THE ADVOCATE 313
VOL. 77 PART 2 MARCH 2019
If there were a prize for use of “Jurassic Park” in reasons for judgment, one
contender would be Justice D.M. Brown (then of the Ontario Superior
Court), who wrote as follows in Bank of Montreal v. Faibish, 2014 ONSC 2178
under the heading “Mandated E-Trial for both actions” after some counsel
in a then-pending trial expressed a preference to “work in paper”:
4 Providers of music to the public have had to adapt to changes in technology
in order to continue to provide their particular service. Why
should courts and lawyers be any different? Why should we be able to
expect that treating courts like some kind of fossilized Jurassic Park will
enable them to continue to provide a most needed service to the public
in a way the public respects? How many wake-up calls do the legal profession
and the court system need before both look around and discover
that they have become irrelevant museum pieces?
5 Our Court must choose: are we a Court of the Past or a Court of the
Future? I vote for a Court of the Future, and therefore I will not accept
counsel’s suggestion that the six-week trial for this complex commercial
litigation on the Toronto Region Commercial List proceed using both
paper and digital information. I know there are judges available who are
chomping at the bit to conduct more e-trials. Paper must vanish from this
Court and, frankly, the judiciary cannot let the legal profession or our
court service provider hold us back.
Another contender for the “Jurassic Park” prize is Ontario Superior Court
Justice McDermot, writing as follows in Foster v. Marquardt-Foster, 2017
8 In essence, both parties provided spotty or insufficient documentation
at trial and speculation was often necessary in order to make my
findings in this matter; as well, neither husband nor wife were particularly
credible in their evidence or compliant with court orders. In reviewing
the parties’ evidence at trial, I was reminded of the manufactured
dinosaur DNA in the film, Jurassic Park. It might be recalled that in that
movie, when there were gaps in the dino-DNA, the DNA of frogs was used
to fill the gaps. The same might apply to the evidence led by the parties.
There were numerous gaps in the evidence, in particular concerning the
value of assets for equalization purposes. I have had to fill those gaps in
through some exercise in speculation and, as put by Ms. Marquardt-
Foster in evidence, “guestimates” as to values.
Michelle D. Stanford was reappointed as a member of the board of Thompson
Rivers University for a term ending July 31, 2021.
Kasari Jaya Light Govender was reappointed to the board of the University
of Victoria for a term ending July 31, 2021.
Chaslynn S. Gillanders was reappointed as a member of the board of the
University of British Columbia for a term ending July 31, 2020.