THE ADVOCATE 393
VOL. 80 PART 3 MAY 2022
9. See e.g. R v KS, 2020 ONCJ 328 at para 58.
10. Shari Seidman Diamond et al, “Efficiency and Cost:
The Impact of Videoconferenced Hearings on Bail
Decisions” (2010) 100:3 JCLC 869 at 898.
11. Ibid at 900.
12. Ibid.
13. Holly K Orcutt et al, “Detecting Deception in Children’s
Testimony: Factfinders’ Abilities to Reach the
Truth in Open Court and Closed-Circuit Trials”
(2001) 25:4 Law Hum Behav 339 at 366.
14. Wendy P Heath & Bruce D Grannemann, “How
Video Image Size Interacts with Evidence Strength,
Defendant Emotion, and the Defendant-Victim Relationship
to Alter Perceptions of the Defendant”
(2014) 32 Behav Sci Law 496 at 503–04.
15. David Tait et al, “Towards a Distributed Courtroom”
(2017) unpublished at 53, online: <courtofthe
future.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/170
710_TowardsADistributedCourtroom_Compressed.
pdf>.
16. Ibid at 60.
17. Ibid at 20.
18. Ibid at 49, 52.
19. “Demeanour” is the outward presentation of a witness
during testimony, including, for example, their
tone of voice, facial expressions, gestures, conduct
and manner.
20. Charles F Bond Jr & Bella DePaulo, “Accuracy of
Deception Judgements” (2006) 10:3 Prs Soc Psychol
Rev 214 (meta-analytical review of 206 documents
related to 24,483 credibility judges, showing an
overall accuracy rate of fifty-four per cent).
21. Stephen Porner & Leanne ten Brinke, “Dangerous
Decisions: A Theoretical Framework for Understanding
How Judges Assess Credibility in the Courtroom”
(2009) 14:1 Legal Criminol Psychol 119 at 124–25.
22. Ibid.
23. See e.g. R v Barrett, 2021 BCSC 615 at para 27.
24. Meredith Rossner, David Tait & Martha McCurdy,
“Justice Reimagined: Challenges and Opportunities
with Implementing Virtual Courts” (2021) Curr Issues
Crim Justice 1 at 12.
25. Ibid at 12.
26. Christopher Fobes, “Rule 43(a): Remote Witness Testimony
and a Judiciary Resistant to Change” (2020)
24:1 LCLR 299 at 319–20.
27. The Honourable Rosalie Silberman Abella, “Our
Civil Justice System Needs to Be Brought into the 21st
Century”, Globe and Mail (24 April 2020), online:
<www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-ourcivil
justice-system-needs-to-be-brought-into-the-
21st-century/>.
28. Linda Mulcahy, “The Unbearable Lightness of Being?
Shifts Towards the Virtual Trial” (2008) 35:4 J Law
Soc 464 at 484.
29. Provincial Court of British Columbia, “Why Do
Canadian Judges Wear Robes?” (2018), online:
<www.provincialcourt.bc.ca/enews/enews-11-09-
2018>.
30. The term “Master” has been abandoned in a wide
variety of other professions, as the term has raised
concerns about its connection to slavery, while other
terms, such as “My Lady” and “My Lord”, are
directly at odds with the court’s recent shift toward
gender-inclusivity. The B.C. Supreme Court’s Practice
Direction on “Forms of Address” (PD-60), effective
November 18, 2021, states that the “use of the terms
‘My Lord’, ‘My Lady’, ‘Your Lordship,’ and ‘Your
Ladyship’ is to be avoided.” See also the B.C. Court
of Appeal’s Appearing before the Court (Civil &
Criminal Practice Directive, 18 November 2021).
31. Mulcahy, supra note 28 at 480–81 citations omitted.
32. Ibid citations omitted.
33. Canada, Action Committee on Access to Justice in
Civil and Family Matters, Access to Civil & Family
Justice: A Roadmap for Change (Ottawa: Action
Committee to Justice in Civil and Family Matters,
2013) at 7, online: <www.cfcj-fcjc.org/sites/default
/files/docs/2013/AC_Report_English_Final.pdf>.
34. Independent reports were commissioned in relation
to these simulated jury trials. See Linda Mulcahy,
Emma Rowden & Wend Teeder, Exploring the Case
of Virtual Jury Trials During the COVID-19 Crisis: An
Evaluation of a Pilot Study Conducted by JUSTICE
(2020a) unpublished “First Report”, online:
<files.justice.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/
04/06165956/Mulcahy-Rowden-Virtual-trialsfinal.
pdf>; Linda Mulcahy, Emma Rowden & Wend
Teeder, Testing the Case for a Virtual Courtroom with
a Physical Jury Hub: Second Evaluation of a Virtual
Trial Pilot Study Conducted by JUSTICE (2020b)
unpublished “Second Report”, online: <files.jus
tice.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/0616
5935/Mulcahy-Rowden-second-evaluation-report-
JUSTICE-virtual-trial.pdf>; Linda Mulcahy, Emma
Rowden & Wend Teeder, Virtual Courtroom Experiment
(Data Report): Third Evaluation of a Virtual Trial
Pilot Study Conducted by JUSTICE (2020) unpublished
“Third Report”, online: <files.justice.org.
uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/06165906/
FINAL-JUSTICE-III_Exploring-the-case-for-Virtual-
Jury-Trials-during-the-COVID.pdf>.
35. Third Report, supra note 34 at 21.
36. First Report, supra note 34 at 20.
37. Ibid at 21.
38. Ibid. See also Meredith Rossner et al, “The Dock on
Trial: Courtroom Design and the Presumption of
Innocence” (2017) 44:3 J Law Soc 317.
39. Second Report, supra note 34 at 30.
40. Rossner, Tait & McCurdy, supra note 24 at 13.
41. Nourit Zimerman & Tom R Tyler, “Between Access to
Counsel and Access to Justice: A Psychological Perspective”
(2010) 37 Fordham Urb LJ 473 at 488.
42. Rossner, Tait & McCurdy, supra note 24 at 12–13;
Second Report, supra note 34 at 29–30.
43. See Second Report, supra note 34 at 29–30.
44. Shannon Salter, “Online Dispute Resolution and Justice
System Integration: British Columbia’s Civil Resolution
Tribunal” (2017) 34:1 WYAJ 112 at 123.
45. Ibid at 124.
46. Mari J Matsuda, “Looking to the Bottom: Critical
Legal Studies and Reparations” (1987) 22:2 Harv
CR-CL L Rev 323.
47. Salter, supra note 44 at 113.
48. Yasir Naqvi, George M. Duck Lecture (delivered at
the University of Windsor Faculty of Law on February
28, 2018) (2018) 35:1 WYAJ 304 at 305.
/AC_Report_English_Final.pdf
/
/
/
/enews-11-09-2018
/enews-11-09-2018
/AC_Report_English_Final.pdf
/
/170710_TowardsADistributedCourtroom_Compressed.pdf
/Mulcahy-Rowden-Virtual-trials-final.pdf
/Mulcahy-Rowden-second-evaluation-report-JUSTICE-virtual-trial.pdf
/FINAL-JUSTICE-III_Exploring-the-case-for-Virtual-Jury-Trials-during-the-COVID-pdf
/170
/0616