Court File and Parties
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO
207 Cayley Street, Walkerton ON N0G 2V0
RE: Pedersen v. Hillier-Shepherd
BEFORE: Justice Chown
COUNSEL: Melissa Miller, for the plaintiffs Andrew K. Lee, for the remaining defendants
READ: January 12, 2026, in writing
Endorsement re Mode of Hearing
1I have received a second request for a remote hearing for the pre‑trial conference in this matter. I have reviewed the remote hearing request, the previous remote hearing request, and my email endorsement of May 29, 2025. I make the following observations:
a. When the RSJs developed the presumptive modes of hearing, they weighed the considerations involved, including the advantages and disadvantages of video hearings.
b. One of the reasons for having presumptive modes of hearing is so that there is no need to determine the mode of hearing for every hearing on every case (or to have to decide the issue more than once). It is time consuming to address these requests. Relatively strict adherence to the presumptive modes of hearing is required for at least two reasons: (i) so that counsel know what to expect; and (ii) to promote appropriate use of court resources (including minimizing the number of requests the court must process). Consistent with this, the practice direction states that there must be “clear and compelling reasons for a change of presumptive mode of hearing” [emphasis in original].
c. For the most part, the judges who do our civil and family motions, applications, pre‑trial conferences, and family conferences in Owen Sound and Walkerton travel here, usually from Brampton or Milton. One reason the system is structured in this way is the widely held belief that in-person conferences result in more settlements. It hardly seems appropriate to have judges travel here to do in-person hearings and have counsel and the parties attend by zoom.
d. I repeatedly receive requests for remote hearings based on the distance counsel must travel, or the convenience of counsel, or the fact that difficult winter driving conditions might prevail on the date of the hearing. These are not “clear and compelling” reasons to change the mode of hearing. If the driving conditions on the day of the hearing prevent travel, the judge hearing the matter will decide what should be done, and the options include changing the hearing to a remote hearing.
e. If counsel accepts a retainer for a Walkerton case, counsel should be able to attend in Walkerton for required hearings. Counsel must factor into consideration both the logistics and the economics of that reality when accepting a retainer in a Walkerton case.
f. Regarding counsel’s difficulties with childcare arrangements, I have sometimes accepted this as a “clear and compelling reason.” In this case, counsel describes her child as a young toddler, not a newborn. With so much lead time before the hearing, it is difficult to accept that a lawyer cannot arrange an extended day of childcare but will somehow be able to arrange childcare for a multi-day jury trial. Counsel has not explained this inconsistency.
g. As to the suggestion that the plaintiff Robert Harrison will have difficulty attending as he now resides in a retirement home, under my email endorsement of May 29, 2025, he was not required to attend. As my email endorsement indicates, clients need not attend but instructing clients need to be available by video or phone. I made that determination in this case because of the nature of the case (a claim for FLA damages arising from a fatal motor vehicle accident along with a nervous shock claim for one plaintiff) and the number of plaintiffs involved (ten).
h. The parties have had an unsuccessful private mediation.
i. I cannot find any record for how or why this pre-trial conference was scheduled for three hours. I likely either directed that for reasons that I no longer recall, or gave permission for it, but on review it seems excessive.
Ruling
2I am switching the conference start time to 12 noon and the duration to one hour. That should accommodate easier childcare arrangements for Ms. Miller and accommodate an easier travel schedule for both counsel.
3In addition, if all parties are content to have a pre-trial conference that is purely focused on trial-scheduling and trial management, I will let them convert the conference to a 30-minute video conference (i.e., with no in-person attendance). The conference will only deal with those issues. If this is the parties’ choice, they should advise the trial coordinator immediately. I appreciate that, under rule 50.06, item 1 on the list of items that “shall” be considered at a pre-trial conference is: “The possibility of settlement of any or all of the issues in the proceeding.” However, in this case, I am prepared to relax this requirement. Alternatively, I believe I am entitled to call the conference a rule 50.13 case conference and direct that it shall be for those purposes only, and further direct that there shall be no rule 50.02 pre-trial conference in this case. I am prepared to give such directions in this case based on the counsel involved and the nature of the case, and because the parties have had a private mediation. The conference judge will of course have full discretion on what to address in the conference and is entitled to order that there shall be a further conference if he or she considers it appropriate to do so.
4If counsel want to have any sort of settlement focus to the conference, it will have to be in person and, as stated above, I will set it for one hour. As previously indicated, clients need not attend but instructing clients need to be available by video or phone.
5Counsel may also reschedule the hearing it if they wish. However, counsel are to advise the trial coordinator immediately if they wish to reschedule so that we can try to use the time for other matters.
Chown J.