Even More on Virtual Hearings

Two recent decisions on virtual hearings are worth noting.

First, in his capacity as an arbitrator, James T Casey recently addressed the issue in Northern Lakes Regional College v. Faculty Association of Northern Lakes Regional College, 2024 CanLII 42577. After canvassing the arbitral jurisprudence, Mr Casey proposes a useful analytical framework:

1.    Preference of the parties: Do the employer, union and the grievor prefer an in-person or virtual hearing and what is the rationale for their preference?  When there is an individual grievor, the grievor’s wishes are to be given significant weight since it is their rights and interests that are primarily at stake. However, I would not go so far as to recognize the grievor’s wishes as being determinative when the other factors are equally balanced because the employer also has legitimate interests that need to be weighed. The preferences of all parties need to be considered.

2.    Cost: In-person hearings typically require a hotel hearing room to be booked. Depending on the location of the hearing, the arbitrator, counsel and witnesses may need to travel incurring further expenses. How much are the anticipated cost savings if the hearing proceeds virtually rather than in-person?
3.    Time and convenience: If the hearing proceeds in-person, how disruptive will this be to counsel, the parties and witnesses? How far would counsel, the parties, and the witnesses have to travel and how much time would be required?
4.    Hybrid hearings: If certain witnesses would have to travel considerable distances to attend an in- person hearing, is the optimal solution a hybrid hearing? In other words, should the hearing be held in-person with certain witnesses being permitted to testify on a virtual platform?
5.    Nature of the evidence: Will evidence be presented through an Agreed Statement of Facts or will viva voce evidence be required? Proceeding by way of an Agreed Statement of Facts makes a virtual hearing quite simple However, the fact that viva voce evidence will be presented is not a sufficient reason in and of itself to deny a virtual hearing. All the factors must be weighed.
6.    Documentary evidence: Will this be a document-intensive case? Cases with a high volume of documents can be successfully managed in a virtual hearing especially with the advantages of multiple screens but advance work and careful management of documents by counsel is required to ensure a smooth virtual hearing. Is there a sound plan that can be put into place to manage the documents? Will there be a bookmarked PDF of agreed upon documents? How will documents be presented to witnesses? Will witnesses be provided with an electronic copy of the documents or a hard copy or will counsel show the documents by sharing their screen during the hearing?
7.    Access to appropriate technology: This is essential to being able to hold an effective virtual hearing. Do all the participants have access to: screens of an appropriate size such as a laptop; a quiet, well-lit, private location to attend a virtual hearing; and hard-wired access to the internet or, alternatively, a strong and reliable Wi-Fi signal? If a participant does not have access to appropriate technology, can the matter be addressed by, for example, having them attend the employer’s or union’s premises and using a laptop at that location?
8.    Other factors that may be relevant given the particular circumstances of the case.

In this case, the balance of convenience favoured a virtual hearing — Mr Casey’s analysis is well worth reading.

Second, long-time reader Me André Johnson notes a recent decision from the Quebec Court of Appeal refusing permission to appeal, Harvey c. Conseil de discipline du Barreau du Québec, 2024 QCCA 912.

H is involved in a long-running battle with the provincial law society. The Conseil is gearing up to hold a sanctions hearing. H insisted that it should be held in person. In an omnibus decision dealing with various procedural issues, the Conseil took a different view:

[110] L’intimé propose que certaines audiences soient tenues en présentiel au motif que des témoins pourraient lui être hostiles. Un tel argument ne justifie pas la tenue des audiences en présentiel, d’autant plus qu’un bon nombre de témoins ont déjà été interrogés par l’intimé sur une plateforme électronique alors qu’il cherchait à démontrer des manœuvres frauduleuses de leur part. En ce sens, qu’à ce stade l’intimé propose que certaines audiences soient tenues en présentiel n’apparait ni efficace, ni justifié, ni dans l’intérêt de la justice. Pour ces motifs, le Conseil a rejeté cette demande de l’intimé.

H judicially reviewed this decision and sought injunctive relief in superior court. This was denied, as was his application for leave to appeal.

Cotnam JA explained that there was no basis for setting aside the first-instance’s judges conclusions on the appropriateness of injunctive relief, especially because the decision was expressed to be preliminary and provisional, leaving open the possibility that the Conseil would ultimately hold hearings in person:

Je suis d’avis que la demande de permission d’appeler doit être rejetée.

La décision d’ordonner ou non un sursis est hautement discrétionnaire. Le requérant ne pointe aucune erreur dans la décision rendue par la Cour supérieure et ne me convainc pas que la poursuite des audiences en mode virtuel lui causera un préjudice irrémédiable dans la mesure où, tel que le mentionne la juge de première instance, il lui sera loisible, s’il estime qu’un témoin entendu en mode virtuel lui est hostile, de demander au Conseil que son témoignage se déroule en présentiel. Il aura alors l’occasion d’expliquer les raisons précises qui motivent ses craintes et d’exposer ses arguments à l’encontre de la poursuite de l’audience virtuelle.

This content has been updated on July 30, 2024 at 20:09.