The BC Supreme Court recently asked for feedback on how to make chambers more efficient and accessible. Over a hundred lawyers and litigants responded. I took part in that process and offered several practical suggestions. The Court has now released its Summary of Feedback and many of the ideas I raised are reflected in it.
Booking Long Chambers Matters
I argued against limiting short chambers matters to one hour until an online booking system is in place. The current telephone “lottery” makes it almost impossible for smaller firms to compete for dates. I suggested an online system, half-day bookings, and a waitlist that prioritizes those who have repeatedly failed in securing hearing dates.
The Court agreed that the call-in system is inequitable. Many respondents shared the same frustration, noting that the process favours larger firms with more staff.
The Court has now secured funding for an online booking system that should be operational by early 2026. It will also track unsuccessful booking attempts and give priority to those users next time. There was also “considerable support” for half-day bookings and more judges available for long chambers.
Regular Chambers: One-Hour Limits and Time Slots
I cautioned against restricting regular chambers to one-hour matters without a proper scheduling system. Arbitrary limits would push longer applications into overbooked lists. I also questioned how fixed time slots—15, 30, 45, or 60 minutes—would be enforced when judicial intervention varies widely.
The Court’s summary shows mixed feedback on both proposals. Support for a one-hour limit was conditional on more judges being available for long chambers, and many respondents worried that fixed time slots could waste time or reduce flexibility.
Assigning Judges Based on Area of Law
I recommended that chambers be scheduled with some consideration of subject matter. Judges familiar with a given area of law can hear matters more efficiently. For example, judicial reviews of Immediate Roadside Prohibition decisions are quicker when heard by judges who understand the administrative framework.
The Court’s report shows support for specialized chambers. These would be dedicated civil, family, foreclosure, or uncontested lists. This signals that the Working Group is considering specialization as one of the paths forward.
Virtual Hearings and Accessibility
I supported province-wide virtual hearings for uncontested and consent matters. Virtual appearances save costs, increase productivity, and improve access for lawyers and litigants who face barriers such as travel or childcare. I also proposed experimenting with evening or weekend sittings to expand access to justice.
The Court’s summary confirms broad support for virtual hearings, including province-wide virtual chambers for uncontested applications. It also highlights support for expanding the Associate Judges Chambers Pilot Project, which already uses remote hearings successfully.
Application Records and Authorities
I opposed limits on the size of application records or the number of authorities. In some cases, such as judicial reviews which his the bulk of our BC Supreme Court practice, the full evidentiary record must be filed even if only a few portions are discussed at the hearing. The Court received mixed feedback on this issue. Most agreed that a “one-size-fits-all” approach is unworkable because application complexity varies.
Enforcing Time Estimates and Page Limits
I acknowledged that inaccurate time estimates frustrate judges but pointed out that most counsel provide estimates in good faith. How long a matter actually takes often depends on the judge’s approach and familiarity with the subject.
The Court reports strong support for stricter enforcement of time estimates, including the possibility of timers, costs consequences, or ending hearings that exceed their estimate. Some respondents warned this may be impractical and contrary to justice, which is also an observation that I submitted to the consultation.
Expanding Capacity and Case Management
I suggested several broader reforms, including expanding the number of chambers days; staggering judicial vacation periods to reduce “urgent matters only” weeks; assigning case management judges for repetitive applications; allowing easy transfers between registries; and making more use of online hearings when trials collapse.
Many of these ideas appear across the Court’s summary, including calls for specialized chambers, flexible scheduling, and better use of online availability.
What I Suggested That Wasn’t Included
There were a lot of suggestions I made that didn’t end up included in the report. One of my biggest pushes was for evening and weekend chambers hearings.
I proposed holding half-day or evening/weekend chambers sittings , even suggesting that judges could preside remotely from home, to expand access to justice for parents, working counsel, and those with daytime court commitments.
While the summary did note support for “expanding court hours” from some respondents, it did not explore or endorse after-hours or weekend sittings.
I also suggested a transparent waitlist for long-chambers hearings that would prioritize those who repeatedly failed to secure a date through the phone lottery. I even suggested weighting by firm size, thereby limiting repeat access by large firms.
The summary discussed an upcoming online booking system with priority for users whose prior attempts failed — similar in spirit — but did not refer to a separate or randomized waitlist process.
I proposed matching judges to time slots or lists based on subject-matter expertise (e.g., bankruptcy, personal injury, or administrative law) to keep hearings efficient. While the summary did mention “support for specialized chambers” (civil, family, foreclosure), but not my finer point about assigning particular judges to those time slots to minimize unnecessary questioning or duplication.
I suggested letting lawyers who bring multiple similar applications (for example, all mortgage defaults for one bank, or all Immediate Roadside Prohibition judicial reviews) have a designated case-management judge.
There was no mention of ongoing assignment to a single judge for similar matters.
I also proposed allowing counsel to transfer applications between Supreme Court registries (e.g., from Vancouver to New Westminster or Chilliwack) by simple requisition, to take advantage of available hearing slots. This was not addressed.
I suggested using judges freed by collapsed trials, for example, when a multi-day trial ends early, to hear chambers matters online, even from another location. There was however no mention of repurposing collapsed-trial time or of an on-call virtual pool of judges.
I recommended staggering the Court’s vacation or break periods so that the system is never in an “urgent matters only” state. The summary discussed efficiency and access but did not address scheduling or staffing structures at the judicial level.
These mattered. I specifically linked virtual and flexible hearings to keeping women in the profession. I explained that childcare demands often push women out earlier. The summary made reference to assistance and support for self-represented litigants but made no mention of gender-based accessibility or retention issues within the bar.
My most controversial proposal was increasing the number of available chambers days, even outside regular sitting hours, to reduce backlogs and improve access. This was partially echoed. The summary mentioned support for expanding court hours but did not explicitly discuss adding more days or non-standard scheduling.
I repeatedly emphasized the inequity between large firms and small practitioners in the current call-in system. This was only briefly acknowledged. The summary noted the system “favours larger firms with greater personnel,” but did not adopt any proposed equity mechanism (like limiting bookings per firm or rotation by prior access).
In short, the Court echoed most of my broad concerns — online booking, half-day hearings, specialized chambers, and expanded virtual access — but did not take up my more creative, structural, or access-focused proposals. Those omissions include after-hours sittings, inter-registry transfers, case-management continuity, a random waitlist, and gender-equity considerations.
The Path Ahead
The Court’s consultation report shows genuine engagement with the profession. Many of the proposed reforms like online booking, half-day hearings, specialization, and expanded virtual access, reflect the priorities that practitioners have been urging for years.
Funding is secured for online booking, but larger modernization goals will take time. Predictability, transparency, and equal access must remain the focus so the system works as well for a sole practitioner as it does for a downtown firm with a dedicated scheduling team.
