Law360 Canada (April 29, 2026, 2:33 PM EDT) --

Steve Benmor

After reading rebuttals from Russell Alexander, Gary Joseph, Roslyn Tsao and Aaron Franks to my article on the recent return to in-person motions in Toronto’s family court, “The Zoom paradox: When a judge’s words and his court’s actions collide,” I have been moved.

Alexander is the founder and senior partner of Russell Alexander Collaborative Family Lawyers. He is a very smart lawyer, a prolific legal writer and educator of lawyers, and one of few professionals who has a sharp eye for trends in the legal marketplace. Gary Joseph is by far one of Canada’s top family law trial counsel and the head of MacDonald & Partners LLP. He has been reported in over 350 family law decisions at all court levels and has appeared as counsel in the Supreme Court of Canada.

Tsao is an exceptional lawyer, mentor, educator and mediator with Epstein Cole LLP. She is highly regarded in the family law bar and among the judiciary. Franks is another one of Canada’s top-tier family law lawyers and is also with Epstein Cole. He has generously educated thousands of lawyers throughout Canada with his legal analysis, writing and teaching in family law.

These four lawyers have responded to my article on the recent announcement by the Superior Court of Justice cancelling the use of Zoom for motions and requiring counsel and parties to appear in-person for motions under one hour, unless directed otherwise by a judge at a case conference.

These four lawyers are extremely intelligent. They know family law really well. They have strongly held views on this announcement, and my article. They have publicly shared their views. They have made very compelling arguments. I have carefully considered their rebuttal, and so I have been motivated to provide a rebuttal to their rebuttal. My rebuttal, however, employs the second language I was taught growing up in a Jewish home: sarcasm.

When Canada’s Superior Court judges collectively make a decision that affects tens of thousands of families going through separation and divorce, that decision must, by definition, be grounded in impeccable logic, sound judgment and rigorous empirical data. It would therefore be beneath any reasonable person (me) to criticize such a decision — specifically the decision to abandon Zoom and require lawyers and litigants to appear live in court for short motions.

This decision to return to the traditional practice of appearing live to argue a motion, as commented upon by my esteemed colleagues, has caused me to reconsider not only the rejection of technology for motions in family court, but the merit of a broader rejection of other technological advancements that have come to modernize our professional practices and/or our lives. My new thinking was inspired by the compelling arguments provided by my esteemed colleagues.

Let’s start with the abacus. I am now giving serious thought to getting rid of my calculators. The arguments in favour of the abacus are remarkably similar to those advanced in favour of mandatory in-person court attendance.

My esteemed colleagues make the compelling argument about the missed opportunity to watch other counsel argue their motions before a judge. In the same way, observing skilled mathematicians use an abacus can be an excellent way to develop proficiency in math. There is something genuinely character-building about moving beads across a frame and checking one’s arithmetic, bead by agonizing bead, while those new to arithmetic watch over. Any person interested in mathematics would be blessed to have the opportunity to watch the masters of the abacus.

Those who rely on electronic devices never develop true mathematical fluency, never internalize the rigour of computation, never build the foundational discipline that comes from working through a problem by hand. Something is genuinely lost when a younger mathematician cannot calculate, estimate or reason numerically without a calculator in their hand.

My esteemed colleagues argue that new lawyers should not be intimidated by the courthouse. I agree. Neither should they be intimidated by manual arithmetic. Fine, we’ve now had calculators for decades. But that hardly justifies the ongoing use of them when there are compelling arguments to return to the use of the abacus. The abacus builds discipline, rigour and a meaningful relationship with mathematics that punching numbers into a device simply cannot replicate.

Yes, eliminating calculators would have consequences. Students would struggle. Engineers would slow down. Accountants would protest. The rate of mathematical error in commerce, medicine and engineering would climb. But much like increased legal fees to clients, inconvenience to travel downtown, paying for parking and waiting for hours until your case is called for a 30-minute argument of a motion, the negative consequences of rejecting calculators are dwarfed by the benefits.

Then there is the automobile. The case against the motor vehicle is even more compelling. The damage to public health caused by cars, minivans, SUVs and trucks is well-documented. Sedentary lifestyles, air pollution and traffic fatalities are not trivial statistics. If we abolished vehicles, people would walk to their destinations. Obesity rates would decline. Communities would grow more cohesive. Neighbours would encounter one another on foot rather than gliding past one another in climate-controlled vehicular isolation.

Just like the argument that lawyers on Zoom are more likely to avoid settling cases, people walking to school and work would be more likely to avoid diseases and illnesses. Just as it is much more productive for counsel to engage in real-time, face-to-face negotiations of a family law case, so too would children, parents and workers greatly benefit from real-time, face-to-face walks to school and work.

Just as clients who are used to paying much less in legal fees to resolve their matters since Zoom court became the norm will now have to spend more, the former owners of cars would also save money. They would no longer pay for the purchase of a car, licensing, insurance, parking and repairs. Walking to school and work would eliminate those costs. My esteemed colleagues argue that Zoom has caused legal costs to escalate slowly. Assuming that is correct, driving would also cause heightened blood pressure, cardiovascular problems and heart disease to escalate slowly, like the proverbial frog in boiling water.

Now, eliminating cars would also have consequences. The elderly and disabled would lose essential mobility. Rural communities would be severed from basic services. Emergency response times would be extended.

These concerns are not unimportant. But much like the arguments that family law cases, via Zoom, are languishing and not getting settled because counsel are not together in-person in the courthouse hallways, similarly, the use of the car has decimated civility, neighbourliness, communal living and meeting on sidewalks. Just imagine the spike in social engagement and improvement in public health by outlawing cars.

Finally, I turn to the scourge of at-home video streaming. Were we to eliminate it, people would be compelled to leave their homes and gather in cinemas, galleries and museums. Society would experience community. Art, history and theatre would be celebrated in the presence of friends and family. Much like my esteemed colleagues’ argument that the surge in the use of Zoom results in speculative motions being brought by litigants who resist settlement in favour of an all-or-nothing motion, the end to at-home video streaming would cause people to be far more selective with their choice of entertainment and sit through the entire show.

My esteemed colleagues argue that removing Zoom for motions actually increases access to justice — so too would the removal of at-home video streaming increase access to quality entertainment and end the proliferation of poor-quality programming.

In fact, there are some people who have rarely, or never, been to the Royal Ontario Museum or the Art Gallery of Ontario. Eliminating at-home video streaming would solve that. Plus, the obligation not to pause a film when one needs to use the facilities would encourage better planning and increased attention to the material.

Joseph’s poignant arguments in favour of in-person motions — namely, the missed opportunities for young lawyers to watch and learn from the masters, the lost opportunities to connect with clients in person and the lost opportunities to connect with colleagues at the bar — is a diabolical parallel to the proposal to eliminate at-home video streaming. Imagine that the only available option for entertainment required a shared communal experience of witnessing entertainment together, in the same room, at the same time. Just like motions shape outcomes and lead to settlement, sharing in the experience of art, history and theatre shape enjoyment and lead to engagement.

I trust the pattern is now apparent. Canada’s Superior Court judges and my esteemed colleagues have made very compelling arguments about why we should abandon the use of Zoom technology in family court. I have been moved.

But maybe we should not limit the reversal of modernization and technology to family court only. Calculators, cars and video streaming have also been a serious menace to society, and we really need to give careful consideration to a similar reversal in practice. Much like my esteemed colleagues have purported to rely on statistics to support their arguments in favour of in-person motions (although I must have missed that endnote citation), I too rely on similarly uncited social science evidence.

The question is not whether virtual hearings are perfect. Nothing is. The question is whether abandoning what works, in favour of what is merely tradition, serves the administration of justice or the people administering it. Is it the former or the latter? I remain open to persuasion. Please submit your arguments in person. Parking is not validated.​​

Steve Benmor, B.Sc., LLB, LLM (family law), C.S., is the founder and principal lawyer of Benmor Family Law Group, a boutique matrimonial law firm in downtown Toronto. He is a certified specialist in family law and was admitted as a fellow to the prestigious International Academy of Family Lawyers. He is regularly retained as a divorce mediator, arbitrator and parenting coordinator. As a divorce mediator, he uses his 30 years of in-depth knowledge of family law, courtroom experience and expert problem-solving skills in divorce mediation to help spouses reach fair, fast and co-operative divorce settlements without the financial losses, emotional costs and lengthy delays from divorce court. Read his resumé here. He can be reached at steve@benmor.com.

The opinions expressed are those of the author and do not reflect the views of the author’s firm, its clients, Law360 Canada, LexisNexis Canada or any of its or their respective affiliates. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.

Interested in writing for us? To learn more about how you can add your voice to Law360 Canada, contact Analysis Editor Yvette Trancoso at Yvette.Trancoso-barrett@lexisnexis.ca or call 905-415-5811.