Law360 Canada (July 8, 2026, 3:28 PM EDT) --

Steve Benmor

Last week, I had a settlement conference scheduled at the Milton, Ont., courthouse on one of my “remaining” litigation files.

Why “remaining”? Because after watching the gross disappointment of clients for over 30 years with the court’s failure to serve family law litigants with access to justice, I have retired from litigation and only accept out-of-court cases, in addition to my mediation/arbitration practice.

Upon arrival at court, I was yet again delivered a sharp reminder of why I left litigation.

Conclusion first: The court system is the wrong place for disputes.

Here’s the skinny.

Months ago, at the previous case conference, we were advised that the settlement conference would proceed by Zoom (as stated in the endorsement). That was appreciated because the presumptive rule requires an in-person attendance and the drive from downtown Toronto to Milton is roughly 90 minutes each way. My client would have had to drive in from Oakville on top of that. Multiply that by both sides of the case, plus the Children’s Lawyer, and you’re looking at a significant amount of unnecessary travel for a one-hour conference on a Friday afternoon in the summer. Zoom made sense. It saved time, saved money and saved everyone the hassle of fighting traffic for a basic procedural step in the litigation.

However, by the start of the week, Case Center indicated that the court date was in-person. I had my staff repeatedly call the court office to inquire as to the discrepancy. They were told that, indeed, the court date was in-person. I refused to accept oral directions and asked for this in writing. After some pushback, we finally did receive an email from the court staff confirming that the court date was in-person. Court staff advised that the matter would proceed in person because of the practice directions.

We notified all counsel and the parties. That meant rearranging schedules for three lawyers and two clients, all of whom now had to reorganize their Friday afternoon around an in-person appearance at the Milton courthouse instead of a conference they could have joined from their desks. We did what lawyers and clients do: we adjusted. We confirmed the date, blocked off the time and made the drive.

Friday arrived. Car loaded. Drive underway. I decided to get there early. Fifteen minutes before my arrival, I received an email from opposing counsel that the court just posted a Zoom link onto Case Center.

What the !$@?

From the highway, I called opposing counsel. We were both miffed. I told her I was almost there and would inquire at the court office once I arrived. When I arrived, the court office was closed. Apparently, they now have limited hours, so I would either have to wait for the court office to open after lunch or just simply walk over to the courtroom.

I walked over to the courtroom, and fortunately the registrar was sitting there doing nothing as there was only one other matter on the docket, which had finished hours earlier (query: why are lawyers told they must wait months to book a court date because of the backlog?). I inquired as to the status of our matter and whether it was intended to be virtual or in-person. The registrar told me the judge had advised that the matter would in fact be proceeding by Zoom but that I could appear in person.

This created quite a challenge. I was there. My client was on her way. The other two lawyers had not yet left their offices. From a fairness standpoint, I was concerned that if one side was present and the other party and counsel were to attend via Zoom, there would be unequal representation, or at least the optics of unfairness. I then called opposing counsel, who advised that she was fine with me appearing live, but that she would be appearing by Zoom. Likewise for the Children’s Lawyer.

It would be easy to write this off as an isolated scheduling mix-up. But the inconvenience itself isn’t really the point. Lawyer time isn’t free, and neither is a client’s afternoon. Multiply the gas, the billable hours and the lost productivity across everyone involved, and you get a grounded basis for upset — not at the registrar, the judge or the administrators of Case Center, but rather with the entire judicial system that governs us all.

This was such a colossal waste of time and money. The more troubling issue is that there is no accountability (other than this article). The court issued an endorsement. I followed it. The court changed that direction. The court then disregarded its own changed direction once everyone had already complied with it. At no point in that sequence was anyone required to explain why, or to account for the cost it imposed on the people who showed up and followed the rules.

That is the part that should concern anyone who relies on the public court system to function predictably. Lawyers can absorb this kind of disruption, however reluctantly. Clients, who are often already stressed and financially stretched by litigation, feel it more acutely — in the cost of an afternoon off work, the cost of gas, the cost of legal fees spent organizing around a moving target that, in the end, did not need to move at all.

None of this requires a sweeping fix. It requires the basics: settle on a mode of attendance. Communicate it. Do not change it. If it does change, give people advance notice. Maybe even a reason. Until that happens, lawyers and clients alike are left absorbing the cost, the inconvenience and the upset.

This experience would never happen in my mediation/arbitration practice. Dates are booked. Dates are confirmed. The mode of meeting (in-person or Zoom) is agreed upon in advance and confirmed. There is no confusion, no wasted time, no money lost and no upset clients.

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.