JUSTICE BY ZOOM: WHY TORONTO’S NEW “IN-PERSON” COURT DIRECTIVE IS WRONG FOR FAMILIES AND MUST BE REVERSED

The author argues that Toronto’s new “short‑family‑law‑motions‑must‑be‑in‑person” directive is not a neutral scheduling change but a significant setback for access to justice, imposed without consultation or evidence. The author contends that the province — not the judges acting in secret — should decide when family‑law hearings are virtual and when they are in‑person. Ontario needs common, transparent province-wide standards enshrined in the Family Law Rules, rather than a patchwork of regional directives that quietly make justice more expensive and harder to reach.

Toronto’s new “short-family‑law-motions-must-be-in-person” directive is not just a scheduling change — it is a silent power grab over how Ontarians access justice. The province, not the Superior Court of Justice acting in private, should mandate standards for when family law hearings are virtual and when they are in person. And those rules should be made in the open, through consultation and evidence, not by judges’ announcements behind closed doors.

The Directive

On February 9, 2026, the Superior Court of Justice (SCJ) in Toronto quietly issued a directive –   starting April 2^nd, all short family law motions (under 60 minutes), will be heard in person, unless the court orders otherwise.

The full directive can be found here.

On the surface, this may seem like a minor administrative matter. It is not. This is a significant and troubling step backward for access to justice in Ontario — and it was likely taken without any consultation with the system stakeholders: eg. the bar, Legal Aid Ontario, parents’ organizations, etc.

What the Directive Actually Says

The directive imposes a presumption of in-person attendance for Toronto short family motions. To get a virtual hearing, a party must:

• Make a request to a conference judge or scheduling judge;
• File a formal “Request for Virtual Hearing” form through the Ontario Courts Public Portal;
• Copy all parties on a supporting email;
• Make the request at the earliest opportunity — requests made within two weeks of the scheduled date will not even be considered; and
• Demonstrate “clear and compelling reasons” to justify a virtual hearing.

Read that last requirement again. Clear and compelling reasons. This is a high threshold — the kind of threshold we typically reserve for extraordinary relief. It has now been imposed on ordinary Ontarians who simply want to attend their own family court hearing from their workplace or home, — without having to travel to downtown Toronto, pay for parking, lose a day of work, and pay their lawyer for hours of travel and waiting time.

The Wedge

Make no mistake: What starts at the SCJ in Toronto will not stay in Toronto.

If this directive stands unchallenged, we can expect:

• Similar directives to spread to other regions of Ontario;
• A gradual but systematic dismantling of the access-to-justice gains made during and after the COVID-19 pandemic;
• Pressure to roll back virtual hearings in other court streams beyond family law.

The pandemic forced our courts — reluctantly, in many cases — to embrace technology. What followed was a revelation. Virtual hearings actually worked!

• They worked for lawyers.
• They worked for litigants.
• They worked for judges.
• Costs came down.
• Geographic barriers dissolved.

Parents in Thunder Bay could attend hearings without flying to Toronto. A single mother working two jobs could attend a motion on her lunch break. A survivor of family violence could participate in proceedings without sitting in the same waiting room as her abuser.

All of that is now at risk.

The Real Cost to Real People

Let’s be direct about what this further retreat from virtual hearings means in practical terms for ordinary Ontario families:

1. Higher Legal Fees

When lawyers appear in person, clients pay for:

• Travel time — often billed at full or partial hourly rates;
• Wait time — family motions courts are notoriously unpredictable; lawyers routinely wait 1-3 hours or even longer before their matter is called;
• Preparation time specific to in-person logistics.

A motion that costs $1,500 virtually could easily cost up to $4,500 or more in person once travel and wait time are factored in. For middle-income families — who are too wealthy to qualify for Legal Aid but too financially stretched to absorb escalating legal costs — this is devastating.

2. Narrowed Choice of Lawyers

Toronto is a large and diverse city. Many of the best family lawyers in Ontario practice outside of the downtown core — in Mississauga, Brampton, Markham, Oakville, North York, and beyond. Virtual hearings allowed clients to retain the best lawyer for their situation, regardless of geography.

In-person hearings change that calculus. Lawyers will increasingly decline files that require repeated downtown Toronto appearances. Clients will be forced to choose lawyers based on proximity to the courthouse rather than quality and fit. This is a profound narrowing of access.

3. Lost Time and Wages

For a working parent, an in-person family court attendance is not just a legal expense — it is:

• A lost day of work;
• Childcare arrangements to be made;
• Transit or parking costs;
• Hours of stress and disruption.

Virtual hearings eliminated most of this burden. This directive along with similar measures brings it all back.

4. Impact on Vulnerable Litigants

Consider the impact on:

• Survivors of family violence,  who are forced to share physical courthouse space with their abusers;
• Litigants with disabilities,  for whom travel to a downtown courthouse presents real and significant barriers;
• Rural and remote litigants,  who may have Toronto-based matters but live hours away;
• Self-represented litigants,  who are already overwhelmed by the complexity of family court and will now face additional logistical burdens.

No Consultation — None

Given the surprise with which this February 9^th directive’s publication was met, it is fair to assume that there was no advance consultation — not with the family law bar, not with the Ontario Bar Association, not with the Family Lawyers Association, not with Legal Aid Ontario, not with advocacy groups representing litigants, and certainly not with the public whom we lawyers and judges are supposed to honourably serve.

It was, in the most literal sense, a pronouncement from on high — presumably emanating from the Chief Justice and the Regional Senior Justice — with no opportunity for input from the people most affected by it.

This is not how significant public‑policy should be made. In a functioning system, a change of this magnitude would ideally be preceded by:

• Consultation with the Law Society of Ontario and the Ontario Bar Association;
• Consultation with the various family law lawyers, paralegal groups and consumer advocacy groups;
• Consultation with law professors and academics;
• Consultation with the public generally;
• An evidence-based assessment of whether some virtual hearings are best and other in-person hearings are best – What produces higher litigant and lawyer satisfaction?

As with the various notices to the profession and practice directions that we have seen over the last few years, none of that happened. There is no published rationale. There is no data. There are simply directives that those with ostensible authority force upon the bar and the public.  This must change.  The provincial government should step up.

All this is not to say that some judges may have very valid reasons for making in person the preferred default mode.  I believe that the judges’ concerns must be heard.  Any issues that they raise should be addressed and remedied. But these issues should be addressed in the open, through a transparent, evidence‑based process, with all stakeholders encouraged to have their voices heard.  That is how good public policy develops.  The process is open and transparent.  The stakeholders address the issues. The government listens.  The government then legislates (or in this case, changes the Regulation, changes the Family Law Rules).

What the Courts Themselves Have Said About Virtual Hearings

It is worth noting that Ontario courts have repeatedly recognized the value of virtual proceedings for access to justice.

In Miller v. FSD Pharma, Inc., 2020 ONSC 3291 at paras 8 -10, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice affirmed that virtual hearings are not inherently unfair and that all parties have an equal opportunity to participate in remote proceedings. The court found no principled reason why justice could not be delivered effectively through virtual means.

See Children’s Aid Society of Algoma v. T.P., 2021 ONCJ 150 at paras 10, 26, 46, 47, 59.  The family court endorsed virtual participation where it does not affect access to justice.

These decisions and others reflect a broader judicial consensus: virtual hearings are not a compromise of justice — they are an expansion of it.

The Wrong Question

The directive frames the question backwards.

It asks: Why should this hearing be virtual?

The correct question — the access-to-justice question — is: Why should this hearing be in person?

If there is a good reason for in-person attendance, then by all means, require it. But for the vast majority of short family motions, and for other similar attendances – there is no principled reason why in-person attendance is superior to virtual attendance.

The “clear and compelling” standard inverts the proper presumption. It treats virtual hearings as an indulgence to be earned rather than a right to be exercised. It places the burden on the wrong party — on the litigant seeking access, rather than on the system seeking to restrict it.

The Legislative Solution: Amend the Family Law Rules

The courts have shown they will not self-correct on this issue. The province must act.

I call on the Government of Ontario to amend the Family Law Rules, O. Reg. 114/99 to include a provision along the following lines:

“Unless the court orders otherwise, the following attendances in family law proceedings shall be conducted by video conference or telephone conference: (a) case conferences; (b) motions; (c) procedural or scheduling attendances; and (d) consent motions. A party seeking an in-person attendance for any of the above shall demonstrate, on motion, that in-person attendance is necessary in the interests of justice.”

Such an amendment would:

1. Enshrine presumptive virtual hearings in the Rules rather than leaving them to the discretion of the Chief Justice and Regional Senior Justices;
2. Reduce costs for litigants across the system;
3. Increase access to qualified lawyers regardless of geography;
4. Protect vulnerable litigants from unnecessary exposure to courthouse environments;
5. Reduce systemic costs — fewer courtrooms needed, less administrative burden, reduced pressure on court infrastructure;
6. Reflect the reality of 21st-century legal practice; and most important of all –
7. Place responsibility for access to justice policies with the Ontario Government, rather than with unelected judges acting in secret.

Call to Action

If you are a family law lawyer, speak up. Write to the Ontario Bar Association. Write to the Family Lawyers Association. Write to your Regional Senior Justice. Write to the Attorney General. Share this post.

If you are a member of the public who has been and might in the future be impacted by family court, know that this directive (and others like it) will make justice more expensive and less accessible for you.  Let your M.P.P. know how you feel.

If you are a member of provincial parliament, I ask you to take up this issue. Speak to your cabinet colleagues and especially to the Attorney General.  Rules are regulations in Ontario law.   The cabinet has the power to amend a regulation, to amend the Family Law Rules. Make presumptive virtual hearings the law — not the exception.

The pandemic forced our courts to modernize. We must not allow that progress to be quietly reversed by secret administrative directive, without consultation, without evidence, and without accountability.

Complete this short poll to have your voice heard (courtesy of the Ad Hoc Committee): Will Mandatory In-Person Motions Help or Hurt Family Law Clients? – Fill out form

Justice delayed is justice denied. And justice that costs too much is equally denied.

Gene C. Colman was called to the Ontario bar in 1979.  He has devoted much of his practice to issues of procedural fairness.  This post reflects the author’s personal views and does not constitute legal advice.