Well, certainly, remote appearances on routine criminal matters are being embraced. They were looked at even before COVID, but now they're being embraced more than ever.
Why should someone have to be brought from a distance while being in custody—if they were denied bail pending trial—just to make a one-minute court appearance to set a new date for a preliminary inquiry or a trial? That just is a waste of time and resources.
Even in criminal cases where the liberty of the subject is at play—the liberty of the subject being a very important consideration—in-person appearance is not always required.
Those kinds of changes can, will be and should be permanent, but let's face it: Credibility is often a big issue in criminal trials, so the courts have been trying to get to as many in-person trials as they can. However, the COVID-19 restrictions, especially in Ontario recently, have kept pushing back the ability to have, for example, in-person jury trials until, at this point, after June 7 in most venues in Ontario and after July 5 in Toronto and Peel.
The courts are just dealing with it. They're hoping for plea bargains. They're hoping for resolution. I can tell you, having done all kinds of litigation—I am a civil litigation specialist like Mr. Maloney was—I did defend our fellow citizens accused of offences, and, boy, what a great defence to be able to raise the section 11(b) defence. I successfully raised it for many of my clients, rightfully so, invoking the proper charter right.
However, should this become a mass amnesty? Does this create a scenario where we have to, virtually or otherwise, deploy judges for criminal cases to save those cases from being stayed, and then not get there in time, while in the meantime having ignored other cases? That's why we're in this crisis, and it's going to get much worse before it gets better.
The courts are doing the best they can, but they need help from this Parliament on this issue.