January 13, 2023 – Using Caselines

“Before I turn to the facts and issues, and for the benefit of the profession, I comment on counsel’s use of CaseLines in this case.  The moving parties have uploaded 56 separate documents to CaseLines.  The responding party has uploaded 175 separate documents.  Many of the individually uploaded documents are exhibits to affidavits.  Many cases are also uploaded individually.  Some documents exceed 500 pages.

I appreciate that the use of CaseLines remains relatively new for counsel and the Court.  There are inconsistencies in how it is used.  In every case, materials must be uploaded with a view to ensuring they are usable by the Court.  Justice Dunphy recently commented on this problem which he described as “endemic”: Basaraba v. Bridal Image Inc., 2021 ONSC 8083 at para 26.  The reality for most judges and associate judges is that they cannot scroll through a list of hundreds of documents in CaseLines in search of a specific document, then click in and click out of those documents for the evidence or authorities to which counsel seeks to direct the Court.

When we relied on paper documents, evidence would be in a single motion record, and authorities would be in a single book of authorities (although often with multiple volumes), with appropriate tabs.  In contrast, in this case and others I have heard, hundreds of documents were uploaded. Notably, exhibits were not uploaded with the affidavit and hyperlinked within the affidavit.  They were uploaded individually. To find an exhibit and marry it up with the appropriate affidavit, I was required to search the complete list of documents that were uploaded.  CaseLines allows only two documents to be viewed at the same time.    Documents that exceeded 500 pages would freeze as I scrolled through them.

I am not advocating for a return to paper documents.  CaseLines is a powerful technological tool.  With it, both counsel and the judiciary can take advantage of its many features to save time and resources.  Like me, many of my colleagues seek to maximize its functionality.  But to do so, counsel are required to use CaseLines properly which requires greater effort on their part.

In particular, I direct counsel to a document titled, CaseLines Hearings – Tips for Counsel and Self-represented Parties”, found at: CaseLines Hearings – Tips for Counsel and Self-represented Parties | Superior Court of Justice (ontariocourts.ca).  Tip 5 In this document states:

Affidavits with attached exhibits should be uploaded in one PDF document with hyperlinks from the affidavit to the exhibits for ease of reference.  Similarly, where a Book of Authorities is provided to the court, it should be uploaded as a single PDF document with a table of contents hyperlinked to the cases contained in it.  This will assist the judicial official in easily locating the exhibits and/or caselaw.  A party’s factum can also be linked to caselaw in publicly available on-line sources such as CanLII, where available.

When uploading a document to CaseLines, ensure the document is under 500 pages in length.  This will allow you to avoid issues with your document freezing while scrolling during your hearing.  As such, if a document such as a book of authorities is loner than 500 pages, it should be broken down into Book of Authorities Vol. 1, Book of Authorities Vol 2, etc. to remain under the maximum number of pages.

In addition, when preparing PDF documents, counsel should bookmark the relevant sections, tabs, or exhibits within a PDF document before uploading them to CaseLines.  It is my practice to download from CaseLines the PDF versions of documents.  I know some of my colleagues do as well, but not all.  If the relevant sections are bookmarked, it assists with finding material within a PDF document.  For example, it is of no use to identify in a factum a case found at a tab of a Book of Authorities, if those tabs have not been created by way of bookmarks in the PDF document.

Had these steps been taken by counsel in this case, the time required to dispose of this time-sensitive injunction motion would have been reduced. Other cases similarly waiting for disposition could have been dealt with sooner.  Counsel must accept responsibility in assisting the Court, and the consequent delays on the administration of justice when they fail to do so.”

         Parekh et al v. Schecter et al, 2022 ONSC 302 (CanLII) at 3-9