Five Lessons Learned from Virtual Hearings: What’s Working and What Needs Improvement

When the COVID-19 pandemic forced tribunals across Canada to pivot to virtual hearings, few anticipated how quickly this shift would reshape administrative justice. What began as an emergency measure has evolved into a permanent fixture for many tribunals. Virtual hearings have improved access to justice and efficiency, but they’ve also introduced new challenges, from technology gaps to questions of procedural fairness.

As tribunals consider the future of virtual and hybrid hearings, here are five key lessons learned on what’s working well and what still needs attention.

Lesson 1: Access to Justice Has Improved but Not Equally

What’s Working:
Virtual hearings have significantly reduced geographic and financial barriers. Parties and witnesses no longer need to travel long distances, saving time and costs. This flexibility has been particularly beneficial for rural communities and individuals with mobility challenges.

What Needs Fixing:
Not everyone has equal access to technology. Self-represented litigants and vulnerable parties often struggle with reliable internet, devices, or quiet spaces. Without adequate support, virtual hearings risk deepening inequities. Tribunals should consider providing technical assistance, clear user guides, and alternative participation options (such as telephone or in-person accommodations) to ensure fairness.

Why It Matters:
Access to justice is a cornerstone of administrative law. Virtual hearings should enhance, not hinder, participation. Investing in digital literacy programs and offering pre-hearing technology checks are practical strategies to ensure meaningful engagement, to better support all participants, regardless of their level of technical comfort or reliable access to digital tools.

Lesson 2: Efficiency Gains Are Real but Come with Trade-Offs

What’s Working:
Virtual hearings have streamlined scheduling and reduced delays. Hearings are less likely to be canceled due to logistical issues, and hybrid models allow flexibility for preliminary matters. Many tribunals have embraced digital case management tools, improving document sharing and reducing administrative overhead.

What Needs Fixing:
Efficiency should never compromise procedural integrity. Some members note that virtual hearings can feel rushed, with less opportunity for informal discussions that often clarify issues. Tribunals should build in time for pre-hearing conferences and ensure that parties have adequate opportunities to present evidence and arguments.

Why It Matters:
Administrative justice is not just about speed, but involves fairness, transparency, and trust in the process. Virtual hearings offer efficiency, but if they compromise procedural integrity, the credibility of decisions and public confidence in tribunals can suffer. By balancing technological convenience with due process safeguards, tribunals can strengthen access to justice and maintain legitimacy in an increasingly digital environment.

Lesson 3: Transparency Has Increased but Privacy Risks Remain

What’s Working:
Livestreaming and virtual access have enhanced openness, allowing media and the public to observe proceedings without physical constraints. This aligns with the open court principle and promotes confidence in tribunal processes.

What Needs Fixing:
Virtual platforms can introduce privacy and security concerns. Unauthorized recordings, data breaches, and “Zoom bombing” incidents have raised alarms. Tribunals should adopt clear protocols for participant identification, prohibit unauthorized recordings, and invest in secure platforms that comply with Canadian privacy standards.

Why It Matters:
Transparency should never come at the cost of privacy. Without strong cybersecurity measures and clear protocols, virtual hearings risk undermining trust in the tribunal process and exposing participants to harm. Protecting sensitive information and setting clear expectations ensures both openness and the integrity of administrative justice in a digital era.

Lesson 4: Credibility Assessments are Possible but Require Care

What’s Working:
Contrary to early skepticism, tribunals have demonstrated that credibility can be effectively assessed in virtual hearings when used with care. Skilled use of technology, such as high-quality video and clear audio, can help adjudicators to observe demeanor, tone, and body language with reasonable accuracy. In some cases, virtual hearings can even reduce distractions and enhance observation and engagement.  

What Needs Fixing:
Technical glitches can undermine fairness. Poor video quality or connectivity issues may affect how testimony is perceived. Tribunals should establish contingency plans for interruptions and consider pausing proceedings when technology fails. Training adjudicators on interpreting non-verbal cues in virtual environments can also help maintain integrity.

Why It Matters:
Credibility assessments often determine the outcome of tribunal decisions, making their accuracy critical to justice. If technology interferes with these evaluations, it risks undermining fairness and eroding confidence in the process. By ensuring reliable tools and proper training, tribunals can preserve integrity while adapting to a digital environment.

Lesson 5: Best Practices Are Emerging but Consistency Is Key

What’s Working:
Guidelines and user manuals have improved participant preparedness. Many tribunals now provide checklists for technology testing, document sharing, and witness protocols. These resources help standardize expectations and reduce confusion.

What Needs Fixing:
Practices remain uneven across jurisdictions. Some tribunals have robust protocols, while others rely on ad hoc arrangements. A national conversation on harmonizing best practices, covering technology standards, privacy safeguards, and procedural fairness, would benefit all stakeholders.

Why It Matters:
Consistency in best practices is vital to ensuring fairness and efficiency in administrative justice. Without harmonized standards, participants face uncertainty and tribunals risk uneven application of technology and privacy safeguards. A coordinated approach would enhance expectations and further strengthen public confidence in virtual hearings.

Conclusion: The Path Forward

Virtual hearings are here to stay, but their success depends on continuous improvement. By addressing technology gaps, reinforcing fairness, and adopting consistent best practices with virtual proceedings, tribunals will be better equipped to uphold the principles of access to justice and procedural integrity.

At LexisNexis Canada, we’re committed to supporting tribunals through this digital evolution:

• Leading Treatises: ‘Virtual Advocacy: Litigating from a Distance’ by Sean Petrou  and Akiva Stern, offers key insights and practical information for navigating virtual advocacy.
• Practical Guidance: Access to checklists and informative guides on preparing and conducting virtual hearings.
• Webinars: An extensive archive of informative webinars on emerging topics such as AI, technology, and automation to help inform and optimize digital tools in conducting administrative justice.

As a trusted legal research partner, LexisNexis Canada provides the resources, expertise, and collaborative support needed to help tribunals adapt confidently and maintain fairness, transparency, and credibility in a rapidly evolving digital landscape.