November 30 2025 Calgary

Attendees:

I. Welcome and Approvals

Introductory Remarks

The CJ and ACJ welcomed committee members to the meeting in Calgary. MFD, as Committee Chair, also welcomed members. The committee welcomed DT, who was new to the meeting.

Review of Proposed Agenda

No objections or additions to the proposed agenda.

Approval of Minutes of December 1, 2024

The minutes of the December 1, 2024, meeting were approved. The June 2025 minutes are to be circulated.

II. What’s New at the TCC

A. Current Operations

The CJ and ACJ provided the following updates on current operations:

• The TCC has a full judicial complement of judges and associate judges taking on a regular sitting schedule as of Fall 2025. The 2026 docket reflects this full complement.
• Hearing scheduling is back on track at one year in advance thanks to the dedicated work of the Judicial Administrator’s office, with longer trials now being scheduled first for 2026.
• Additional resources have been allocated to reduce backlogs in Toronto, Vancouver, and Montreal. The TCC is also working on the 2027 docket to further reduce backlog and regional disparity.
• For Québec, if an appeal is to be heard in English with English-only witnesses and documents, a non-bilingual judge may be assigned. Parties must clearly indicate the language of the hearing, witnesses, and documents in joint applications to avoid reassignment or adjournments.
• The ACJ requested that counsel indicate as early as possible, even prior to the joint application, whether documents, witnesses and submissions are in English or French so that the appropriate judge can be assigned to case management, motions or other pre-hearing steps. The earlier this information is provided the better.
• Motion days for 2026–2027 will be discussed (see Section V.B below).
• Two pilot projects were discussed:
  • Virtual status hearings instead of in-person status hearings

    The TCC is looking at moving the bulk of their status hearings from in-person to virtual hearings with a view to having them all scheduled in blocks on specific days, rather than sprinkling them across the country by geographical location over multiple dates. The Ottawa studio courtrooms can now be used for virtual status hearings. These blocks of virtual status hearing would be scheduled once every month or so, freeing up court time for appeals, applications, and motions, and allowing Status Hearing to proceed more quickly, especially in matters originating from more remote locations. Associate judges would handle many of these hearings.

    The first virtual status hearing week will begin in March 2026. If feedback is positive, permanent virtual dates will start in Fall 2026. Complex status hearings may still be heard in person.

  • Finding ways to reduce the high rate of adjournments in informal procedure appeals

    The informal procedure adjournment rate is a concern, as requests come extremely late, wasting significant resources, namely on scheduling, file shipping, and interpreter arrangements.

    The TCC tries to over-schedule informal procedure appeals to account for adjournments, but this creates problems if no adjournments occur and all appellants appear.

    The TCC has started extending notice periods for informal procedure hearings to 60 or 90 days (from the required 30 days). However this has not significantly reduced the number of adjournment requests.

    The fact that the TCC unilaterally sets hearing dates for informal procedure appeals is likely an important factor. Self-represented appellants are often surprised by the process, and counsel or agents for represented parties are often unavailable on short notice.

    This issue will intensify if the informal procedure quantum is doubled, as the TCC estimates approximately 20% of current general procedure appeals could then fall within the informal procedure threshold.

    The TCC is exploring ways to reduce the “surprise” effect on self-represented appellants, including raising awareness about what to expect in court and obtaining buy-in for hearing dates, without replicating the general procedure joint application process. This could be done by contacting the Appellants before scheduling the hearing.

    Typically, at the time the hearing date is set, no DoJ counsel has been assigned. This will be discussed with the DoJ to determine whether they wish to participate in these administrative calls. The DoJ indicated it is exploring assigning informal cases earlier, including assigning cases to paralegals to settle informal procedure cases.

    Other suggestions made by members of the Bar for reducing the informal procedure adjournment rate included allowing appellants to state availability in the notice of appeal form, providing an FAQ on the process, and identifying pro bono resources for legal information.

• The TCC e-trial toolkit has been developed and is ready for piloting. The TCC is training registry employees and requests that counsel identify suitable appeals (complex matters with longer hearing dates and considerable documents). E-trials are available only in e-courtrooms (such as Toronto, Vancouver, Calgary and Québec City). They are in-person hearings with electronically managed evidence, not virtual hearings.
• The TCC is also working on developing a new case management file system.

B. Resignations, Appointments and Vacancies

No changes to judicial complement. Two last swearing-in-ceremonies should be done in the coming months. A few judges will be eligible to elect supernumerary status in the next 12 months.

C. Statistics and Trends / Current Inventory

Intake has decreased for informal procedure appeals and group appeals. Overall inventory is relatively stable, as general procedure appeals are taking longer to resolve and therefore remain in the inventory for a longer period.

Informal procedure appeal numbers are expected to increase with higher thresholds. Currently, 80% of all appeals deal with income tax, 18% with GST/HST, and 2% with EI, CPP, and OAS.

In 2025, the TCC received its first Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act file (suffix used by the TCC: (GGPPA)G).

D. Regional Matters / Issues

Three facilities projects were discussed:

• Ottawa: The TCC headquarters project is advancing with the important phase of construction of the two new studio courtrooms completed. Two new courtrooms are scheduled to be ready in the first quarter of 2027, after which the current courtroom will be removed.
• Montreal: The new building project with four dedicated TCC courtrooms is on track for completion in March 2027. The current operations in the building at 30 McGill will be gradually shut down, with a reduced sitting schedule while a transition occurs between the two sites.
• Oakville: Following the closure of the Hamilton office, the TCC has been sitting in hotels with reduced sittings and resulting backlogs. The new Oakville space, which will include two courtrooms and a studio courtroom, is expected to be completed in late 2026 and available in 2027.

III. Courts Administration Office

A. Update from CAS

• Financial situation and risk

  CAS financial situation remains critical. CAS funding has not kept pace with new legal requirements, resulting in a deficit funded by debt that must be repaid in 2028 and 2029.

  There is a slowdown in spending in key investments as part of the broader economic context. CAS was exempt from the comprehensive expenditure review (CER) requiring 15% cost savings over three years, due to concerns about judicial independence and access to justice. CAS thanked the CBA for their representations on this point.

  CAS will leverage new technologies and realign resources for maximum impact.

  A key priority is ensuring efficiency and effectiveness of the court registry across all four federal courts (TCC, FC, FCA, Court Martial Appeal Court of Canada).

  CAS is expecting to balance the books but there remains an underlying structural deficit.

• Update on Key Priorities

  Key priorities include:

  • People: Investing in employees through training, mobility, leadership, and a culture of care.
  • Digital: Steady progress across the four courts. CAS launched a digital strategy endorsed by all courts, with the TCC piloting digital courts modernization (DCM). CAS is also exploring cloud services and e-pay systems.
  • Facilities: The Montreal facility will be ready by March 2027. Consultations on courtroom design (counsel tables, podiums, physical and digital infrastructure) are open, with feedback requested by December 15.
• Official Languages Act

  CAS is exploring AI tools for translation, complementary to human review. Only partial temporary funding was received, so CAS is prioritizing decisions where the proceedings were held wholly or partially in both official languages, decisions of general public interest or importance and decisions that have precedential value for translation. There is up to 18 months of backlog (approximately 200 decisions). Without additional funding, further backlog is expected.

IV. TCC Rules Committee

The TCC Rules committee met on September 12, 2025.

Two items were discussed:

• Approved amendments to the General Procedure Rules

  Legislative drafts received comments and further amendments were approved. The TCC is working on publication in the Canada Gazette.

• Consolidation and amendment of informal procedure rules

  Six separate sets of informal procedure rules are being considered for consolidation into two sets: one for CPP/EI and one for all other matters including income tax/GST. The purpose is to simplify the rules for self-represented taxpayers and agents, who comprise 80% of informal procedure appeals.

V. Issues Raised by Justice Canada

A. Communications from the TCC

The DoJ raised concerns about isolated instances where time-sensitive communications (e.g., settlement conference dates, scheduling orders) were sent by mail rather than electronically, or not sent at all.

The DoJ requested that the registry provide electronic communication of all orders.

B. Recurring dedicated motion days

The DoJ expressed support for motion days.

The TCC confirmed that motion days will be reintroduced, adding that the 2026 docket is already mostly full:

• Toronto: Motion days may be ready to return as soon as November 2026, every Thursday.
• Vancouver and Montreal: Motion days to return in 2027, two days per month (e.g., first two Thursdays).

Dates will be communicated in advance.

Eligible motions are those under 3 hours, excluding case-managed appeals.

C. DOJ Efficiencies

DoJ management has been tasked with increasing efficiency and reducing expenses, including eliminating discretionary travel and training.

Three litigation efficiency were identified:

• GST replies: Starting April 1, 2026, the CRA (rather than the DoJ) will prepare replies in informal procedure GST cases, consistent with the current practice for income tax cases.
• Discoveries: The DoJ will limit the use of discoveries in Class A and B General Procedure appeals (default: no discoveries, using other means instead, such as for example notices to admit facts, subject to exceptions). For Class C appeals, virtual discoveries will be the default for oral discoveries. Written discoveries may be considered where only limited questions arise.
• Settlement authority: The DoJ will have authority to settle certain low-complexity and low-quantum files at settlement conferences without the presence of a CRA representative.

The DoJ is open to discussions on reducing costs or enhancing efficiency.

Discussion covered guidelines for reasonable discovery, settling cases earlier.

The TCC noted it is examining Practice Note 21 on Settlement Conferences.

The TCC observed that trials are requiring more hearing days and that effective discoveries could shorten them. It will be important to monitor whether eliminating discoveries results in longer trials.

The TCC also noted that partial agreed statements of facts make trials more efficient, and that information exchange — usually through discoveries — remains important.

The CBA noted that eliminating discoveries for Class A and B files could mean more cases are ready for hearing sooner, potentially increasing backlogs.

VI. Issues Raised by the Private Bar

The CBA raised the following issues:

A. Consolidated Notices to the Public and the Profession

The CBA asked whether there is an update or roadmap for consolidating the multiple Notices to the Public and the Profession and Practice Notes into a single Practice Direction.

The ACJ confirmed that preliminary work is underway to identify obsolete and outdated practice notes and notices. Old practice notes have been archived, and the TCC is exploring consolidation to improve accessibility and navigation.

B. Preliminary Rulings Docket and Fast Track Settlement

The CBA asked whether the TCC has evaluated the Preliminary Rulings Docket and Fast Track Settlement pilots (Practice Notes 23 and 24), and whether the Court will re-establish them.

The TCC said there was little to no interest from the private sector or DoJ in both these pilot projects. Practice Note 24 on Fast Track Settlement Conferences has been archived. Practice Note 23 on the Preliminary Rulings Docket will be archived.

C. Communications with Parties

The CBA asked the TCC to clarify its practices regarding scheduling communications, including whether scheduling discussions are conducted ex parte with Crown counsel and how the Court ensures both parties are informed concurrently.

The CJ and ACJ noted that hearings coordinators are trained to contact each party and follow up by letter. For General Procedure appeals, scheduling is based on joint applications. If proposed dates do not match perfectly, the hearings coordinator checks with the parties.

The ACJ indicated that the registrar should be contacted if communications issues arise; the CJ confirmed that the hearings coordinator is supposed to call both parties.

D. Notification to the Parties re Requests for Cases to be held in Abeyance or removed from Abeyance

The CBA asked the TCC to clarify its practice for notifying parties when an appeal is placed in or removed from abeyance, including whether both parties receive direct notice beyond the docket entry on the Court’s website.

The TCC said that if one party requests an abeyance or removal from abeyance, the registry will seek the other party’s position. Decisions on an abeyance request, whether unilateral or joint, are communicated to both parties in writing and usually includes a date by which to report to the Court. Any issues relating to communication in the context of abeyance requests should be raised with the registrar.

E. Process and Timelines for Motion Requests

The CBA asked about typical timelines for responding to motion date requests, when and how counsel may request expedited treatment, and the appropriate protocol for inquiring about the status of a pending motion.

The TCC acknowledges that setting timely dates for the hearing of motions remains an issue. The return of motion days should help. For urgent matters, a request for an expedited hearing with justification may be sent to the CJ’s and ACJ’s attention through the hearings co-ordinator. For case-managed files, parties should advise the case management judge of special or urgent circumstances. In certain circumstances, virtual hearings for motions may be considered, in particular for locations where the Court sits less frequently.

F. Timeliness of Decisions

The CBA asked about the TCC’s process for ensuring timely decisions, what steps are available when a decision remains outstanding for an extended period, whether parties can bring urgency to the TCC’s attention (particularly where related proceedings in other courts are awaiting the determination), and whether there is a mechanism for communicating anticipated delays. The CBA also asked whether the TCC could signal a pending decision and whether there is a definition of "urgent."

The TCC strives to render decisions in a timely way. The TCC tracks reserved decisions and monitor release times. Personal circumstances (e.g., health issues) may factor into delays. If special circumstances arise, parties should write to the CJ and ACJ.

G. Consents to Judgment

The CBA noted that there have been instances where the TCC declined a consent to judgment without accompanying reasons, and asked the Court to provide guidance on the information, structure, and phrasing expected in a consent to judgment.

The TCC said that if a consent to judgment is returned, the registry will communicate the reason, and parties should file an amended consent. If no explanation is provided, this should be raised with the registrar. Consents in files without an assigned judge go to the CJ and ACJ.

Typical reasons for declining a consent to judgment include:

• The consent does not address all years or periods in the appeal.
• The consent requests that the assessment be vacated without clarity on the legal implications (i.e., the previous assessment is resurrected).
• The consent should not refer to an appeal being allowed “in part.”
• The consent is silent on penalties that were raised in the appeal.

Revisions must be filed in a document entitled Amended Consent to Judgment.

H. Questions about the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in the TCC

The CBA asked whether there is a need for a practice note on AI and whether there are specific policies or guidelines on AI use for TCC purposes.

The TCC said that a new committee on AI has been formed, tasked with examining AI-related issues including the use of AI by the parties appearing before the Court and the potential development of a Practice Notice on this topic.

The Canadian Judicial Council has issued guidelines on AI use.

The CJ and ACJ confirmed clerks are directed to not use AI.

VII. Other Business

None.

VIII. Next Meeting

To be held in Ottawa on Friday, May 29, 2026.