By largely shutting down the court system, do we not send the message to the public that, like the Apple stores, our legal system is a ‘nice to have’ luxury rather than an essential service in a democracy? (And, obviously, that comparison somewhat misses the mark as Apple continues to provide services online.)

Aside from jury trials perhaps, what court business cannot be performed remotely? There are off-the-shelf solutions available for filing and viewing court documents online; yet Ontario courts have stubbornly refused to adopt and roll out such a system, while at the same time maintaining that the filing of documents remains a two-person job, with one person serving the materials and another commissioning the affidavit of service. This archaic requirement will likely frustrate many lawyers attempting to work remotely.

It is likewise difficult to comprehend why most scheduled hearings cannot go forward via telephone conference, or through the use of an online meeting service. Recent technological advances have allowed doctors to perform surgery remotely, while businesspeople routinely hold important meetings online. By refusing to adapt as a profession, are we admitting that we are that much less competent than other members of society, or instead asserting that what we do is just that much more complex/important? Obviously, neither is flattering.

There are, of course, real-world consequences to the failure of courts leadership to plan for yesterday, today or tomorrow, with Ontario court closures being the most recent example. According to the World Bank, it takes nearly as long for a party to enforce a contract in Canada as in Pakistan, despite the fact that Canada holds itself out to be a developed country. If our courts are on par with those of Pakistan, and take twice as long as those in the United States or United Kingdom to enforce written agreements, we are clearly doing something wrong (as further illustrated by the seven-year wait times for the resolution of personal injury matters).

I also wonder whether court leadership has considered the impact that closing the courts will have upon the thousands of lawyers in private practice, who in turn employ thousands of others? Does it now seem wise to have so strongly resisted online filing, or to have failed to make it easy to appear for a hearing remotely?