For several years now, judges, lawyers and law clerks have been forced to pivot from paper
to digital documents. In litigation, Case Center (formerly CaseLines) is the only game in town. If a party or their lawyer wants their case heard, their material must be uploaded to Case Center.
Some judges have been patient and understanding about the challenges lawyers and law clerks have experienced adopting this new way of practising law. But in a recent case, the judge had had enough and let the lawyers know.
This matter came before the court for a Settlement Conference on Nov. 3, 2025. Neither party uploaded their Settlement Conference Brief into the correct Case Center bundle. The lawyers attempted to explain that their prior briefs were in the earlier Settlement Conference bundle and that they didn’t need to re-upload documents again when the matter was adjourned. The court rejected these submissions outright and concluded that the problem was a persistent disregard for the procedural requirements.
In Ibeh v. Ibeh, 2025 ONSC 7107, the judge invited the lawyers to explain why they should not be held personally liable for costs and had this to say:
None of these arguments convince me that orders should not be made pursuant to Rule
24(11). Court rules and Practice Directions were not followed. Documents were not uploaded.
It is counsel’s responsibility, not the court’s, to ensure all documents are uploaded to the
correct bundle. The use of Case Center is not new. The Ontario Superior Court judiciary was
patient with counsel at the introduction of CaseLines, now Case Center, to allow time to
transition and ensure access to justice for litigants, but the time for patience has long expired.
The judge held that the responsibility to ensure that all materials are uploaded into the correct bundle rests squarely with the lawyers — not with court staff, opposing lawyer or the judge. The judge went further and stated that expecting the court to search through old bundles was incompatible with the rules and the efficient administration of justice. The judge bluntly stated that court rules and practice directions “will have no purpose if they are not followed or enforced.”
As is evident, this judge’s patience had worn thin, and she was prepared to impose monetary consequences upon these lawyers for their law clerks’ failure to upload materials properly. To express disapproval with the lawyers, the judge turned to Family Law Rule 24(11), which empowers the court to sanction a lawyer who “has run up costs related to a step in a case without reasonable cause or has wasted costs.”
The result was a sweeping order. The lawyers were prohibited from charging their clients for drafting their Settlement Conference Briefs and Confirmations and for preparing for, attending and travelling to the settlement Conference. In short, these lawyers, not their clients, bore the financial consequences of the wasted court appearance.
This court decision reflects a broader judicial message that is becoming increasingly common:
technological competence is now part of basic professional competence.
Notice to lawyers and law clerks alike: Uploading documents to Case Center correctly is a core procedural obligation. Case Center compliance is not optional, adjournable or someone else’s problem. Judges are prepared to enforce the rules, and increasingly, they are doing so in ways that directly affect lawyers’ bottom lines.
Share this article on: