Deployed in Quebec in an emergency with the pandemic, trials and virtual hearings “are here to stay”, believe the chief justices of the Superior Court and the Court of Quebec, who even see them as a measure of access justice for citizens since they reduce their lawyer bills.
When COVID-19 hit in March 2020, virtual hearings quickly proved to be an effective alternative measure, says the Chief Justice of the Superior Court, Jacques R. Fournier.
Lawyers and litigants were thus able to carry out a host of procedures behind their screens in semi-virtual mode – lawyers and their clients at the office or at home, but with a judge and clerk in the courtroom – or in a completely virtual way: everyone at home, linked through the Internet and online conferencing systems such as Teams. Some procedures were already understood this way before the health crisis, but they were not generalized.
This is not perfect, says Justice Fournier, who readily admits that the technology has had certain failures, but he believes that this way of proceeding has saved citizens many worries and wasted time.
There were all these hearings where the connection between the different parties could not be made, resulting in delays and postponements. And sometimes the huge number of people wanting to attend a hearing online – recently two cases involving health measures – crippled the computer system. This detracted from the public aspect of the hearings, with many unable to attend.
These difficulties did not cool Judge Fournier: “I prefer a wobbly virtual hearing than a postponement of the trial. “
Cruising speed
During the pandemic, the virtual trial allowed the courts not to fall too late. But now that the courtrooms have resumed their cruising speed, magistrates see it as an option to be retained.
I prefer a wobbly virtual hearing than a postponement of a trial
“To something bad luck is good”, launches the Bâtonnière of Quebec, Me Catherine Claveau. “The pandemic will have made it possible to accelerate certain elements leading us to a modernization of justice”, which was going too slowly for its liking. “We won’t go back,” she says, “because it was a big success. “
The benefits abound.
Judge Fournier gives this example: a couple who live in Natashquan must go before a judge for their divorce proceedings. For them, the closest court is in Sept-Îles, a four-hour drive – when the weather is nice. Since they are in conflict, the ex-spouses will take two different vehicles. For a 9 a.m. hearing, they must arrive the day before, sleep at the hotel and, at the end of the day, no way to get back on the road, which then implies another night at the hotel and two days of rest. missed work. For them, the advantages of the virtual audience outweigh the few disadvantages, he says.
Another example ? A crucial witness is stranded abroad as the trial, set for two years, begins in a few days. Rather than postpone it, “we put an iPad in his hands” and the trial can continue, illustrates Justice Fournier.
According to the Chief Justice of the Court of Quebec, Lucie Rondeau, certain preliminary stages, such as motions, putting on the hearing roll, the choice of trial dates and case management, lend themselves particularly well to mode hearings. semi-virtual.
The great advantage for all these more “administrative” stages, which sometimes only last a few minutes before a judge, is to avoid travel to lawyers and litigants, which reduces costs, she says: it is therefore a way of doing things that can facilitate access to justice.
The pandemic will have made it possible to accelerate certain elements leading us to a modernization of justice
“Most lawyers hope that the role’s call rooms will remain virtual,” says Me Jean-François Noiseux, who pleads civil cases all over Quebec: no more wasting time waiting for his turn in a room.
But virtual or semi-virtual audiences remain an “alternative”. It is complementary, says Justice Fournier.
Because certain types of cases will remain in the courtroom, at the courthouse: this will be the case for trials with jury, as well as those in which many witnesses are called to the bar: being able to assess their credibility remains of importance. crucial, recall the two chief justices.
A “laboratory” in Quebec
We still need to deepen our thinking, says Judge Rondeau. “We are still in a laboratory linked to these new technologies. “
In particular, there is the whole issue of confidentiality which must be examined. Even if people are told not to record what is happening in the courtroom, there have been some “sorry” situations and extracts can be found on social networks, reports the magistrate.
And not everyone has access to the Internet, which can be shaky in some remote areas.
The magistrate also raises this question: when people are in their living room, are they fully aware of being in a legal debate?
She also fears the lack of control. Are there people around the witness who can influence him? She mentions this case in the United States in which a young victim of domestic violence glanced furtively while testifying. The police attended. The accused was with her.
Are judges enthusiastic or reluctant to virtual hearings?
Neither, retorts the chief justice. There is no enthusiasm, because they see the limits of technology, but no reluctance either, because they have understood the need to adapt.
There are differences within the court, adds Justice Fournier. If there are judges firmly anchored in the XXIe century, others prefer more traditional methods. This will take a consensus to determine the next step, he believes, recalling that Lexius, the great site of modernization of justice, was already leaning, before the pandemic, on these questions of online hearings.
“It will stay. The extent of this remains to be determined. “