In Canada, one of the cornerstones of our justice system is the principle of open courts—the idea that court proceedings should be accessible to the public. This transparency promotes accountability, safeguards fairness, and reinforces public confidence in the legal system.
But in the wake of the pandemic and the rapid shift to virtual courtrooms, that long-standing principle may be quietly eroding.
The Tradition of Open Courts
Historically, any member of the public could walk into a courthouse, sit in on a family law case, a criminal trial, or a civil hearing, and observe the proceedings. No need for permission, registration, or prior knowledge—just the ability to physically show up. This open access was more than symbolic—it was a vital check on the legal process.
The Virtual Pivot: Convenience with Consequences
With COVID-19 came necessity—and innovation. Courts across Canada rapidly adopted Zoom and other virtual platforms to keep the justice system running. While this pivot was lauded for its efficiency and safety, it also brought with it a major shift in public access.
Unlike physical courtrooms, Zoom links to hearings and conferences are not easily available to the public. Observers—whether they are law students, journalists, or concerned citizens—often face barriers like needing advance permission, not knowing which judge is hearing what case, or even encountering outright denials due to “virtual courtroom capacity” or privacy concerns.
Public Justice Should Be Publicly Visible
This restricted access is a troubling deviation from the open court principle. The very essence of justice being done—and being seen to be done—is compromised when the public cannot readily observe how courts operate.
The Supreme Court of Canada and numerous decisions have emphasized the importance of court transparency. For example, the 1913 British case Scott v. Scott and Canada’s own McPherson v. McPherson (1936) affirmed that even sensitive proceedings like divorce cases should, by default, be open and accessible.
Today, that legacy is at risk—not from malice, but from the unintended consequences of digital modernization.
What Needs to Change?
To uphold the open court principle in a virtual era, courts should:
- Publicize Zoom links and dockets in a centralized, user-friendly way.
- Adopt consistent policies across jurisdictions for how the public can observe hearings.
- Provide clear guidance on how to access court proceedings—just as people once knew they could walk through courthouse doors.
Virtual court technology has brought undeniable benefits: reduced costs, increased scheduling efficiency, and more flexible access for lawyers and litigants alike. But as we embrace these advances, we must not lose sight of the bedrock principle that courts exist to serve—and be visible to—the public.
Transparency should not be a casualty of convenience.
As we have seen, the shift to virtual hearings has raised legitimate concerns about the erosion of the open court principle, even as it offers new efficiencies. The challenge lies in ensuring that public access remains meaningful in a digital environment. In the next part of this series, we will explore how Canadian courts are responding to this tension through evolving case law and policy measures aimed at striking a balance between transparency, privacy, and technological advancement.
