Delays in access to justice remain a persistent global challenge. Over the past fifty years, Canada and the United States have introduced sweeping reforms to address mounting court delays, shifting from litigant-driven adversarial models to the unorthodox approach of judge-controlled, case-managed litigation. Prioritizing judicial economy over substantive adjudication underpinned these reforms, yet delays continue to escalate. This Article argues that by positioning judges as the solution, reforms concentrated excessive managerial power in judges’ hands without adequate oversight. This shift has fostered a judicial culture of complacency, where enhanced discretionary powers paradoxically prolong delays rather than resolve them. Efficiency reforms have thus altered the dynamics of delays, creating a new problem rather than solving existing ones. Drawing on decades of Canadian and American literature, this Article reveals that judicial complacency is not isolated, but rather a systemic problem deeply embedded in practice. Heightened judicial power that lacks robust accountability has become as much a part of the problem as it was intended to be the solution. By challenging prevailing silence on the judicial role in the access to justice crisis, this Article seeks to initiate a necessary conversation about how judicial conduct perpetuates delays and why rethinking accountability structures is essential for meaningful reform.
