Monday, June 9, 2025, 5:00 p.m.
Room 95 / videoconference, Supreme Court of Canada
Present
Supreme Court of Canada (SCC)
- Justice Suzanne Côté (Chair)
- Justice Malcolm Rowe
- Justice Sheilah Martin
- Justice Mary T. Moreau
- Ms. Barbara Kincaid
- Me Stéphanie Bachand (via Teams)
- Me Renée Maria Tremblay
- Me Emily K. Moreau
Canadian Bar Association (CBA)
- Me Jean-Simon Schoenholz (Chair)
- Ms. Michelle C. Awad, K.C. (via Teams)
- Ms. Lauren Chu
- Mr. Bernard Letarte
- Ms. Zoe Oxaal
- Mr. Mohsen Seddigh (via Teams)
- Ms. Laurence Ste-Marie
- Me Julie Terrien
The Advocates’ Society
- Mr. Darryl Cruz (President)
Federation of Law Societies of Canada
- Ms. Teresa Donnelly (President)
- Ms. Atrisha Lewis
Regrets
- Me Chantal Carbonneau
- Mr. Daniel Byma
- Ms. Luisa Ritacca
1. Approval of the Agenda
The agenda was approved.
2. Approval of the June 11, 2024 meeting minutes
The minutes were approved.
3. Follow-up on Matters Arising from Minutes
a. Interventions – in-person vs. remote appearances
Me Ste-Marie informed the Committee that most comments from CBA members regarding practice at the Court relate to the appearance of counsel for interveners; members would like to be able to choose between appearing in-person or appearing via videoconference. They are of the view that in-person participation is seen to be “more important”, and that it would reflect a more diverse and younger bar who would welcome the opportunity to appear before the Court in person. She also noted that counsel in British Columbia who are required to appear remotely have to attend very early in the morning, due to the time difference.
Me Schoenholz added that although this was addressed at last year’s meeting, the CBA nevertheless felt an obligation to raise it again with the Court as it is the issue that is most often raised by their members. In addition, he noted that many groups do not see mandatory remote participation as something they have requested in terms of increasing access to justice.
Justice Côté expressed that the Court pays the same attention to counsel appearing remotely as it does to counsel appearing in person, and that there is concern that giving the option to appear in person will create an imbalance as not all interveners will be able to do so.
Me Letarte advised that the Minister of Justice agrees with the CBA, and that there is a perception that in-person interaction between counsel and the Court is preferable to remote appearance.
4. New Items
a. Time allocation for oral argument and scheduling
With respect to the practice of reducing the time for oral argument of each party when two or more appeals are heard together, Me Schoenholz raised a concern that there may be distinct factual contexts or legal issues that nevertheless warrant full argument time for all parties.
Ms. Kincaid responded that a recommendation for the allocation of time for oral argument is sent to the presiding judge, following a review of the matters to be heard (i.e., factums, interventions, etc.). Counsel sheets are then prepared and sent to the parties a month in advance of the hearing, which allows time for counsel to comment or to request more time for oral argument, in which case the presiding judge will determine if more time should be allotted. Counsel may also decide to share the allotted time differently between themselves; if so, they should let Registry know how they intend to allocate the time so that the presiding judge can be informed.
Justice Rowe added that it is important to determine how much time is required to discuss the general law in an appeal, and how much time is required to apply that law to the specific facts of the case. Counsel know their files best; if they feel they need more time, they should frame their request in that way and explain why more time is necessary in order to properly advocate for their client.
b. Technical issues – Court website and display of references from condensed books during hearings
Me Schoenholz informed the Committee that CBA members are happy with the Court’s new website.
Me Schoenholz asked whether it would be possible to have condensed books displayed to the Court on the screens in the Courtroom, and also to have them be visible on the webcast. Ms. Kincaid mentioned that the technology to do so was made available in 2007, but parties did not use it. Justice Rowe added that while such technology would likely be useful for a trial, it is not clear that it would add value at the Supreme Court. Justice Côté remarked that having the condensed books in electronic format with the outline in advance of the hearing is of value to the Court.
c. Access to archived hearings
All hearings held as of 2009 are available on the Court’s website. Otherwise, a request can be made for a recording (from the late 1980s–2008).
5. Varia
a. Improving access to materials on application for leave to appeal
Me Schoenholz requested that the materials on an application for leave to appeal should be made publicly available as soon as leave to appeal is granted. Ms. Kincaid responded that Registry already posts memoranda of argument shortly after leave is granted, and reminded Committee members that counsel can apply for registered access so that they can request and receive documents quickly from the Records Centre.
b. Diversity of law clerks and of counsel appearing before the Court
Ms. Lewis asked whether the Court would consider making a statement encouraging junior counsel to make submissions before the Court, as was done by the Ontario Court of Appeal. Justice Martin responded that while she is not opposed to considering such a request, it may be easier for a provincial appellate court to make a statement to that effect as they have more cases which involve a greater number of issues, such that oral argument before those courts is more “divisible”. Justice Côté added that law firms also have a role to play in encouraging and promoting their young lawyers and lawyers issued from diversity.
Ms. Lewis also inquired as to whether the Court would be open to receiving reference letters from diversity organizations in support of candidates applying for a clerkship at the Court. Ms. Lewis suggested that the organizations could review applications from members of their communities and select the top candidates for whom they would then write reference letters. Justice Martin answered that the Court is open to suggestions that would improve the law clerk selection process, and suggested that a proposal could be sent to the Admissions Committee to explain how these types of reference letters will add value to the recruitment process. Justice Rowe expressed that he would welcome a letter from a group that supports a candidate’s statement that their belonging to a particular community will contribute in a positive way to the work of the Court, as part of the candidate’s application package.
c. Interventions – Notice to the profession
Ms. Chu observed that the last Notice to the Profession on interventions was issued four years ago, and asked whether the Court has any feedback to ensure counsel are being efficient in their use of their time for oral argument. She also advised that if the Court would like to participate in another webinar on interventions, the CBA would be happy to facilitate. Justice Côté responded that the process for interventions will not change (i.e., the Court will not return to a two-step process for granting leave to intervene and time for oral argument), and that the Court is not considering holding another webinar at this time.
6. End of Meeting
The meeting was adjourned at 6:00 p.m., followed by a dinner in the Judges’ Dining Room.