PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTING AN eAppeal: THE BRITISH COLUMBIA EXPERIENCE Tim Outerbridge, Law Officer, BC Court of Appeal Andrew Clark, Consultant

Introduction: BC eCourt Project  eCourt is a capital funded project in partnership with Court Services & the Judiciary.  eAppeal is part of larger eCourt project in British Columbia.  eAppeal is a “proof of concept” to test the effectiveness of courtroom processes and technologies.

eCourt: Courtroom & Registry

Introduction: eAppeal 1. Why: Why does it make sense to conduct an eAppeal? 2. What: How did we come up with and plan the eAppeal process? 3. How: How did we evaluate the program once the appeal was completed?

Why Conduct an eAppeal?  Because it’s Simpler: Can be easier to organise than a trial.  Because It Efficient: With the right case, net cost savings to the parties and the court.  Because it Achieves Strategic Goals: An investment in future simplicity and efficiency.

Strategic Goals  Test the effectiveness of potential eCourt processes and technologies.  To evaluate how the appellate process works when a proceeding at trial was conducted electronically.  To construct a protocol to be used for all eAppeals, rather than just a “one-off procedure.”

Planning Procedure  Examine as three sets of needs: Part 1, Front End Priorities: Working with counsel, court administration to devise a process to get the records to the court. Part 2, Back End Priorities: Working with judges, court administration to receive, work up and store the materials. Part 3, Presentation: Working with all parties to prepare the courtroom presentation.

Planning Procedure  Each part planned using same process: 1. Consultation 2. Priorities 3. Solution/technology  Solutions driven by needs, not technology.

Front End: Consultation  Recognise the importance of consultation up front.  Conducted informal consultation with counsel, court administration and judges to devise a “wish list” of priorities for each.

Front End: Consultation

Front End: Rank/Compare Priorities  Found that many court priorities matched counsel’s priorities: 1. Material needs to be linked and indexed to allow ease of access and research 2. Simple interface for highlighting, annotating, taking notes 3. Inexpensive / accessible: can sell to clients / public

Front End: Develop Protocol/Tech  Indexed, Linked, Supports Preparation of Case Minimise documents & reduce overlap.  Simple Interface Recognise robust set of tools presently outside skill level of judges.  Accessible/Inexpensive What is the minimum we can spend to accomplish goals.

Front End: The Protocol  Submissions to the court build on each other and remain static once filed. No need for duplication.  Appellant begins, constructs majority of binder, including appeal book (trial record). Circulated.  At the end, Respondent files complete eAppeal record.  The result should be a fully linked electronic binder

The Protocol Jan 2012: Appellant contacts counsel: agree on contents of record and authorities March 2012: Appellant constructs and serves: Electronic Factum, record & authorities June 2012: Respondents & interveners append their factums, linking to record & authorities

Front End: The Technology  Nothing commercially that suited needs Usually too robust/complex/designed for trial  Opted for simple PDF format for several reasons: Technology already being used by counsel “Industry standard” – scalable, storable Inexpensive

Examples / Demonstration

Challenges  Problem 1: Getting counsel to work together. Solution: Case management  Problem 2: Formatting/inconsistencies in style. Solution: Oversight by court staff.  Problem 3: Diverse sets of technical competencies. Solution: Allow some paper for those who need it.

Back End: Consultation  Most judges unfamiliar with the technology – would require extensive training.  But... would not work on appeal until the same month as the hearing.  Records managers required improved infrastructure for receiving and storing eAppeal materials.

Back End: Rank/Compare Priorities  Found that many court administration priorities could also be addressed:  Ease of storage and management  Integration with current practices  Long term storage – is the electronic copy the “original” copy?

Rank/Compare Priorities  Training. Graduated process of education – an initial seminar, follow-up private sessions. Judicial IT “on call” to deal with problems in the lead up to the appeal  Receipt & Storage. Less of a priority. Will become more important as protocol is standardised.

Presentation: Consultation  Both judges and counsel wanted simple courtroom layout to display of PDFs.  Judges required separate workspace, wanted to be able to bring their annotated materials into the courtroom.  Judges wanted to be able to annotate in the courtroom.

Presentation: Courtroom Layout  Centered around a “presentation” source computer, controlled at lectern, with screens producing a mirror- image on bench and counsel tables.  Counsel choose whether to use PC (with assistant/junior) or laptop on lectern as they present.  Judges and other counsel have eAppeal binder on laptops for private viewing and annotating.

Presentation Computer

View from the Bench

View of the “5 Judge Division”

Evaluation

Lessons Learned