Latest news with #OntarioSuperiorCourtofJustice
Global News
5 days ago
- Politics
- Global News
Law experts, observers raise questions as Ontario adds virtual courtroom restrictions
Ontario's lower courts are introducing restrictions on who can attend proceedings virtually after what they describe as an escalation of interruptions, a move that law experts and observers say raises questions about transparency. The Ontario Court of Justice released a new policy last week that would stop observers from accessing court proceedings online unless they receive authorization from the judge or justice of peace overseeing the case. Those interested in attending court cases are encouraged to show up in person, the policy says. It does not apply to proceedings at the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. The lower court attributes the move to a rise in deliberate disruptions of court proceedings referred to as 'Zoom bombings,' which is when participants disturb a virtual call with inappropriate content or messages. 'These disruptions are an impermissible attack on the integrity of the justice system and the administration of justice,' an interim policy notice said, adding that they often cause delays and can have negative effects for participants, court staff and jurists. Story continues below advertisement Boris Bytensky, president of the Criminal Lawyers' Association, says changes to the observer policy were needed because of the 'despicable acts of disruption' caused by certain attendees in virtual courts. 'This is the only way to ensure that proceedings that are conducted by Zoom and bring the significant benefits to the system and to the parties that virtual proceedings offer are free from any unacceptable interference,' Bytensky said in an emailed statement. But some experts warn that the policy could be a step back when it comes to openness. Virtual court hearings on Zoom were first adopted in 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic so court processes could continue amid government-mandated physical distancing rules. The continued use of videoconferencing technology in courtrooms since then has created a level of access people now expect, complicating the decision to change the policy, said Teresa Scassa, law professor at the University of Ottawa. Get breaking National news For news impacting Canada and around the world, sign up for breaking news alerts delivered directly to you when they happen. Sign up for breaking National newsletter Sign Up By providing your email address, you have read and agree to Global News' Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy 'At this point, the meaning of open courts or what is an open court has changed, and now you're taking away something that's there,' she said in an interview. While the new policy says physical attendance is still on the table, that is not an option for everyone, Scassa said. People with disabilities, those who don't drive and anyone who lives far away from courts do not always have the option to attend in person, she said. Story continues below advertisement 'I have some sympathy for the challenges the courts are dealing with. But I do have some questions about whether the route that they've chosen is really the route that best respects the open court principles,' said Scassa. A small number of court proceedings only take place virtually. To observe these cases, the court says people need to request permission by emailing the court's communications officer — the same contact that media use to request access to virtual proceedings. Scassa said she has questions about how judges will decide who should and shouldn't get access: 'Does everybody get permission? Who gets denied permission? Is there some hierarchy?' The Ontario Court of Justice did not respond to a request for more information about the authorization process before deadline. Avid court observer Jenny Pelland said the court's new policy isn't surprising, as they've witnessed Zoom bombings many times over the past few years, especially in high-profile cases. 'I've seen some where it's been very graphic,' Pelland said in an interview, adding that the disruptions often display violent or pornographic content. Since the observer policy was announced, Pelland said courts have already been applying the rules differently, with some posting notices in the Zoom waiting room that public access is banned and others allowing access but requiring attendees to provide their full legal name or have their camera turned off. Story continues below advertisement Such differences are not novel, with Pelland saying they've noticed limitations on access even in cases when they reached out to a judge or court clerk for permission in advance. 'For some courts in Ottawa, it's been almost impossible to log in for the past few months,' Pelland said. 'Some judges don't allow observers at all and it's not something new.' Alyssa King, associate professor of law at Queen's University, said understaffing is already a concern in Ontario courts, and adding more administrative burden for judges will cause inconsistencies in the way policies are applied across the province. 'It's not because anybody is acting in bad faith or trying to prevent the public from accessing the court,' she said. 'But they are people with a big workload and sometimes very high stress decisions that they need to make quickly … so any time you add to what they have to do administratively, that's tough.' A different process is still followed to allow access to virtual courts for victims and complainants. The court says they should get in touch with their local Crown attorney's office or victim witness assistance program. Jasminder Sekhon, director of community engagement, EDI and policy at Victim Services Toronto, said the court should consider updating its policies on that process to make sure it is more accessible and survivor-informed. Story continues below advertisement 'Not just the victims should be able to apply, but also people should be able to apply on their behalf,' Sekhon said, adding that people who support survivors should also be considered to receive virtual access. For Linda McCurdy, a criminal defence lawyer based in Windsor, Ont., adding an extra step to prevent disruptions is a good way to preserve the integrity of the courts. 'I barely notice people in the court, but you really notice people on Zoom when they're doing stuff,' said McCurdy, adding that people tend to forget about formalities when calling in from their own homes. 'If you want to come and watch the proceedings, come to the court, come sit in the court. That's the way it's always been.'
Winnipeg Free Press
5 days ago
- Politics
- Winnipeg Free Press
Law experts, observers raise questions as Ontario adds virtual courtroom restrictions
Ontario's lower courts are introducing restrictions on who can attend proceedings virtually after what they describe as an escalation of interruptions, a move that law experts and observers say raises questions about transparency. The Ontario Court of Justice released a new policy last week that would stop observers from accessing court proceedings online unless they receive authorization from the judge or justice of peace overseeing the case. Those interested in attending court cases are encouraged to show up in person, the policy says. It does not apply to proceedings at the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. The lower court attributes the move to a rise in deliberate disruptions of court proceedings referred to as 'Zoom bombings,' which is when participants disturb a virtual call with inappropriate content or messages. 'These disruptions are an impermissible attack on the integrity of the justice system and the administration of justice,' an interim policy notice said, adding that they often cause delays and can have negative effects for participants, court staff and jurists. Boris Bytensky, president of the Criminal Lawyers' Association, says changes to the observer policy were needed because of the 'despicable acts of disruption' caused by certain attendees in virtual courts. 'This is the only way to ensure that proceedings that are conducted by Zoom and bring the significant benefits to the system and to the parties that virtual proceedings offer are free from any unacceptable interference,' Bytensky said in an emailed statement. But some experts warn that the policy could be a step back when it comes to openness. Virtual court hearings on Zoom were first adopted in 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic so court processes could continue amid government-mandated physical distancing rules. The continued use of videoconferencing technology in courtrooms since then has created a level of access people now expect, complicating the decision to change the policy, said Teresa Scassa, law professor at the University of Ottawa. 'At this point, the meaning of open courts or what is an open court has changed, and now you're taking away something that's there,' she said in an interview. While the new policy says physical attendance is still on the table, that is not an option for everyone, Scassa said. People with disabilities, those who don't drive and anyone who lives far away from courts do not always have the option to attend in person, she said. 'I have some sympathy for the challenges the courts are dealing with. But I do have some questions about whether the route that they've chosen is really the route that best respects the open court principles,' said Scassa. A small number of court proceedings only take place virtually. To observe these cases, the court says people need to request permission by emailing the court's communications officer — the same contact that media use to request access to virtual proceedings. Scassa said she has questions about how judges will decide who should and shouldn't get access: 'Does everybody get permission? Who gets denied permission? Is there some hierarchy?' The Ontario Court of Justice did not respond to a request for more information about the authorization process before deadline. Avid court observer Jenny Pelland said the court's new policy isn't surprising, as they've witnessed Zoom bombings many times over the past few years, especially in high-profile cases. 'I've seen some where it's been very graphic,' Pelland said in an interview, adding that the disruptions often display violent or pornographic content. Since the observer policy was announced, Pelland said courts have already been applying the rules differently, with some posting notices in the Zoom waiting room that public access is banned and others allowing access but requiring attendees to provide their full legal name or have their camera turned off. Such differences are not novel, with Pelland saying they've noticed limitations on access even in cases when they reached out to a judge or court clerk for permission in advance. 'For some courts in Ottawa, it's been almost impossible to log in for the past few months,' Pelland said. 'Some judges don't allow observers at all and it's not something new.' Alyssa King, associate professor of law at Queen's University, said understaffing is already a concern in Ontario courts, and adding more administrative burden for judges will cause inconsistencies in the way policies are applied across the province. 'It's not because anybody is acting in bad faith or trying to prevent the public from accessing the court,' she said. 'But they are people with a big workload and sometimes very high stress decisions that they need to make quickly … so any time you add to what they have to do administratively, that's tough.' A different process is still followed to allow access to virtual courts for victims and complainants. The court says they should get in touch with their local Crown attorney's office or victim witness assistance program. Jasminder Sekhon, director of community engagement, EDI and policy at Victim Services Toronto, said the court should consider updating its policies on that process to make sure it is more accessible and survivor-informed. 'Not just the victims should be able to apply, but also people should be able to apply on their behalf,' Sekhon said, adding that people who support survivors should also be considered to receive virtual access. For Linda McCurdy, a criminal defence lawyer based in Windsor, Ont., adding an extra step to prevent disruptions is a good way to preserve the integrity of the courts. 'I barely notice people in the court, but you really notice people on Zoom when they're doing stuff,' said McCurdy, adding that people tend to forget about formalities when calling in from their own homes. 'If you want to come and watch the proceedings, come to the court, come sit in the court. That's the way it's always been.' This report by The Canadian Press was first published July 25, 2025.
Hamilton Spectator
5 days ago
- Politics
- Hamilton Spectator
Law experts, observers raise questions as Ontario adds virtual courtroom restrictions
Ontario's lower courts are introducing restrictions on who can attend proceedings virtually after what they describe as an escalation of interruptions, a move that law experts and observers say raises questions about transparency. The Ontario Court of Justice released a new policy last week that would stop observers from accessing court proceedings online unless they receive authorization from the judge or justice of peace overseeing the case. Those interested in attending court cases are encouraged to show up in person, the policy says. It does not apply to proceedings at the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. The lower court attributes the move to a rise in deliberate disruptions of court proceedings referred to as 'Zoom bombings,' which is when participants disturb a virtual call with inappropriate content or messages. 'These disruptions are an impermissible attack on the integrity of the justice system and the administration of justice,' an interim policy notice said, adding that they often cause delays and can have negative effects for participants, court staff and jurists. Boris Bytensky, president of the Criminal Lawyers' Association, says changes to the observer policy were needed because of the 'despicable acts of disruption' caused by certain attendees in virtual courts. 'This is the only way to ensure that proceedings that are conducted by Zoom and bring the significant benefits to the system and to the parties that virtual proceedings offer are free from any unacceptable interference,' Bytensky said in an emailed statement. But some experts warn that the policy could be a step back when it comes to openness. Virtual court hearings on Zoom were first adopted in 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic so court processes could continue amid government-mandated physical distancing rules. The continued use of videoconferencing technology in courtrooms since then has created a level of access people now expect, complicating the decision to change the policy, said Teresa Scassa, law professor at the University of Ottawa. 'At this point, the meaning of open courts or what is an open court has changed, and now you're taking away something that's there,' she said in an interview. While the new policy says physical attendance is still on the table, that is not an option for everyone, Scassa said. People with disabilities, those who don't drive and anyone who lives far away from courts do not always have the option to attend in person, she said. 'I have some sympathy for the challenges the courts are dealing with. But I do have some questions about whether the route that they've chosen is really the route that best respects the open court principles,' said Scassa. A small number of court proceedings only take place virtually. To observe these cases, the court says people need to request permission by emailing the court's communications officer — the same contact that media use to request access to virtual proceedings. Scassa said she has questions about how judges will decide who should and shouldn't get access: 'Does everybody get permission? Who gets denied permission? Is there some hierarchy?' The Ontario Court of Justice did not respond to a request for more information about the authorization process before deadline. Avid court observer Jenny Pelland said the court's new policy isn't surprising, as they've witnessed Zoom bombings many times over the past few years, especially in high-profile cases. 'I've seen some where it's been very graphic,' Pelland said in an interview, adding that the disruptions often display violent or pornographic content. Since the observer policy was announced, Pelland said courts have already been applying the rules differently, with some posting notices in the Zoom waiting room that public access is banned and others allowing access but requiring attendees to provide their full legal name or have their camera turned off. Such differences are not novel, with Pelland saying they've noticed limitations on access even in cases when they reached out to a judge or court clerk for permission in advance. 'For some courts in Ottawa, it's been almost impossible to log in for the past few months,' Pelland said. 'Some judges don't allow observers at all and it's not something new.' Alyssa King, associate professor of law at Queen's University, said understaffing is already a concern in Ontario courts, and adding more administrative burden for judges will cause inconsistencies in the way policies are applied across the province. 'It's not because anybody is acting in bad faith or trying to prevent the public from accessing the court,' she said. 'But they are people with a big workload and sometimes very high stress decisions that they need to make quickly … so any time you add to what they have to do administratively, that's tough.' A different process is still followed to allow access to virtual courts for victims and complainants. The court says they should get in touch with their local Crown attorney's office or victim witness assistance program. Jasminder Sekhon, director of community engagement, EDI and policy at Victim Services Toronto, said the court should consider updating its policies on that process to make sure it is more accessible and survivor-informed. 'Not just the victims should be able to apply, but also people should be able to apply on their behalf,' Sekhon said, adding that people who support survivors should also be considered to receive virtual access. For Linda McCurdy, a criminal defence lawyer based in Windsor, Ont., adding an extra step to prevent disruptions is a good way to preserve the integrity of the courts. 'I barely notice people in the court, but you really notice people on Zoom when they're doing stuff,' said McCurdy, adding that people tend to forget about formalities when calling in from their own homes. 'If you want to come and watch the proceedings, come to the court, come sit in the court. That's the way it's always been.' This report by The Canadian Press was first published July 25, 2025. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
Edmonton Journal
7 days ago
- Politics
- Edmonton Journal
Lowering Canada's voting age to 16 is her 'top parliamentary priority,' senator says
Article content Britain's voting age last fell in 1969, when the U.K. became one of the first major democracies to lower it from 21 to 18. Many other countries quickly followed suit; Canada lowered its voting age to 18 in 1970. Article content Several countries already have a voting age of 16, including Austria, Brazil and Ecuador. Scotland and Wales allow 16- and 17-year-olds to vote in local and regional elections. Article content Michael Wigginton, a post-doctoral fellow in political science at Carleton University, said the U.K. government's decision represents a 'fairly natural progression,' coming a decade after Scotland started allowing 16-year-olds to vote for members of the Scottish Parliament and in municipal elections. Article content 'Having that sort of local example to point to makes it easier for both politicians and the public at large to feel comfortable that the reform can work for the U.K. Parliament and not have negative effects,' said Wigginton. Article content Article content Efforts are being made across Canada to lower the voting age. Article content In 2021, young Canadians filed an application at the Ontario Superior Court of Justice to challenge the voting age, arguing that the Canada Elections Act is in violation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and is unconstitutional. Article content Toronto recently passed a motion allowing 16 and 17-year-olds to vote in polls at the neighbourhood level on planning and policy issues. And a provincial committee looking at ways to boost democratic engagement in B.C. is examining a lower voting age. Article content Wigginton said that while he doesn't expect Canada to immediately adopt a voting age of 16, having the U.K. as an example will 'definitely push the issue into the spotlight more and increase the chances of it happening it the future.' Article content 'What I see is most likely is that one or more provinces will adopt a lower voting age first and then the federal government may eventually follow suit,' he said.
Hamilton Spectator
21-07-2025
- Politics
- Hamilton Spectator
First Nations launch legal challenge against Ontario, federal bills 5 and C-5
TORONTO - Nine First Nations in Ontario are asking a court to declare a pair of federal and provincial laws meant to fast-track infrastructure projects unconstitutional and are seeking an injunction that would prevent the governments from using some of the most contentious aspects. The Indigenous communities say in the legal challenge filed in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice that the federal law known as Bill C-5 and the Ontario law known as Bill 5 both represent a 'clear and present danger' to the First Nations' self-determination rights to ways of life on their territories. 'While the laws do leave open or commit that there will be some First Nation consultation at the very first in that decision alone is a smoke and mirrors trick, deflecting attention from all the other ways the laws necessarily diminish the ability of First Nations to engage on the regimes' broader consequences,' they write in the court challenge. Bill C-5 allows cabinet to quickly grant federal approvals for big projects deemed to be in the national interest such as mines, ports and pipelines by sidestepping existing laws, while Ontario's bill allows its cabinet to suspend provincial and municipal laws through the creation of so-called 'special economic zones.' The First Nations are asking the court for an injunction prohibiting the federal government from naming national interest projects and prohibiting Ontario from implementing special economic zones. Both the federal and Ontario governments have said their laws are tools to counteract the effects of U.S. President Donald Trump's tariffs by allowing Canadian development, such as natural resource development, to proceed more quickly. But this is not a battle of development versus no development, the First Nations argue. Rather, they advocate for 'doing it right' by ensuring that necessary information is gathered before proceeding and rights and protections are respected 'so the real costs of development do not end up far exceeding their asserted benefit.' 'Fragmentation and delay results from Crown choices and unwieldy bureaucracies, not from First Nations,' they write in the court document. 'Making changes now in some effort to 'streamline' (or ram through) projects, cannot be at the cost of First Nations, their rights, the Constitution and reconciliation.' The First Nations argue the laws are unconstitutional because they violate charter right to life, liberty and security of the person, as well as equality rights. Representatives of both governments have said they will respect the duty to consult Indigenous people, but the nine First Nations argue that rings 'hollow' because the laws authorize the opposite. Ontario has already started some consultations with First Nations who 'share our vision of unlocking economic opportunity and critical infrastructure in their community and will continue these consultations throughout the summer,' the premier's office wrote in a statement. 'We will continue to build consensus with First Nations on shared priorities including legacy infrastructure, all-season roads, and resource development, that support long-term prosperity.' One of the First Nations challenging the laws is Aroland First Nation. Premier Doug Ford used Chief Sonny Gagnon's name several times this spring in defence of Bill 5, saying some chiefs will always be anti-development but others are progressive thinkers like Chief Sonny. While Aroland has signed a shared-prosperity agreement with the province for major upgrades to roads that lead to the mineral-rich Ring of Fire in northern Ontario, Gagnon has come out against Bill 5. Aroland has never consented to mining the Ring of Fire, he said. The region is of particular importance in this case, the legal challenge says, since Ontario has said that it both wants the Ring of Fire to be a special economic zone and has asked the federal government to designate it as a nation-building project. Aroland sits outside the Ring of Fire region with access to the provincial highway system that ends near its territory. Prime Minister Mark Carney has promised to meet with First Nations this week after chiefs said their rights were not respected by a rush to push the bill through Parliament. Chief Sylvia Koostachin-Metatawabin of Attawapiskat First Nation said in a press release announcing the court challenge that their way of life is not 'a pawn in some political game.' 'Rushing headlong into major projects without knowing the costs, means the governments are playing a dangerous game with our lands and futures,' she wrote. This report by The Canadian Press was first published July 15, 2025.
