Federal Courts Bench and Bar Committee Meeting Minutes: May 30, 2025

Meeting of Federal Court with CBA

Attendance:

for the Federal Court: Chief Justice Crampton, Associate Chief Justice St-Louis, Justice Fothergill, Justice Southcott, Justice Furlanetto, Justice Blackhawk

for the CBA/Department of Justice: John Myers for Jordana Sanft (Chair), Chelsea Nimmo, Colleen Bauman, Keltie Lambert, Nalini Reddy, Julie Terrien, Mark Tonkovich, Vera Toppings, Catherine Lawrence

for CAS: Darlene Carreau, Mylène Tremblay, Martin Béliveau, Justine Drouin, Caroline Perrier, Dominique Henrie

Regrets: Justice Norris, Associate Judge Moore, Sarah Miller

1. Opening Remarks

Chief Justice (CJ) Crampton welcomed participants and recognized the addition of Vera Toppings as the representative for the Class Actions section.

2. Adoption of Agenda & Minutes

An update item from the bar was added for the Class Actions section. Items 7 and 2 will be dealt with together.

Minutes should be correcting Mr. Afzali’s name. With that change, the agenda and minutes were adopted.

3. Follow-up items from last meeting
   1. Declarations re : use of artificial intelligence (AI)
      Despite widespread use of AI in legal practice, confirmed by over half of attendees at a recent immigration meeting indicating they use it, very few formal declarations have been made (only 4–5 at last check) pursuant to the Notice to the Parties and the Profession entitled The Use of Artificial Intelligence in Court Proceedings. This discrepancy raises concerns, especially in light of recent cases like Associate Judge Moore’s, where fabricated case law was submitted, echoing similar incidents in BC and Ontario. The decision underscored the intersection of professional obligations under Law Society rules and court expectations. While previous consultations (e.g., with the IP Bar in Fall 2023) led to pushback against requiring senior counsel sign-off, Ontario courts are now mandating it, with potential cost consequences for non-disclosure of AI use. Counsel are being put on notice and the failure to declare AI use may result in possible sanctions.
   2. Study Permit Pilot
      The Study Permit Pilot is being paused for evaluation, though it showed promising efficiencies, especially from the Civil Litigation Section’s perspective. A new streamlined hearing process for study permits, work permits, and temporary resident visas is being introduced, featuring shorter hearings, reduced page limits for written submissions, and faster decisions. Participation in the pilot has declined due to the departure of a key contributor, with recent stats showing ~90% of cases dismissed at leave, ~34% opted out, and ~28% opted in. Remaining cases were settled or discontinued, though reasons are not yet tracked.

4. Federal Court update
   1. Update from the Chief Justice
      1. Workload and scheduling – CJ Crampton presented workload and scheduling statistics, noting a sharp rise in immigration files—from an annual average of 6,000 for the five  years preceding COVID to a projected 32,000 this year—plus 3,000 non-immigration files, totaling around 35,000. Despite this growth, judicial resources remain unchanged. Other areas like non-immigration judicial reviews, class actions, national security, Aboriginal law, and citizenship are also increasing, prompting the Court to explore new ways to manage caseloads and reduce backlogs.
      2. Budget impacts and challenges – The Court continues to face serious financial and operational pressures. Despite advocacy from CBA and IPIC, and increased funding to IRCC and CBSA in Budget 2024, the Court received no additional support. Translation costs, unfunded IT needs, and the expiry of asylum-related funding have strained resources. Term staff, mainly in the registry, were let go, leading to service delays and suspension of the 48-hour document turnaround service standard. Some modernization efforts have been paused, and the Court has requested that “urgent” tags be used only for cases requiring urgent hearings. Proof of service entries are also being streamlined to ease registry workload.
      3. Translation delays – The Court is using neural translation tools to speed up translation, with systems tailored for immigration and general files. While highly accurate, human review remains essential to catch critical errors. These tools support faster decision-making amid rising workloads. To manage this, the Court is shifting to shorter hearings and encourage shorter rulings. Concerns were raised about whether the Court should be reviewing minor executive decisions. It has been suggested that an intermediate review mechanism would improve system-wide efficiency.
      4. Update to the Consolidated Practice Guidelines – A consultation was launched on amendments to the Consolidated General Practice Guidelines. The changes are relatively minor, so the consultation period will be limited, with the goal of finalizing and releasing the document before summer. In parallel, we will soon launch a similar process for the Consolidated Immigration Guidelines, which have already undergone extensive consultation with the Immigration Bar, including a dedicated session held 3-4 weeks ago. Those guidelines contain more significant changes.
      5. The Court’s complement – Appointment of Justice Duchesne, formerly an Associate Judge, and Justice Saint-Fleur. In terms of departures, Justice Elliott retired on June 1, 2024 and Justice Pamel was appointed to the Federal Court of Appeal on September 1, 2024.
      6. Electronic access to Court records – The current financial situation is unfortunately putting the expansion of this pilot project on hold.
      7. Technology in the courtrooms – Information available in the presentation.
      8. 2026-2030 Strategic Plan – The Court is currently reviewing the comments received. The release of the Plan is targeted for December 2025.
   2. Discussion of additional potential initiatives to streamline the Court’s determination of matters
      This item was covered with the Study Permit Pilot Project.

5. CBA Sections & Other Items
   1. Addressing Delays in Receiving Judgments from Associate Judges on Procedural Matters in Judicial Review Cases
      Chelsea Nimmo asked what the best way addressing this would be. Justine Drouin mentioned that parties can address a letter to the Judicial Administrator through the e-Filing portal.
   2. Improving the Appointment Process for Case Management Judges in Complex Judicial Review Proceedings
      Item (g) was also addressed. Colleen Bowman cited a case where the appointment of a case management judge for a complex matter took six months. Justine Drouin explained the two-stage assignment process and noted that appointments are typically made within 2–3 weeks. Chief Justice Crampton asked counsel to flag any special circumstances or unusual delays. A member suggested adding a checkbox to the e-Filing portal to indicate when case management is requested. CJ Crampton supported incorporating a formal process into the Consolidated Guidelines.
   3. Enhancing Efficiency in Issuing Consent Scheduling Orders and Approving Consent Matters
      A better system is needed to track non-case-managed matters, such as Rule 369 applications, where visibility is limited. Currently, counsel typically sends a letter to the judicial administrator to follow up, but suggestions from the Court are welcome. Chief Justice Crampton and the Associate Chief Justice’s office emphasized the importance of knowing who has these files, how long they’ve had them, and whether delays are reasonable.
   4. Reliability of the Online Filing System
      Nalini Reddy reported that practitioners have raised concerns about the reliability of the online filing system, which they perceive to have become increasingly glitchy in recent months. Issues include failed uploads, document size limits, and delays caused by users re-clicking during submission, interrupting the process. This is attributable to the fact that the system lacks a visual indicator that it's processing. An update is expected in the fall. While most filings are received successfully, users are urged to be patient and avoid email submissions unless directed by the Court. The registry’s limited capacity also makes timely support difficult. These issues affect not only immigration filings but also judicial review materials.
   5. Update on Registry Staffing and Resource Challenges
      Practitioners in Winnipeg have raised concerns about registry staffing and online filing challenges. With no consistent counter presence and long wait times, it's difficult to get timely support, especially when filing deadlines are at risk. Most e-filings are handled in Ottawa, and calls to Winnipeg are redirected there, adding to the burden. The registry is facing a growing backlog, now exceeding 7,000 documents, with limited staffing and outdated infrastructure. A national e-filing model is being explored to improve efficiency, and while regional offices remain essential, modernization and staffing solutions are urgently needed.
   6. Searchability of High-Volume Copyright Cases
      Practitioners have raised concerns about the searchability and usability of multi-defendant copyright cases, particularly those involving large volumes of John/Jane Doe defendants and Norwich orders. The current system makes it difficult to identify and track parties as they transition from numbered to named defendants, creating challenges for defense counsel. The Court acknowledged system limitations and indexing backlogs due to outdated infrastructure, and noted that improvements to navigability are being explored as part of broader modernization efforts.
   7. Procedure for Opposed Case Management Requests
      Dealt with in b)
   8. Aboriginal Law – Keltie Lambert
      Justice Blackhawk reported that the liaison committee, which had slowed during COVID, is being reactivated. Justice Favel and others have restarted the subcommittee on scope and costing, with a Phase 1 report expected soon. Efforts are underway to coordinate a full committee meeting alongside the Indigenous Bar Association’s fall conference in Vancouver (October 15-18), with plans to involve CBA and DOJ partners. Additionally, concerns were raised about intra-band disputes, where some counsel are unfamiliar with court practices and underutilize mediation. Encouraging greater use of mediation could help resolve governance issues more efficiently and reduce strain on communities.
   1. Immigration Law – Nalini Reddy
      Nalini Reddy referred to inconsistent filings for members of the same family. Caroline Perrier presented the proposed addition to the Immigration Consolidated Guidelines.
   10. Tax Law – Mark Tonkovich
       The tax litigation bar has ongoing concerns about the jurisdictional divide between the Federal Court and the Tax Court in income tax matters, particularly following the Supreme Court’s decision in Dow Chemical and a related Tax Court ruling. However, no further issues were raised beyond this observation. CJ Crampton indicated that while the Federal Court handles administrative law and the Tax Court focuses on statutory interpretation, some practitioners would prefer a unified forum. Past efforts to shift all matters to the Tax Court were unsuccessful, and many in the tax bar still support keeping judicial review within the Federal Court. Despite continued grumbling, there’s resistance to change, and no consensus on a solution.
   11. Intellectual Property – Chelsea Nimmo
       Chelsea Nimmo inquired about when the AI declaration is required in court filings. The current guidance, as outlined in the practice direction and supported by Justice Diner’s video, indicates that a declaration is needed when AI is used to create or generate legal submissions, particularly in drafting paragraphs that make representations about evidence or case law. While the Court emphasized that such declarations are not viewed negatively, the evolving nature of AI use continues to blur boundaries, prompting ongoing questions. Firms are also implementing internal protocols to track AI use in research and drafting, reinforcing the need for transparency and checks and balances.
   12. Administrative, Human Rights, Labour, and Constitutional Law – Colleen Bauman
       No update.
   13. Class Actions – Vera Toppings
       No new class action issues were raised beyond previously discussed topics. One current focus is improving post-settlement administration, to reduce the burden on the Court and encourage more efficient handling by counsel. The class actions Bench-Bar Committee is actively working on this. While the Global Review of the Rules is ongoing, the class actions bar generally supports the current rules and sees no strong need for major changes. Concerns were noted about settlement agreements that create ongoing judicial oversight, which can strain Court resources. The Court encourages the bar to carefully consider the scope of judicial involvement when drafting settlements.
   14. Department of Justice – Catherine Lawrence
       1. Using application or motion confirmation forms to confirm a hearing will proceed
          This tool exists for General Sittings. It could be helpful, however an assessment would need to be made to see the impact on the registry and Judicial Administrator office.
       2. Delays in service of originating documents on the Crown from the Federal Court Registry
          Addressed in the Consolidated General Practice Guidelines (paragraph 31).

Meeting of Federal Court of Appeal & Federal Court with CBA

1. Adoption of Agenda & Minutes

2. Update from the Chief Administrator of the Courts Administration Service (Darlene Carreau)

The Courts Administration Service (CAS) is facing persistent and compounding financial pressures due to funding that has not kept pace with its expanding legal obligations and operational demands. Despite a sharp increase in Federal Court cases and cybersecurity risks, CAS has received little to no additional funding, forcing reliance on temporary solutions and internal reallocations.

Key impacts include:

• A 10% operating budget cut and spending freezes across staffing, training, travel, and consulting.
• Inability to balance last year’s budget without borrowing from facilities funding.
• Forecasted deficits for the current and next two fiscal years.
• Layoffs of term and indeterminate employees, with efforts to minimize impact on court operations and staff morale.

CAS continues to prioritize access to justice and staff well-being, while advancing digital modernization. A new Digital Strategy—endorsed by the courts—will guide future investments in technology. Modest funding has enabled initial upgrades to case management systems and expansion of e-courts, but broader modernization remains constrained.

Regarding the Official Languages Act, key items to consider:

• Existing budget has focused on AI and translating high-value decisions.
• Backlog of untranslated decisions is growing (currently 2,400; projected to reach 3,000).
• Current funding is temporary and will expire in 2 years.
• Without permanent funding, service levels may decline.
• A new Minister and government present an opportunity to advocate for sustainable funding.
• The team is actively engaging with leadership despite broader fiscal constraints.

While the path forward is challenging due to broader fiscal constraints across government, efforts are underway to secure long-term funding. Continued support from the Bar remains critical and appreciated.

3. Follow-up Items from last meeting
   1. Residency of Judges and Amendment to the Federal Courts Act
      Julie Terrien updated the committee that the CBA has previously expressed to the former Minister of Justice their willingness to participate as stakeholders and members of the support team in negotiations regarding the residence requirement of the Federal Court and the Tax Court. They intend to convey the same message to the new Minister, reaffirming their continued engagement and support.

4. Joint Items for Federal Court of Appeal & Federal Court
   Justice Fothergill provided an update on the Rules’ Global Review:
   • A draft interim report was submitted to the Rules Committee ~8 weeks ago.
   • Feedback was positive, especially on widely supported initiatives; some had mixed support.
   • Final report is expected by October.
   • Recommendations are modest, not radical—Federal Courts Rules are seen as effective.
   • Focus is on technological updates: electronic filing/service and future-proofing rules.
   • Ontario’s reforms are being watched with interest but differ in scope.
   • Final report will be published after Rules Committee review, with prioritization of proposals to guide implementation.
   Justice Laskin provided an update on the Rules Committee:
   The Rules Committee is working on two key areas: revising cost rules and updating Rules 317 and 318. There is moderate dissatisfaction with the current cost Tariff, and the committee is exploring new approaches, including revised columns. Drafting work on Rules 317 and 318 is underway, with changes aimed at improving access to tribunal records for future reviews.
   Justice Furlanetto highlighted that regarding costs:
   • There will be an approximate 25% increase in certain tariff items.
   • The tariff structure is being reorganized into four separate tables:
     • Actions
     • Applications
     • Appeals
     • Motions
   • New proceedings are being added that were not previously included.
   • The goal is to make the tariffs easier to use and more comprehensive.
   • These changes aim to bring the tariffs closer to current realities and improve overall usability.

5. Joint Items for CBA
   No items were raised

6. Joint Items for the Department of Justice
   1. Advance notice of issuance of reserved decisions
      Catherine Lawrence conveyed the Department of Justice’s appreciation of receiving advance notice of rulings, noting that it is very helpful. They would welcome insight into the criteria judges use to decide when such notice is given. Additionally, they inquired if the Courts are open to counsel making submissions at the end of a hearing regarding the potential benefit of advance notice.
      Chief Justice de Montigny shared that he recently participated in a case where counsel for the Department requested advance notice of the decision—specifically, two days. The Court is open to accommodating this request on an ad hoc basis. However, making this a general rule would require further consideration due to potential logistical challenges.
      Chief Justice Crampton echoed Chief Justice de Montigny’s willingness to accommodate these requests.

7. Next Meeting

Meeting of Federal Court of Appeal with CBA

1. Opening Remarks
2. Update from the Federal Court of Appeal
   1. Court Operations
      Caseload Overview
      • The Federal Court of Appeal has not experienced a surge in the number of files similar to the Federal Court, largely due to the nature of its jurisdiction.
      • Overall caseload is stable, with only a slight increase in open cases over the past three years.
      • Appeals from the Federal Court and judicial review applications continue to represent the vast majority of cases heard.
      • No change in the types of cases being processed.

      Operational Efficiency

      • 80% of appeals are ready to be heard in the Court’s four main locations: Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver, and Ottawa.
      • 60% of cases are scheduled within 6 months of filing; 85% within 9 months.
      • Approximately 40% of cases are decided from the bench, immediately following the hearing—indicating strong post-hearing efficiency.
   2. Changes to the composition of the Court
      Judicial Composition
      • Justice Boivin will retire at the end of September and Justice Woods will retire in December, representing a significant loss to the Court.
      • A replacement is expected in the fall.
      • The Court currently benefits from four supernumerary judges and hopes to retain the remaining three for the foreseeable future.
   3. Update to the Consolidated Practice Direction
      Courtney West provided the following update:
      The Court is aiming to update the Consolidated Practice Direction (CPD) approximately once a year. However, this timeline is flexible and ultimately at the discretion of the Chief Justice, as the CPD is his document.

      For the upcoming update, tentatively scheduled for end of June 2025, the Court is considering a few minor but substantive changes:

      • Accessibility Requests: The update may include a brief instruction on how parties can request accessibility measures for hearings.
      • Proof of Service Simplification: The update may introduce an option that may simplify the process of proving service in certain circumstances.
        • Registry Efficiency: To reduce workload for the Registry, parties will be asked to file proof of service attached to the related document in the same PDF. This change significantly reduces the number of transactions required in our aging system and improves overall efficiency.
      • Citation Style: The update may clarify the Court’s instructions regarding citation formatting.
      • Typos: A few minor typographical errors have been identified and will be corrected.
      These updates are intended to improve clarity, streamline processes, and support the Registry’s operations without introducing major changes.
      Justice Stratas invited the members of the Bar and Justice to submit suggestions by/at the next meeting
      Catherine Lawrence suggested the following proposed change:
      The request is to formalize the informal practice of submitting unopposed procedural requests (e.g., amendments or scheduling changes) by letter instead of motion. Currently, there's uncertainty about whether such letters will be accepted, and formalizing this process in the next Consolidated Practice Direction would improve clarity and efficiency for legal practitioners.
      Justice Stratas encouraged submitting the proposal but shared his concern that when a practice direction is issued regarding informal addressing of the court, it can unintentionally create points of contention. Disputes may arise between parties, including self-represented litigants, who sometimes misuse informal procedures to avoid submitting formal materials like affidavits.
      In his experience, those who engage in informal communication with the court are typically repeat users—individuals familiar with the Court’s processes. They generally understand what can be appropriately handled informally. However, regulating informal practices too strictly can sometimes lead to unintended complications.
      Chief Justice de Montigny indicated that the Court would welcome input from the Bar and Department of Justice on this matter—particularly regarding which issues could reasonably be addressed through informal means, and what constitutes appropriate use of informal processes.
   4. Scheduling of appeals before the Federal Court of Appeal
      Christine Norrena provided the following update:
      This is in response to the concerns raised by the CBA at the last meeting regarding scheduling practices.
      • While parties are required to provide 90 days of availability when submitting a requisition, counsel have been offering availability beyond that timeframe. This additional information can be helpful to the Court in planning and scheduling.
      • Beginning this fall, the Court will shift its scheduling approach to six-month planning increments, rather than planning one season at a time.
      • Counsel are encouraged to consult the proposed sitting dates available on the Court’s website and align their availability accordingly for each location.
      • Please note that availability provided for a location outside of the Court’s proposed sitting dates is unlikely to be accommodated.
      Chief Justice de Montigny encouraged members of the Bar to provide as many available dates as possible to minimize back-and-forth communication with the Judicial Administrator’s office. He also raised concerns about delays caused by counsel not responding promptly to scheduling requests, which slows down the overall process.
      There was a brief discussion on modernization, including the potential implementation of a self-scheduling tool. The Court expressed openness to the idea, while noting that logistical challenges and limited resources would need to be carefully considered.
   5. Report about the Registry and update on Rule 74 pilot project
      Justice Stratas reported:
      Registry committee
      • The Registry Committee, active for four years, facilitates communication between judges and Registry staff to resolve issues and improve operations.
      • François Desrosiers and Marie-Josée Lanctot were recognized for their innovative contributions to Registry efficiency.
      • The committee meets six times annually and welcomes suggestions for improving Registry services.
      • A recurring issue involves parties misfiling urgent matters electronically, causing delays. The correct portal must be used to avoid prejudice.

      Rule 74 Pilot Project

      • The Rule 74 Pilot Project consists of three judges from the Registry Committee who review every originating document filed in the Court on a weekly basis. This includes notices of appeal and applications.
      • Judges complete these reviews to identify cases that are clearly doomed to fail.
      • Judges may offer guidance to self-represented litigants to improve access to justice.
      • Some cases are stopped early, saving resources and improving system efficiency.
      • The pilot will continue for another six months due to its positive impact.
      Chief Justice de Montigny added that the Court will reassess the pilot project in a year to determine whether it should be continued. So far, the initiative has proven highly beneficial—it's making it easier for judges and litigants to engage with the Court, which is a positive outcome for all involved.
   6. Professional development of judges
      Justice Stratas provided a brief overview on the professional development of judges:
      The Court is currently composed of a high number of recently appointed judges, many with less than four years of appellate experience. To support their development, the Court has implemented initiatives such as panel chairing sessions, motion efficiency strategies, educational retreats, and lunch & learns. These efforts aim to accelerate the learning curve, foster collaboration, and ensure consistent, high-quality decision-making despite the challenges of an itinerant structure and the transition from trial to appellate work.

3. CBA National Sections & DOJ Updates
   1. Aboriginal Law / Droit autochtone - Keltie Lambert
      No new updates for the Court, however, she noted that counsel and litigants from remote and isolated areas have expressed appreciation for the Court’s flexibility in offering remote or hybrid hearings.
   2. Immigration Law / Droit de l’immigration - Nalini Reddy
      No new updates for the Court
   3. Administrative, Human Rights, Labour, and Constitutional Law / Droit administratif, droit de la personne, droit de travail, et droit constitutionnel - Colleen Bauman
      No new updates for the Court, however, she highlighted that that there are active and ongoing discussions within the legal community regarding the adoption of AI—both in terms of how it's being integrated into law firms and the emergence of new technologies more broadly.
   4. Tax Law / Droit fiscal - Mark Tonkovich
      No new updates for the Court
   5. Intellectual Property / Propriété intellectuelle – John Myers
      No new updates for the Court, however, he highlighted that several interesting issues were discussed at the recent IP Town Hall. He suggested that Justice Locke could share the issues raised at one other Court’s lunch and learns or education seminars.
      He introduced Vera Toppings, representing Class Action, who had no new updates for the Court but expressed sincere appreciation for the opportunity to attend the meeting.
   6. Department of Justice / Ministère de la Justice - Catherine Lawrence
      No new updates for the Court

4. Closing Remarks / Mot de clôture