Many factors contribute to the backlog, including the courts operating on an antiquated system, an increase in self-represented litigants as recently noted by the Ontario Court of Appeal in Grand River Conservation Authority v. Ramdas, not enough judges, last minute adjournments, the constitutional right to speedy trial in criminal matters pulling resources from civil court, and of course the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Issue reflected in judicial commentary
The significant backlog is also being acknowledged in judicial commentary, including a recent endorsement by Justice Markus Koehnen that shared further grim statistics: according to the results of the 2022 World Justice Project Survey, Canada ranked 56th out of 140 countries “when considering whether the administration of civil justice was free from unreasonable delay” and, even worse, Canada ranked 68th when considering “access and affordability of the civil justice system.”
Timely access to justice is a critical component of a democratic society, and the lack of it has serious repercussions. A quote from a Supreme Court of Canada criminal case, R. v. Askov, “is also applicable to our current civil situation,” notes Williams:
The failure of the justice system to deal fairly, quickly and efficiently with criminal trials inevitably leads to the community’s frustration with the judicial system and eventually to a feeling of contempt for court procedures. When a trial takes place without unreasonable delay, with all witnesses available and memories fresh, it is far more certain that the guilty parties who committed the crimes will be convicted and punished and those that did not, will be acquitted and vindicated.
The Advocates’ Society’s report also points to a 2022 quote from the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal decision Huard v. The Winning Combination Inc., para. 86, which states that “delay in civil proceedings tends to have deleterious effects on the parties. Witnesses die, become unavailable or simply forget things. Documents disappear. Costs soar. However, the consequences of delay go beyond the parties to an action. [… U]nnecessary delay inevitably saps public confidence in the judicial process as a method for dispute resolution.”