When #stayathome started, Canadian courts responded by suspending operations except for urgent matters. That made sense at the time. But we've come a long way since then. The urgent/non-urgent distinction has gone from a sensible precaution to a new obstacle to #A2J. 1/6

People go to court because they have problems they cannot solve by themselves. The problems are real. They are stressful, costly, and socially damaging--whether "urgent" in the eyes of judges and court administrators or not. 2/6

For litigants, almost every case feels urgent. Clearly courts can't operate on that basis. They have to triage. So the urgent/non-urgent distinction isn't phoney, and it isn't unimportant. But it should not become an excuse for doing later what could be done now. 3/6

In 2014, the Supreme Court of Canada ringingly endorsed summary (i.e., paper-based) procedures over traditional in-person procedures as a means of ensuring and extending #A2J. This logic applies to virtual procedures, too. 4/6 https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2014/2014scc7/2014scc7.html

We have the technology to hear cases virtually that don't require live witnesses, whether "urgent" or not. Courts around the world are hearing summary proceedings via online video. The Ontario Divisional Court is now doing so, and the BC Court of Appeal is resuming in May. 5/6

Instead of asking, "Is this urgent?", courts should ask, "Is this summary?" If yes, proceed.

Lawyers need to help, too. Refusing to do things virtually because you're used to doing them in person is unacceptable. 6/6