Definitely the Zoom hearing for matters that are based on a paper record are ideal because you can't just make written arguments on affidavits and then have the judge pop out a decision. The exchange between bench and bar is very important, especially when there may be some impact on the development of the law, but that can be done effectively with a Zoom hearing, a motion for summary judgment, a pretrial where everyone is represented.
We all have these Canadian winters that have often delayed cases that had to occur in person, and the Zoom technology, next February and in February 2023, will be very welcome when, for example, we're not flying from Toronto to Pembroke in the province of Ontario just to do a summary judgment hearing that could be done by Zoom. Most certainly, the beauty of that is that court resources can be better used by the combination of embracing Zoom where appropriate and continuing with it, while also having the default of in-person hearings.
The rules committees provincially are grappling with how to deal with this. As you put it, should the default be in-person, or should the default be Zoom? I agree with you, Mr. Maloney, but I think that for some types of processes, Zoom should be the default position.