved. Clunky mobile video equipment prone to freezing and break downs, frustrated court staff, the judiciary and the party hoping to join the video hearing whether in a police station or jail. Renewed commitment to a more robust video strategy in 2018 was not surprising, but sadly achieved little until COVID. The Video Strategy provided important lessons in what didn’t work and why a more flexible, robust, and accessible video network was needed once remote hearings became an essential part of the Court’s work.

Common Information

Sometimes the simplest things can get in the way! Integrated case management and electronic intake proposals from IJP, CIMS and more modest innovations had regularly stumbled on a seemingly simple and yet troubling issue – the lack of a Common Information for all of Ontario. Justices of the peace conduct all criminal intake proceedings in the province, which initiate criminal charges, including the review and issuance of Informations and warrants.^[26] The Criminal Code outlines only very basic requirements for these processes or forms.^[27] Over time, a wide range of different Criminal Informations had been developed and routinely used by local police and justices of the peace – and of course everyone comes to think their personal or local version is the best and most sensible form. A herculean effort over many years was made to develop one Common Information. A seemingly simple project mired in resistance to change, attachment to local practice, traditions, language and legal analysis and evolution.

At the same time, another significant modernization was undertaken within the OCJ with the development of the Electronic Scheduling Program (ESP). The cumbersome and antiquated paper-based scheduling system used by individual Trial Coordinators across the province was another example of outdated, deeply rooted, and localized approaches to a critical court process. Some local scheduling initiatives were being developed using existing scheduling technology such as Outlook calendars. The benefits of being able to electronically notify judicial officers and parties of trial schedules and changes was immediately evident – as was the need for a standardized province-wide practice. This was yet another tool that was critical to the effective transition to remote hearings during COVID.

With the leadership of then-Associate Chief Justice DeFreitas and Chief Justice Maisonneuve, the OCJ introduced the ESP in stages. In 2016-17 an early version of ESP was piloted at 4 court sites^[28]. In Fall 2018, the ESP pilot was expanded to Thunder Bay and Brampton. These courts were selected given their unique scheduling needs and challenges. Brampton had the biggest caseload in the province and had tried many interim scheduling innovations, without much success. Thunder Bay was chosen because it has so many satellite and fly-in courts, which added additional scheduling challenges for the Trial Coordinator and all parties.

Provincial rollout of ESP began in spring 2019. Implementation was temporarily halted due to the pandemic but fully completed by spring 2021. A remarkable feat given the pandemic pressures in 2020-21.

In support of the introduction of ESP, the Court also refined and published Criminal Case Scheduling Best Practices^[29], in consultation with the Association of Ontario Judges.  These guidelines had to be quickly refined and updated in various stages during COVID to account for remote and hybrid court appearances and COVID protocols.

COVID – The Big Leap Forward

The groundwork for court modernization and increased use of technology had been progressing slowly over several decades when the world was hit with the COVID-19 pandemic in early 2020. Rumblings about the virus in Asia and Italy emerged in late 2019 and January 2020, followed quickly by reports of cases spreading in North America in February and early March. By mid-March 2020, the courthouses in Ontario had closed for all but the most essential matters, which were generally addressed by justices of the peace.

COVID presented an enormous challenge to a tradition bound, paper-based and technologically cautious court system.  Ontario’s three courts and all justice partners responded with remarkable determination, resolve and adaptability. The Chief Justices of the three courts were focused in meeting the many challenges none would have expected. Importantly, former Associate Chief Justice Peter DeFreitas has noted, the two trial courts, the OCJ and the Superior Court of Justice, worked collaboratively to ensure joint priorities could be managed to meet the pressing and varied needs of parties before the courts. For the Ontario Court of Justice, at the front end of the justice system, and the justice of the peace bench in particular, the challenges of the new technologies in managing court operations were significant.

As then Chief Justice Strathy commented in a January 2021 interview:

I would say, in many ways, this crisis has brought out the best in the justice system. There has been extraordinary cooperation between the Ministry of the Attorney General, and my colleagues, and myself in the course of this pandemic. We’ve had regular meetings on a weekly basis. Sometimes more often than not as the need arose. There’s been very positive dialogue.

…., the number one concern from the get-go has been the health and safety of everyone. But the other concern has been to ensure that the courts have the resources they need to continue operating in the pandemic. They’ve been responsive, they’ve been attentive, they’ve been timely. They’ve consulted us every step of the way. So, it augers well for the future. ^[30]

Former Chief Justice Maisonneuve further explained in that same interview:

“The issue….is that we are a paper-based process. When you charge someone criminally, there’s still the police officer who goes to a courthouse, brings a piece of paper, has a judicial officer look at it and get it sworn. That paper follows. In the family files, you still file paper and we still print. …….projects that we had been working on for five, 10 years have just completely gone into quick mode. And we have advanced the paperless route very, very fast in the last nine months.

…..

So, court has changed dramatically from what it was, and there’s more work to be done. We need to be paperless, and I hope that’s going to happen sooner than later. I think with every crisis comes an opportunity, and maybe this is something that’s going to come out of COVID. We’ve been through so much, but maybe there’ll be some good news that will come out of COVID for the criminal and family court system.”^[31]

The challenge was to identify priority projects and work on multiple fronts at the same time. In the early days of the pandemic key priorities such as eIntake, expanding telewarrants, and finding and training court participants on a reliable video technology to permit remote hearings had to be expedited.

eIntake

eIntake permits police officers to file documents electronically for a judicial officer to review and approve before electronically returning the approved document to the police. This is a critical step in making the justice system paperless and one the Court had been trying to implement for at least five years before COVID.

The benefits of eIntake to police, court staff, judicial officers and the public is enormous. In some regions of the province, it is particularly critical. For example, in Northern Ontario, where the nearest courthouse may be many hours away from a community, this saves hours of travel time for police services. just to file the Information. While a significant step forward, the transition to eIntake during the early days of the lockdown required a great deal of work, skill and patience from the justice of the peace bench.  Like many of these modernization initiatives, the support and skill of judicial officers was essential. Each region identified an eIntake justice of the peace lead to undertake education, technology trouble shooting and support. As a result, many justices of the peace – at the provincial, regional and local levels — were involved in the successful introduction of eIntake.

Remote Hearings

In the early days of courthouse closures, remote hearings were initially most often done by telephone, a relatively reliable and standard technology used extensively in Northern regions. However, it became apparent very early on that an easily accessible platform for video appearances would be required. The platform needed to be accessible to parties in and out of custody, counsel, and justice partners. It was also clear that the existing Justice Video Network would not meet the needs of court users in the pandemic.

The quick adoption of Zoom as the platform for remote hearings was another early and huge leap forward for the Court. Problems had plagued the Justice Video Network and slowed the adoption of video in courts. In mid-April 2020, the Chief Justice alerted the benches that the JVN Virtual Courtrooms were reserved for high-priority criminal matters (bail and certain guilty pleas) and were also being used by the Superior Court of Justice. It was a top priority to find an appropriate platform to permit other types of criminal matters as well as family matters to be conducted remotely.

While debate continued to swirl about the appropriate use of video hearings in legal circles, it became increasingly apparent the world was going to require remote access to courts for longer than initially suspected. The privacy, security, and technology concerns about a broadly accessible platform like Zoom, or Microsoft Teams were quickly addressed and, by June 2020, the Ministry of the Attorney General had procured Zoom licenses to facilitate remote appearances and started training court staff and Trial Coordinators in its use as a reliable, broadly accessible platform for virtual court hearings.

While there was some anxiety about the security of Zoom for court hearings, in Ontario^[32] and all over the world^[33], in general Zoom was well received by the judiciary and a wide variety of family and criminal court users.

The Court developed and updated remote court guidelines and manuals^[34], undertook judicial education sessions for conducting Zoom proceedings and even distributed a visual background for Zoom hearings.

At the same time, it became apparent that there were many complex and competing issues requiring attention, including automatic adjournments to maintain legal jurisdiction over cases, identifying cases at risk of dismissal and providing expedited bail hearings for in custody criminal matters. There were also huge issues facing the family and Provincial Offences courts that also required attention. In June 2020, Chief Justice Maisonneuve established several judicial committees to advise on some of the unprecedented legal and operational issues the Court was facing. The committees were asked to undertake legal analysis and produce deliverables under very tight timelines, with the support of the Chief Justice’s Office staff and counsel.  These committees produced remarkable results for internal court use and for parties and the public. Many directives and guides were posted on the OCJ website and shared through Twitter. The committees included:

Remote Court Proceedings: Training and Guides: Justice Mavin Wong (Chair), Senior Advisory Family Judge Lise Parent, Justice Kathryn (Katie) McKerlie, Justice Katherine (Stacy) Neill, Justice Robert Wadden and Justice of the Peace Mark Donohue

Remote Court Proceedings: Legal Issues: Justice Joseph Kenkel (Chair), Justice Allison Dellandrea, Justice Rita Maxwell, Regional Senior Justice of the Peace Gary McMahon, and Justice of the Peace Steven D’Souza

Remote Court Proceedings and the Open Court Principle: Justice Andrea Tuck-Jackson (Chair), Justice Michelle Cheung, Justice Peter Doody, Justice Alison Wheeler, and Regional Senior Justice of the Peace Thomas Stinson

Self-Represented Accused Persons and the COVID-19 Pandemic: Justice Riun Shandler (Chair), Justice Marlyse Dumel, Justice Ferhan Javed, Justice of the Peace Karen Valentine

Self-Represented Family Litigants and the COVID-19 Pandemic: Senior Advisory Family Justice Parent (Chair), Justice Stanley Sherr, Justice William Sullivan

OCJ Specialized Courts: Justice Kathleen Caldwell (Chair), Justice John Adamson, Justice Andre Chamberlain, Justice David Gibson

Ontario Court of Justice Case Management Court Committee: RSJ Aston Hall, RSJP Bernard Caron, RSJP Martha De Gannes, LAJ Vincenzo Rondinelli, Justice Deborah Austin, Justice Martin Lambert, Justice of the Peace Mohammed Brihmi, Justice of the Peace Samantha Burton, Justice of the Peace Herb Kreling, plus representatives from Federal Crown, Criminal Law Division, Legal Aid Ontario, Criminal Lawyers’ Association, and Court Services Division.

Scheduling for Resumption of Trials: RSJ Jean Legault (Chair), RSJ Patrick Boucher, Senior Advisory Family Judge Lise Parent, LAJ Melanie Sopinka, LAJ Amit Ghosh, LAJ Paul Monahan, LAJ David Gibson, LAJ Enzo Rondinelli, Justice Jon‐Jo Douglas, Justice Martha Zivolak

Ontario Court of Justice Special Bail Hearings Committee: RSJ Currie (Chair), Justice Robert Wadden, RSJP Melanie Bremner, RSJP Thomas Stinson, Justice of the Peace Denette Ellard, plus representatives from the Criminal Law Division and Criminal Lawyers’ Association.

Ad Hoc Committee on Provincial Offences Courts: SAJP Lauren Scully (Co-Chair),  RSJP Marsha Farnand (Co-Chair) plus representatives from the Ministry Court Services (POA Unit), Criminal Law and Civil Law Divisions, including prosecutors from various ministries, Municipal Court Managers Association, Prosecutors’ Association of Ontario, Ontario Paralegal Association, Law Society of Ontario, Criminal Lawyers’ Association, and the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police.

Given ongoing technology and modernization challenges as the pandemic continued, in May 2021, Chief Justice Maisonneuve sought an “Advisory Judge on Technology” to advise the Court on:

• the development and implementation of a virtual hearings’ strategy,
• the further development of judicial technology education and resource materials, and
• the identification, development, and implementation of new court technology projects.

In November 2021 Justices Wong and Kenkel were appointed jointly to the position, having demonstrated extensive leadership and skill in using technology to enhance court proceedings and in judicial IT education since their appointment to the Court, coincidentally, on the same day in June 2000. The Chief Justice also noted the dedication and expertise of Justices of the Peace Brian Norton, Diane McAleer, and Renee Rerup for their invaluable contributions in modernizing the front end of the criminal justice system, including eHub, eIntake, eTelewarrants and eReports to a Justice.

CaseLines^[35]

While much attention was initially focused on necessary modernization to address constitutionally guaranteed criminal law rights, there was also enormous pressure to facilitate family law matters before the court. To that end the OCJ adopted the CaseLines document-sharing program in some family matters.

CaseLines, an existing Thomson Reuters cloud-based, document sharing platform was initially used by the Superior Court of Justice to facilitate electronic submission and distribution of electronic documents needed for virtual or hybrid family law hearings. CaseLines was adapted specifically for the OCJ family bench and implemented in two phases, starting in the Toronto Region in November of 2021 and concluded at the end of 2022 in the Northeast and Northwest Regions.The implementation was the result of a remarkable team effort, including Senior Advisory Family Judge Lise Parent, Justice Carolyn Jones, Justice Heather A. Mendes, Justice Marnie Vickerd and Justice Joseph Kenkel.

Parties can upload, store, review, search, mark-up, share and present court documents virtually. The platform is easy to use with minimal training or support and materials in a variety of formats can be uploaded and easily organized on any device (computer, tablet, smart phone).

Further details about the evolution of CaseLines, subsequently referred to as Case Centre, are detailed below as part of the longer term more comprehensive Court Digital Transformation project announced in 2023 between the provincial government and Thomson Reuters.

POA Modernization

Given the diverse range and resources of the municipalities engaged in providing POA court services, the recovery and resumption of POA court matters was delayed during COVID. Unusually since the devolution of Provincial Offences Act matters to municipalities, the Ministry of the Attorney General played an important role in supporting municipalities to implement the same COVID health and safety measures as provincial courthouses. The implementation of the measures varied in municipalities and as a result POA courts resumed in-person proceedings in stages and more slowly than the provincially administered courthouses. Municipalities also had to adopt Zoom for remote or hybrid hearings so that there was a common platform for all OCJ proceedings province wide. To facilitate virtual and hybrid appearances, legislative amendments were passed in the legislature to the Provincial Offences Act^[36]  in Bill 197, the COVID‑19 Economic Recovery Act, 2020.

Regional Senior Justice of the Peace Gary McMahon provided leadership in producing materials to support the bench in addressing the myriad issues that arose in managing the adjustments required in managing POA matters.

Digital Information and Repository (DIR)

DIR is a new digital solution that allows judiciary and court staff to store, view and edit Information documents and other hearing-related documents digitally. DIR was first implemented in the new Toronto courthouse in 2023 and is available only in Toronto as of 2024.

DIR provides the judiciary and court staff a single place to access all digital hearing-related documents, organized by hearing dates, and captures decisions electronically.

Prior to DIR, and still in most court locations, police upload documents to eIntake, which then go to Court Services, who print copies of the Informations, which then have to be delivered to the courtrooms as required. In DIR courts, the eInformation will go into the DIR digitally. There will be no more paper Informations in a courtroom, which will make for easier access to the documents. In addition, DIR simplifies searching for a matter by entering a name or Information number; makes court records easier to read and less prone to mistakes resulting from illegible signatures and handwriting; replaces the need to print materials and have couriers search and deliver documents to courtrooms.

While DIR is a significant enhancement, it is recognized that there are limitations in DIR that future developments will hopefully address. However, DIR in the Toronto Region is able to update the existing court case management system, known in the OCJ as ICON (Integrated Courts Offences Network) on future court dates, bring forward dates and same-day traversals. End-to-end justice is a step closer, but there is more to do.

Regional Senior Justice Sandra Bacchus, Regional Senior Justice of the Peace Melanie Bremner and Chief Justice Maisonneuve were resolute in having the full implementation of DIR for Toronto when the OCJ consolidated court operations from six courthouses into one modern court facility and a new Bail Centre in the Spring of 2023. DIR became a reality as Chief Justice Maisonneuve’s term came to and end in May 2023.

On May 1, 2023, the Attorney General Doug Downey announced the appointment of Sharon Nicklas as the next Chief Justice of the OCJ effective June 1, 2023. Chief Justice Nicklas had been Associate Chief Justice and Coordinator of the Justices of the Peace since September 2019, and Regional Senior Justice for Central West Region from 2013 to 2019. As a result, Chief Justice Nicklas was intimately familiar with the challenges of modernizing court technologies and the enormous advances and differing impacts of the COVID transformations.

The Future – Where Next? What Next?

Much has been accomplished in modernizing court processes and using technology more effectively to make court more efficient during the past decade, but there is much more still to do to make a more accessible, modern end-to-end justice system.

In November 2021 the Ontario Court of Justice, the Superior Court of Justice and the Ministry of the Attorney General announced plans to deliver “a new digital justice solution that will transform how people handle their legal matters at the Superior and Ontario Courts of Justice.”^[37] The Courts Digital Transformation was hailed in the provincial government’s News Release as “the most significant single step forward in the digital evolution of justice in Canada, replacing outdated paper-based procedures with an online platform to manage cases, documents and schedules”^[38]

This new system, once developed and in place, will, among other things:

• replace the antiquated court case management systems ICON (in the OCJ) and FRANK (in the SCJ)
• allow for e-filing and connect with eIntake
• allow for e-storage and e-access/retrieval of documents
• provide for more reliable data and statistical reports
• make court information more easily accessible information for the public and media
• allow for an integrated judicial court scheduling tool

“The investment in a long-awaited case management system is critically important to support a modern and effective justice system. ….The Ontario Court of Justice and the Superior Court of Justice are pleased to be partners in this important project that will bring the paper-based court system into the 21st century.” said Chief Justices Geoffrey Morawetz and Lise Maisonneuve in announcing the project.^[39]

The potential for significant improvements with the Courts Digital Transformation is on the horizon. Court users were encouraged by the July 18, 2023, announcement by the Attorney General that Thomson Reuters had been awarded the contract to deliver the new digital justice platform and that the provincial government was investing $166 million to support the Court Digital Transformation.

Chief Justices Geoffrey Morawetz of the Superior Court of Justice and Sharon Nicklas were quoted in the news release as saying, “We applaud the government’s investment and support towards the modernization of court processes, procedures, and technology. The Ontario Court of Justice and the Superior Court of Justice remain committed partners in this critical modernisation project and to collaborating with our justice partners to replace several antiquated technology programs with a more seamless and streamlined system to support both courts and across business lines.”^[40]

As noted above, Thomson Reuters play a critical role with the introduction of CaseLines, the document sharing platform introduced for family matters in both the OCJ and SCJ, and for civil matters in the Superior Court of Justice.

Discussions between both courts, the Ministry of the Attorney General and Thomson Reuters continue on the implementation of the Courts Digital Transformation.

The current approach is for a regional rollout, seeing a first “go live” in July 2025 and its last in June 2030. As the project progresses, the hope is that continuing “learning” and development allows for the phases to shorten.

1. Provincial offence matters include a broad range of driving and parking offences, including speeding, careless driving as well as higher end workplace safety offences.↩
2. In 1998 Ontario transferred responsibility of Provincial Offences courts to municipalities. Currently, Ontario has 56 independent municipal partners operating municipal courts across the province.↩
3. Computer lawsuit costs Ontario $63-million, Kirk Makin, Globe and Mail June 1, 2005 https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/computer-lawsuit-costs-ontario-63-million/article981248/↩
4. The Ontario Court of Appeal, Superior Court of Justice, and the Ontario Court of Justice↩
5. Ontario admits it blew $4.5 million on failed court modernization project, Alison Jones, Canadian Press, Sept 19, 2014 https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/4-5m-sunk-into-failed-court-modernization-project-in-ontario-1.2015223 https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/ontario-admits-it-blew-4-5-million-on-failed-court-modernization-project↩
6. Ontario Attorney General Yasir Naqvi aims to modernize the justice system. Allison Jones, The Canadian Press Aug. 28, 2016 https://www.thestar.com/news/queenspark/2016/08/28/ontario-attorney-general-yasir-naqvi-aims-to-modernize-the-justice-system.html?rf↩
7. Justices Joseph Kenkel and Mavin Wong were announced as OCJ Advisory Judges on Technology in 2021 and Justice Heather Mendes subsequently appointed as an Advisory Judge on Technology for family law issues.↩
8. Interview of J Kenkel for OCJ History Project April 2023↩
9. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_computer↩
10. Ibid↩
11. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BlackBerry↩
12. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPhone ↩
13. R. v Askov, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1199 ↩
14. R. v. Jordan [2016] 1 SCR 631 ↩
15. In Ontario family law matters are heard in both the Superior Court of Justice (SCJ), including in some parts of the province in unified Family Courts (FC) and in the Ontario Court of Justice (OCJ). The OCJ has jurisdiction over child protection, adoption, and decision-making responsibility (formerly knowns as custody), parenting time (formerly known as access), and contact with children, child support, and spousal support. The SCJ hears divorce and property matters arising from a family breakdown but can also have jurisdiction over decision making and parenting time. In 25 court locations this split jurisdiction has been unified in the Family Court, a branch of the Superior Court. At any of the following locations all family cases are heard, including divorce, division of property, support, custody and access, child protection, and adoption.(Barrie / Belleville / Bracebridge / Brockville / Cayuga / Cobourg / Cornwall / Hamilton / Kingston / Kitchener / Lindsay / London / L’Orignal / Napanee / Newmarket / Oshawa / Ottawa / Peterborough / Pembroke / Perth / Picton / St. Catharines / St. Thomas / Simcoe  / Welland)↩
16. Interview of J Kenkel for OCJ History Project April 2023 ↩
17. https://www.ontariocourts.ca/ocj/legal-professionals/practice-directions/digital-audio-recordings/ ↩
18. Interview of J Kenkel for OCJ History Project April 2023 ↩
19. Later appointed to the Superior Court of Justice (2017) and to the Court of Appeal in 2023 ↩
20. Later known simply as Ministry of the Solicitor General ↩
21. Later known as Ministry of Children, Community and Social Services ↩
22. Justice on Target was a provincial government initiative aimed to reduce delay in Ontario’s criminal courts announced in 2009 that targeted a 30 per cent reduction in the provincial average of days and court appearances needed to complete a criminal case. https://news.ontario.ca/en/backgrounder/27240/justice-on-target-seven-initiatives-for-better-faster-justice ↩
23. R. v. Jordan [2016] 1 SCR 631 ↩
24. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/ontario-justice-hires-trial-lengths-1.3876204 ↩
25. Interview of M Wong for OCJ History Project April 2023 ↩
26. As provided for in ss 504, 506, 507 of the Criminal Code ↩
27. Form 2 of the Criminal Code ↩
28. Oshawa, Peterborough Tri-county, Milton/Burlington, and London ↩
29. Found on the Court’s website at https://www.ontariocourts.ca/ocj/covid-19/criminal-notice-july27-2021/ ↩
30. Ibid ↩
31. Interviews with the three Chief Justices of Ontario on the Courts’ Response to Covid-19 and the Modernization of The Justice System, January 12, 2021, Chief Justice George R. Strathy, Court of Appeal for Ontario; Chief Justice Geoffrey B. Morawetz, Ontario Superior Court of Justice; Chief Justice Lise Maisonneuve, Ontario Court of Justice; and David Milosevic https://www.oba.org/Sections/Civil-Litigation/Articles/Articles-2021/January-2021/The-Three-Chiefs-Interviews-with-the-Three-Chief?lang=en-ca ↩
32. Some of which continues https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2023/04/21/new-toronto-court-struggling-with-delay-is-flooded-by-zoom-bombing-interruptions.html ↩
33. Examples include  https://www.thelawforlawyerstoday.com/2020/08/5166/ and https://familylawyermagazine.com/articles/federal-court-zoom-hearing-hacked-can-you-avoid-zoombombing/ ↩
34. https://www.ontariocourts.ca/ocj/covid-19/remote-hearing-guides/ ↩
35. A Thomson Reuters online product that will be changing its name to Case Center according to the website https://ontariocourts.caselines.com/ ↩
36. Bill 197, the COVID‑19 Economic Recovery Act, 2020, ↩
37. https://news.ontario.ca/en/release/1001109/ontario-delivering-digital-access-to-courts should we also list Star story https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2021/11/05/for-government-promises-a-digital-transformation-for-ontarios-court-system.html  ↩
38. Ibid ↩
39. Ibid ↩
40. Ontario Newsroom News Release “Ontario Investing in Digital Justice Platform”, July 18,2023 ↩