Why You Can’t Watch Family Court Hearings in Canada Anymore

Introduction

The COVID-19 pandemic thrust Canadian courts into the virtual realm almost overnight, transforming living rooms into courtrooms and home offices into legal chambers. What began as an emergency measure to maintain the administration of justice quickly revealed both unprecedented opportunities for access and significant challenges to the open court principle. As family-law proceedings moved onto Zoom and other platforms, Canadians experienced firsthand how virtual access could democratize courtroom observation—and, shortly thereafter, how that access could be curtailed just as rapidly.

The Early Days: Open Doors to Virtual Courtrooms

When courts first transitioned to remote hearings in March 2020, many jurisdictions opted for maximal openness. Some courts posted open links or telephone-in details on their websites, enabling anyone with the URL or dial-in number to observe live proceedings with minimal friction¹. In Ontario, the Superior Court of Justice (SCJ) emphasized that “it is now technologically possible to observe most SCJ hearings by calling or logging in from anywhere in the world,” framing virtual access as an extension of its commitment to open courts².

The Rise of Identity Requirements

Almost as soon as virtual hearings became commonplace, some judges and registrars began tightening the reins on public observers. Reports emerged of court-watchers being asked to provide full names, addresses, phone numbers, email addresses, and even media or organizational affiliations before being admitted as observers. This marked a stark departure from pre-pandemic norms, where physical presence in a courthouse carried no such identity vetting.

The Superior Court of Justice’s Virtual Courtroom Etiquette Rules require participants to sign in with their full names (surname followed by given name) and encourage inclusion of professional prefixes or pronouns³.
Some administrative tribunals simply ask attendees for their name to enter into the Zoom queue, with that name visible to all participants once they join⁴.

The Pullback: When Virtual Doors Closed

As identity checks became more stringent, if that didn’t deter public engagement, the next step was to limit or revoke virtual access altogether. By late 2021, reports surfaced of family-law Zoom links being removed from public websites, replaced by processes demanding advance registration or case-by-case approval from court staff. Observers who once clicked through a livestream found themselves facing an automated “waiting room” where no one would admit them.

A review of pandemic-era court operations noted that challenges of virtual public access include “no uniform method” for observers and “a cumbersome process of communication with the court”⁵.
The Federal Judicial Affairs Action Committee highlighted that while some courts continue to use open access links, others have shifted toward personalized or password-protected invitations, creating a patchwork of access protocols⁶.

In extreme cases, entire “webinar” formats were adopted, limiting the number of observers. For example, the Ontario Divisional Court’s endorsement for a virtual hearing capped public attendance at 500 participants, effectively erecting a digital barrier around proceedings that were once publicly accessible in person⁷.

Nuance and Context

While the Instagram caption’s depiction of a swift “vanishing” of virtual links and aggressive identity vetting captures a real frustration, the full story is more nuanced:

Variation by Jurisdiction: Courts across Canada adopted different virtual platforms (Zoom, MS Teams, WebEx) and tailored their access rules accordingly, balancing openness with security⁶.
Evolving Practice Directions: Ontario’s Consolidated Provincial Practice Direction for Family Proceedings (effective June 1, 2023) outlines presumptive guidelines for virtual hearings but defers to regional notices for detailed access procedures⁸.
Operational Learnings: Federal and provincial committees have issued tip sheets on privacy, security, and confidentiality for virtual access, recommending a mix of open links for low-risk matters and registration for sensitive or high-profile cases⁹.

Looking Ahead: Finding Balance in Virtual Access

The pandemic accelerated the integration of technology into court operations—a trend likely to persist. Yet as virtual hearings become part of the “new normal,” courts must ensure that public access remains meaningful and equitable. Key considerations include:

Transparent Listing Information: Ensuring hearing schedules clearly indicate the mode of attendance (in-person, phone, video) and how to access each virtual hearing.
Hybrid Models: Combining physical and virtual options so that those without reliable internet or suitable devices aren’t left behind, while still accommodating remote observers.
Protocols for Rapid Adjustment: Developing consistent, publicly available protocols for switching between open links and registration to avoid last-minute “lockouts” that undermine trust in the system.