In 2013-2014, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice initiated a review and consolidation of all its regional and provincial Practice Directions. The primary objective was the elimination of obsolete and redundant directives, with a focus on consolidating, simplifying, and better organizing the practice directions that were to remain in effect. The consolidated Practice Directions for the Superior Court of Justice came into effect on July 1, 2014.
In family law, the provincial Practice Direction for family proceedings underwent another update on June 15, 2023. Each of the eight regions under the Ontario Superior Court of Justice has undertaken multiple updates or amendments to their respective regional Practice Directions for family proceedings since July 2014. These adjustments aim to align with the changes to the Family Law Rules and adapt to the unique circumstances of each region.
The intended benefits derived from Practice Directions are noteworthy. Offering clear instructions on document filing, the presumptive mode of appearance for court appearances and other procedural matters, Practice Directions provide a roadmap for litigants navigating the legal system, contributing significantly to access to justice. Well-crafted Practice Directions make the court process more accessible and comprehensible, particularly for self-represented litigants . They allow for better case management and ensure that the court’s resources are utilized efficiently. Additionally, Practice Directions play a vital role in bolstering public confidence in the legal system, which foster trust when individuals perceive the legal process as transparent, fair, and efficiently managed.
However, despite their evident merits, the implementation of Practice Directions encounters substantial resistance in practice. As Justice Tranquilli commented in Campbell v Campbell, 2023 ONSC 1231 at paragraph 17, the court is “vexed by the disregard to the court’s Practice Directions that is seen in far too many matters.”
According to the Superior Court of Justice’s website on Practice Directions, when proposed filings are not compliant with the applicable Practice Direction, they may be rejected or the deficiency will be brought to the attention of the presiding judge who may make any appropriate order regarding the deficiency, including a potential cost award. In Campbell v Campbell, where the applicant was self-represented and her materials failed to comply with the applicable Practice Direction, Justice Tranquilli exercised some leniency due to the applicant’s self-represented status.[1] Justice Tranquilli disregarded any evidence filed not in compliance with the Practice Direction that would disadvantage the respondent on the material issues, and put the applicant on notice that she was expected to be held to strict adherence to the Practice Directions going forward, whether self-represented or not.[2]
Please log in to read the full article.