Across Canada and beyond, organizations are waking up to a hard truth:
It’s no longer enough to say you value inclusion—your boardroom needs to show it.

For young lawyers and law students just beginning their careers, this call for inclusion is not theoretical, it’s foundational. They’re entering a world where law, leadership, and lived experience increasingly intersect to shape what fair, ethical, and effective governance looks like.

Too often, conversations about equity and diversity stay stuck at the surface, fixating on demographics and checking boxes. But when we look closer, a deeper issue emerges: individuals with different lived experiences often encounter spaces that are not inclusive.

This isn’t just an interpersonal issue—it’s a governance failure.

Boardrooms that default to groupthink, ignore lived experience, or centre legacy knowledge over curiosity are more likely to reinforce inequities and miss critical risks and opportunities. In an age where trust is fragile and accountability is non-negotiable, the ability to govern inclusively is a core leadership competency—not a nice-to-have. Failing to create space for meaningful inclusion is a liability.

The recent GPC position paper Inclusion and Belonging in the Boardroom makes this case powerfully. It calls on boards to move beyond performative efforts and instead embed belonging into the very fabric of governance—from recruitment to decision-making, orientation to evaluation.

As the paper puts it: “The goal is not to just bring diverse voices to the table, but to ensure they are heard, valued, and able to contribute meaningfully.”

What Inclusion in Governance Really Requires

It’s time to evolve beyond performative inclusion. Belonging must be hardwired into board governance—embedded in recruitment, decision-making, orientation, and evaluation. That requires more than revising a policy or adding a diverse seat. It calls for a fundamental shift in how power operates, how expertise is defined, and how culture is shaped.

It means:

• Examining how meeting norms may silence some and elevate others
• Revisiting how we define “expertise” to value lived experience alongside credentials
• Shifting from gatekeeping to gate-opening, creating onramps for those historically excluded from governance
• Investing in learning, discomfort, and humility as ongoing board competencies—not one- time trainings

These shifts don’t happen overnight—and they can feel uncomfortable. But that discomfort is often a sign of growth. The good news? There are concrete actions the governance professionals and boards can begin implementing right now.

Entry Points to Start Today

So, how do we move from intent to impact?

In the full paper, we outline practical entry points for boards ready to act:

• Clarify the “why” behind board diversification: What values guide this? What’s the intended impact?
• Ensure inclusive recruitment: Rethink role descriptions, expand your networks, and revise how interviews are
• Embed equity into onboarding: Culture and expectations must be explicit—especially for new directors from equity-deserving
• Build capacity for difference: Equip boards to embrace dissent, navigate discomfort, and value multiple truths.
• Rethink evaluation: Are we measuring inclusion? Traditional board assessments rarely do—this must change.

These aren’t radical departures from governance best practice—they’re how we future-proof it.

Inclusive governance is responsive governance. It reflects the communities served, mitigates risk, strengthens trust, and enables smarter, more ethical decision-making.

If we want to live in a world where everyone belongs, our boardrooms must model what that looks like.

A Challenge for Governance Professionals

Here’s the uncomfortable truth:

Boards don’t rise to the level of their intentions. They fall to the level of their habits.

Governance professionals play a critical role as stewards of trust and culture. The opportunity— and responsibility—is clear:

To create boardrooms where belonging is built into the structure, not bolted on after the fact.

The call to action for the next generation of legal professionals is clear: inclusion isn’t just a value to uphold; it’s a leadership standard to embody. As they step into roles of influence, it will be their courage—not just compliance—that defines the future of board leadership.

So the question becomes: The next evolution of board excellence won’t be built on credentials or compliance—it will be built on courage.

Will your governance practices adapt to meet this moment?

The best time to rethink your board culture was yesterday. The next best time is today.

– Erin Davies,
Member, GPC

The post Inclusion and Belonging in the Boardroom: A Call to Rethink How We Lead appeared first on Slaw.

I recently watched a documentary called Sensitive. The topic of this article was inspired by its content.

Introduction

Have you ever been told that you are too sensitive? Or that you need to have tough skin in this world and especially in the legal profession?

Or, how about the time when you are feeling sad or may start to cry, someone looks at you in a judgmental way and says, “what’s your problem? No one wants a sensitive person to be their lawyer.”

It seems that many of us have shut down our emotions and decided to hide who we really are, in an effort to fit a mold that society invented for lawyers, at the expense of mental health and physical health.

For years, I have been trying to understand how to help our profession get over the stigma of mental health. Unfortunately, after 30 years, I am sad to say that we have not moved the needle very far, and are still muddling through this task. I hope that this article will continue to bring us closer to finally eradicating the stigma of mental health in the legal profession.

What is an HSP?

Being a sensitive individual has become a negative aspect of a person’s personality, especially if you are a lawyer or a judge.

Sensitivity wrongly implies to people that a person cannot make unbiased decisions, as they are guided more by emotions. People seem to think that being sensitive detracts from making good decisions. I completely disagree, and so does extensive research that has come out regarding sensitive individuals.

What people don’t understand is that being a sensitive individual, is actually a superpower and not a negative personality trait.

Albert Einstein, Vincent van Gogh, Charles Darwin, Alanis Morisetts and Nicole Kidman have all been identified as highly sensitive people.

HSP stands for highly sensitive person.

This is a terms that was created by psychologist Elaine Aron, who has written books on this topic.

According to Ms. Aron, there are certain people in society that have a personality trait known as sensory processing sensitivity or SPS.

This is not a disorder but simply a personality trait with which and some individuals in the population are born.

A highly sensitive individual has increased emotional sensitivity, stronger reactions to external and internal stimuli such as pain, hunger, light and noise.

According to Aron’s research, 15-20% of the population is highly sensitive and fall into the HSP category.

Many people believe that having such sensitivity is a negative trail. However, some of the most creative and intelligent people are actually highly sensitive individuals.

Benefits of Being an HSP

For those of you who are highly sensitive people, or those who think the sensitivity is a burden rather than a blessing, here are some benefits of being an HSP.

An HSP is going to be more attuned to their environment. So they will be the first to notice if someone is upset, or in distress. This is due to the fact that an HSP tunes into the non spoken behaviors of individuals, such as demeanor, body language, and the sound of ones voice.

HSP feel deeply and so even though they may be deeply affected by tragedy and negativity around them, they are also able to connect with people on a very profound level and are trusted friends and confidants.

When an HSP as a lawyer, interviews a client they are attuned to the non verbal messages being sent by the client. So the person may be saying one thing but the lawyer or judge will perceive other signals that tell them some more investigation may need to be made into the specific issues.

This allows for a more detailed interview process, better analysis of facts and evidence, and more effective representation.

The difficulty for an HSP is that as a result of feeling the world around them in such a deep way, they may get tired and overwhelmed easier than others. So in an effort to self care, an HSP may not attend as many functions, or leave gatherings earlier.

This makes life a bit hard, when work at times requires attendance at events, or having to perform duties within a specific period of time during the day.

HSP need time to recharge and to bring their nervous system into balance. Instead of taking a few hours after a long day to decompress, they may need a day. They may also need to work at different hours than the normal 9-5, in order to accommodate their innate talent of taking in the world at 150% most of the time.

It’s unfortunate that we live in a world where 9-whatever is the norm. Who created this “norm”?

In many European cities, people take time for long lunches, start work later, and finish when they are done with their tasks. They are able to have at least four weeks vacation as the norm and work/life balance is recognized by most companies.

The ability of an HSP to process a great deal of information, have extensive understanding of the topics they are dealing with, and provide creative solutions, comes with a price because workplaces do may not t accommodate for their need to recharge and decompress.

When an HSP comes into a workplace and is able to perform all their duties, but not manage the 9-5 or the necessity to participate in work events, they are immediately labeled as not a good employee. This label is based solely on the social aspect of work rather than the actual duties.

At the end of the day, the HSP will find alternative employment or open their own business. The benefit of these exceptional individuals will be lost to those superficial workspaces where employers don’t understand how to help and accommodate those who don’t fit the mold of North American society dictates as “norma.”

Thinking Outside the Box

In an effort to make this world a better place for everyone, let’s for just a moment, turn the societal norms upside down.

What if a person could work on a schedule that fits their personality. It would give a HSP the ability to manage the stimuli and world around them so they can perform their job at the highest quality.

What if by accommodating personality traits, we can actually achieve performance of duties to previously unattainable heights?

Of course we have to balance the accommodation with the necessary duties of certain careers. However, with some compassion and ingenuity, solutions can be created.

Balance is key. For example an HSP may be allowed to start work at 10 or 11 in the morning. They may be allowed take more breaks to manage the plethora of stimuli coming at them. They may work later rather than starting earlier. They may not be forced to attend all the social events but rather chose when to attend and when to leave.

What if the workplace focused on the performance of duties rather than giving credence and promotions to those who can manage a 9-whatever hamster wheel?

What if the workplace rewarded competence, excellence and individuality?

The answer is simple. By allowing people to be themselves and adjusting our work environment to the individuals who work there, will in essence provide a much more successful work space, increased productivity, reduction in sick days and in general a happier and kinder world.

So next time someone tells you that you are too sensitive… tell them, “yes I am” and just walk away.

________________

Disclaimer

The information in this article is not therapy, counseling, psychotherapy, psychoanalysis, mental health care/treatment, substance abuse care/ treatment, nor is it medical, psychological, mental health advice or treatment, or any other professional advice.

The information in this article is for information purposes only, and is not to be used as a substitute for therapy, counseling, psychotherapy, psychoanalysis, mental health care, medical care, or any other professional advice by legal, medical or other qualified professionals.

The information in this article shall not be recorded, copied or distributed.

If you feel that you may need medical or other professional help, please contact your doctor or call 911 if it is an emergency.

The post The Wellness Lawyer: “Can You Be a Lawyer and a Highly Sensitive Person (HSP)?” appeared first on Slaw.

Canadian courts and judges are using AI in their work. Not all of them, but some of them. A small number of courts have publicly announced formal pilots or adoption of AI tools (see, e.g., here and here); other courts have authorized judges to use certain AI tools but haven’t (to my knowledge) made any public announcements about these authorizations; and, finally, individual judges are experimenting with using AI tools in their work on ad hoc, generally undisclosed (at least to the public) bases. I am not aware of any judicial decision in Canada in which a judge has acknowledged AI use, although there is one highly publicized case of suspected misuse. While AI adoption is underway within Canada’s judiciary, it is unfolding with remarkably little public transparency.

This is, to my mind, a serious problem. Public confidence in the courts rests on transparency about how justice is being administered. The Supreme Court of Canada has identified openness as “a principal component of the legitimacy of the judicial process” and admonished that “as a result of their significance, the courts must be open to public scrutiny and to public criticism of their operation by the public.” These words arise in the open court jurisprudence, which is, to be sure, a different context. Also, it is true that Canadian judges have long used technological tools without disclosing the specifics of what’s on their computers. The underlying premise of this column is, however, that our current AI era demands more disclosure. We need to borrow from the open court jurisprudence (and Jeremy Bentham) to embrace the idea that “publicity is the very soul of AI-empowered justice”.

What makes the AI era different? In short, the relatively easy access to powerful tools that can perform types of work that previously only humans could do. While no Canadian courts are directly delegating decision-making to AI, even uses characterized as “assistive” – take, for example, producing legal analysis, drafting reasons (or parts thereof), and summarizing evidence – implicate core judicial tasks and can shape both the form and substance of the justice delivered. To the extent that AI is influencing how Canadian judges administer justice, the public has a right to know.

Transparency provides the basis for informed public opinion – whether laudatory or critical – about how AI is impacting the administration of justice. The one case of suspected judicial AI misuse has prompted public discourse about AI use and trial fairness. But we shouldn’t have to wait for things to go wrong to have a conversation. Also, a lack of transparency risks the public overestimating how much AI is being used in Canadian courts and potentially driving unfounded worries. Too much secrecy risks sowing seeds of misunderstanding and distrust.

Concerns about judicial independence also underlie a call for greater transparency. As I have written about before, the outputs of generative AI tools are shaped both by the data the tools have access to and the priorities encoded in the tools by their developers. For example:

An AI legal research tool that is designed to give users legal answers as opposed to just a list of cases is going to have a lot of internal – most likely hidden – instructions (i.e. system prompts) about how it should get to an answer. It may, for example, contain built-in instructions about what precedents and secondary sources to favour, what follow up questions (if any) to ask the user or to allow the user to ask, how much detail to provide in the output, which details should be emphasized in an output, and what language or tone to use.

All these instructions reflect choices embedded into the tool by private developers – choices which may or may not be aligned with judicial values or the public interest. And all these choices have the potential to shape our understanding of what the law is on a given topic and how that law is best described.

Commercial interests are also at play here. The AI industry is “big business”. To give one somewhat jaw-dropping point of reference: the legal AI platform Harvey was recently valued at $11 billion. As with all businesses, legal AI companies depend on customers and courts are potential buyers or, in the case of free licenses, legitimacy providers. My point is not that the AI industry has nefarious intentions toward courts; it is that AI tools are shaped by private-sector choices and commercial incentives, and that, therefore, their introduction into the justice system warrants scrutiny.

What might greater transparency about AI tools in Canadian courts look like? An interesting model is the federal government’s recently released AI Register. Launched in November 2025, the AI Register “provides Canadians with information about where and how AI is being used within the federal government.” As of writing, the Register has 409 entries, disclosing a fascinating diversity of uses — from identifying insect species on “sticky traps”, to financial forecasting, to streamlining passport processing. The AI Register includes both active uses and those in development, and each entry includes, among other things, information about how the AI system is being used, the system’s vendor, data sources, and results.

The AI Register was explicitly launched as a “minimum viable product”, with “only basic features” and with the goal of “engag[ing] partners and the public on the content and functions they would like to see in future versions” of the Register. Earlier this year, the federal government launched a consultation seeking this type of feedback. While the future form of the federal government’s AI Register is still up in the air, it already represents, in the words of my colleague Teresa Scassa, “an important commitment” and is aligned with international trends toward greater transparency in public sector AI use.

So, why not have a Canadian Court AI Register? There would, of course, be practical issues to sort out — where such a register would be housed, how to define AI, what level of disclosure to require, and how to capture both institutional and individual use. None of these complications, in my view, should foreclose a move to greater transparency. We don’t need some sort of precisely defined, strictly enforced, and universally scoped regulatory regime to make headway here. One option might be to have an independent non-partisan entity, such as a university or well-respected legal non-profit, host the Court AI Register, with voluntary submissions from courts across the country and with chief justices gathering information about individual judge use. While a model like this might not guarantee full information, it would be a start and perhaps encourage a broader culture shift towards greater transparency.

One possible argument against a Court AI Register is that moving to a culture of disclosure may have a “chilling effect”. If courts and judges must disclose AI use, will they simply opt out of using the technology rather than open themselves up to scrutiny? It is impossible to know whether this worry would be empirically borne out. Indeed, it seems equally possible that a Court AI Register could encourage better innovation. As Teresa Scassa has observed in relation to the federal government’s AI Register, “[b]y making its uses of AI systems more transparent internally, the government can avoid duplicative efforts, allow better collaboration across departments and agencies, and perhaps also share ideas for helpful uses of AI tools to streamline different processes.” Sharing examples of effective and responsible judicial AI use could lead to more uptake of the kind we want. And, to the extent that any judges might be using AI in more risky and possibly problematic ways, dissuasion resulting from more scrutiny would not seem to be a bad thing.

It does bear emphasis, though, that the point of a Court AI Register would not be “naming and shaming”. Canada has a serious access to justice problem that includes the overloading of our courts and judges. It is reasonable and responsible for the judiciary to look at new technologies and consider whether and how they might contribute to ameliorating access to justice issues by making court work more efficient. At the same time, it is important that we have informed and robust public discussion about the best ways to deploy technology in our justice system. A Court AI Register would facilitate this kind of discussion.

We are at a consequential moment in the evolving relationship between AI and the justice system. Establishing a norm of transparency now, before habits harden and norms calcify, seems both urgent and entirely achievable. The status quo is troubling and, in my view, unsustainable. A Court AI Register would be a helpful step forward.

The post Towards Transparency: Why Not a Court AI Register? appeared first on Slaw.

On March 26, 2026, Bill C-12, the Strengthening Canada’s Immigration System and Borders Act, received Royal Assent. Framed as a response to system pressures and “asylum shopping,” the law marks one of the most significant shifts in Canada’s refugee regime since 2002. Its core effect is simple but profound: it narrows who gets access to a full refugee hearing, and how.

Three changes deserve particular attention.

A One-Year Deadline for Refugee Claims

Canada has replaced a flexible standard requiring claims to be made “without delay” with a strict one-year filing deadline. Claims submitted after that period are generally barred from referral to the Refugee Protection Division (RPD), with only limited exceptions.

This shift matters. The earlier approach allowed decision-makers to consider real-world barriers such as trauma, lack of legal advice, or confusion about the system. A fixed deadline, by contrast, treats all delays the same. For many claimants, especially the most vulnerable, that may mean exclusion before their case is ever heard.

From a legal perspective, this raises familiar concerns. Canadian courts have long held that where removal may expose someone to serious harm, procedural fairness is not optional; it is a constitutional requirement. A rigid time bar risks prioritizing efficiency over the individualized justice that refugee protection demands.

The issue is compounded by the law’s retroactive reach. The deadline applies to claims made after June 2025 but can capture individuals who entered Canada years earlier. Even where Parliament clearly intends such reach, retroactivity that affects access to protection is likely to invite Charter scrutiny.

Conditional Exclusion Based on Entry

Bill C-12 also reshapes access to the refugee system based on how and when a person enters Canada. Some individuals who cross irregularly, particularly from the United States, and delay making a claim may be deemed ineligible for a full RPD hearing.

Instead, they are directed to the Pre‑Removal Risk Assessment (PRRA), an administrative process with more limited safeguards. Unlike the RPD, the PRRA is typically paper based, offers no automatic oral hearing, and lacks a built in right of appeal.

This is not a total denial of protection, but it is a downgrade in process. And in refugee law, process matters. International principles, including those reflected in the Refugee Convention, caution against penalizing individuals for irregular entry when they are fleeing danger. Conditioning access to a full hearing on strict compliance with entry rules risks undermining that protection in practice.

More importantly, substituting a limited administrative review for an independent hearing may increase the risk of wrongful return. When the stakes include persecution or torture, the margin for procedural shortcuts is thin.

Expanded Executive Power

Finally, Bill C-12 expands the executive’s authority to cancel immigration documents, including visas and permits, on a group basis.

While oversight mechanisms exist, the shift toward class based decision making marks a departure from the traditional emphasis on individualized assessment in Canadian administrative law. Courts have consistently underscored that the more serious the consequences for individuals, the stronger the duty of procedural fairness.

Group based cancellations risk falling short of that standard. Decisions affecting entire categories of people, without considering personal circumstances such as family ties, reliance, or risk upon return, may be difficult to justify if challenged.

A System Reoriented

Taken together, these reforms signal a clear reorientation of Canada’s asylum system. Access to protection is increasingly filtered through strict timelines, admissibility rules, and administrative pathways. Efficiency and control are foregrounded, while individualized assessment is constrained. Whether this balance will withstand judicial scrutiny remains to be seen. What is clear, however, is that Bill C-12 transforms not just how refugee claims are decided, but who gets the chance to be heard in the first place.

__

Baya Amouri is a Postdoctoral Visiting Fellow as part of the Max Weber Programme for Postdoctoral Studies at the European University Institute (Italy) and is affiliated with the EUI Migration Policy Centre (Italy) and the Centre for Refugee Studies, York University (Canada)

The post Bill C-12 and the Changing Landscape of Asylum Access in Canada appeared first on Slaw.

Each Monday we present brief excerpts of recent posts from five of Canada’s award­-winning legal blogs chosen at random* from more than 80 recent Clawbie winners. In this way we hope to promote their work, with their permission, to as wide an audience as possible.

This week the randomly selected blogs are 1. Stack Condo Law 2. Legal Feeds 3. Vincent Gautrais 4. Rule of Law 5. PierreRoy & Associés

Stack Condo Law
5 Things Condo Managers Must Do When Served With a Claim

No one wants to be handed a claim. Whether it is a slip and fall action, a dispute over repair obligations, a contract issue, or an owner complaint that has escalated into litigation, the first few steps matter and time is of the essence. A delayed or disorganized response can create unnecessary risk for the corporation.To avoid this, and the stress that comes from it, we put together this checklist of steps that managers (or anyone on behalf of the corporation) should take when served with a claim. …

Legal Feeds
Crown did not have to prove exact time of sexual assault for Ontario man to be convicted: SCC

The Supreme Court of Canada upheld an Ontario man’s sexual assault conviction on Friday even though he presented an alibi, ruling in a unanimous decision that the Crown was not required to prove the exact time the assault occurred.The high court first dismissed the man’s appeal of his conviction in March, issuing an oral judgment from the bench after the parties presented their arguments at a hearing. Friday’s 11-page update in G.G. v. His Majesty the King offers reasons for the ruling and is not attributed to any particular justice. …

Vincent Gautrais
Rencontres Jeunes chercheurs Droit & Numérique – Droit, Numérique et Autonomie

La Chaire L.R. Wilson a le plaisir de vous convier à la 8e édition des Rencontres Jeunes Chercheurs Droit & Numérique, qui se tiendra le mercredi 6 mai 2026 en format hybride à HEC Montréal. Cet événement s’adresse aux jeunes chercheuses et chercheurs souhaitant échanger autour des enjeux contemporains du droit du numérique, dans un cadre favorisant la discussion et les collaborations. …

Rule of Law
Is Someone Named in a Lawsuit as both an Executor and Personally Separate Persons?

It is common for a person to be named in an estate lawsuit to be named personally and as an executor or administrator. For example, in British Columbia, in a wills variation claim, it is necessary for the plaintiff to name the executor of a will as well as all the beneficiaries (and anyone else who is entitled to apply to vary the will). If the same person is both the executor and a beneficiary, their name may appear twice: once as executor and once as a beneficiary. The claim may say “Jane Smith v. John Smith as executor of the will of Mary Smith and John Smith in his personal capacity.” …

PierreRoy & Associés
Établir un budget familial : quand les fins de mois deviennent un casse-tête

Entre la hausse du coût de l’épicerie, les paiements d’hypothèque ou de loyer qui augmentent et les dépenses imprévues, de nombreuses familles québécoises sentent leur budget leur échapper. On fonctionne au jour le jour, on paie ce qui est urgent, on repousse le reste. Et tranquillement, le stress financier s’installe. La bonne nouvelle, c’est qu’il est possible de renverser la tendance. …

_________________________

*Randomness here is created by Random.org and its list randomizing function.

The post Monday’s Mix appeared first on Slaw.

Every week we present the summary of a decision handed down by a Québec court provided to us by SOQUIJ and considered to be of interest to our readers throughout Canada. SOQUIJ is attached to the Québec Department of Justice and collects, analyzes, enriches, and disseminates legal information in Québec.

PÉNAL (DROIT) : La Cour rejette l’appel de la peine de 18 mois d’emprisonnement infligée à l’accusé, lequel a accédé, à partir d’un ordinateur, à des comptes de courrier électronique, Facebook ou iCloud à l’insu d’une vingtaine de personnes titulaires de ceux-ci, accédant ainsi à des renseignements de nature privée, voire sexuelle et intime.

Intitulé : Desgagnés c. R., 2026 QCCA 475
Juridiction : Cour d’appel (C.A.), Québec
Décision de : Juges Martin Vauclair, Simon Ruel et Michel Beaupré
Date : 27 mars 2026

Résumé

PÉNAL (DROIT) — détermination de la peine — infractions contre les biens et la propriété — divers — utilisation non autorisée d’un ordinateur — 20 victimes — introduction dans des comptes virtuels de tiers — adresse courriel — média social — téléchargement de contenu privé — piratage informatique — gravité de l’infraction — facteurs aggravants — préméditation — répétition des gestes — espace temporel — nombre de victimes — conséquences pour les victimes — atteinte à la vie privée — conséquence indirecte de la peine — médiatisation — lien avec la nature de l’infraction — médiatisation presque inévitable — personnalités connues — accusé ne pouvant contredire les conclusions essentielles à sa culpabilité ni les conclusions ou les inférences tirées de la preuve par le juge du procès — culpabilité morale — changement de motivation — voyeurisme — lettre du thérapeute de l’accusé — absence de preuve d’expert — harmonisation des peines — dénonciation — dissuasion — détention — probation — appel — absence d’erreur.

PÉNAL (DROIT) — détermination de la peine — opérations frauduleuses — divers — vol d’identité — fraude à l’identité — possession de renseignements identificateurs — 20 victimes — introduction dans des comptes virtuels de tiers — adresse courriel — média social — téléchargement de contenu privé — piratage informatique — gravité de l’infraction — facteurs aggravants — préméditation — répétition des gestes — espace temporel — nombre de victimes — conséquences pour les victimes — atteinte à la vie privée — conséquence indirecte de la peine — médiatisation — lien avec la nature de l’infraction — médiatisation presque inévitable — personnalités connues — accusé ne pouvant contredire les conclusions essentielles à sa culpabilité ni les conclusions ou les inférences tirées de la preuve par le juge du procès — culpabilité morale — changement de motivation — voyeurisme — lettre du thérapeute de l’accusé — absence de preuve d’expert — harmonisation des peines — dénonciation — dissuasion — détention — probation — appel — absence d’erreur.

PÉNAL (DROIT) — détermination de la peine — infractions contre les biens et la propriété — méfait — méfaits à l’égard de données informatiques — 20 victimes — introduction dans des comptes virtuels de tiers — adresse courriel — média social — téléchargement de contenu privé — piratage informatique — gravité de l’infraction — facteurs aggravants — préméditation — répétition — espace temporel — nombre de victimes — conséquences pour les victimes — atteinte à la vie privée — conséquence indirecte de la peine — médiatisation — lien avec la nature de l’infraction — médiatisation presque inévitable — personnalités connues — accusé ne pouvant contredire les conclusions essentielles à sa culpabilité ni les conclusions ou les inférences tirées de la preuve par le juge du procès — culpabilité morale — changement de motivation — voyeurisme — lettre du thérapeute de l’accusé — absence de preuve d’expert — harmonisation des peines — dénonciation — dissuasion — détention — probation — appel — absence d’erreur.

PÉNAL (DROIT) — détermination de la peine — principes généraux — facteurs à prendre en considération — conséquence indirecte de la peine — médiatisation — lien avec la nature de l’infraction — médiatisation presque inévitable — personnalités connues — accusé ne pouvant contredire les conclusions essentielles à sa culpabilité ni les conclusions ou les inférences tirées de la preuve par le juge du procès — utilisation non autorisée d’un ordinateur — vol d’identité — fraude à l’identité — méfaits à l’égard de données informatiques — appel.

Appel de la peine. Rejeté.

L’appelant a accédé, à partir d’un ordinateur, à des comptes de courrier électronique, Facebook ou iCloud à l’insu de leurs titulaires, soit une vingtaine de personnes, dont la plupart n’ont aucun lien de parenté avec lui. Les intrusions se sont poursuivies pendant environ 5 ans. L’appelant accédait notamment à des sauvegardes iCloud de téléphones appartenant à certaines victimes et, de façon générale, à des renseignements de nature privée, voire sexuelle et intime. Il conservait ces renseignements. Il a été condamné à 18 mois d’emprisonnement, en sus de 3 ans de probation, pour des infractions reliées à l’utilisation frauduleuse d’un ordinateur.

Décision

L’appelant ne démontre aucune erreur ayant eu une incidence sur la peine. La juge de première instance n’a pas erronément cru qu’il s’était «introduit» dans un téléphone cellulaire; il n’est pas erroné de constater qu’il a eu accès à des données équivalentes. Quant à l’intrusion dans une résidence, la juge a utilisé cette comparaison pour indiquer le caractère hautement privé des données informatiques issues de nos activités quotidiennes. Pour ce qui est du témoignage de l’appelant, elle a uniquement exclu les aspects en contradiction avec ses déterminations factuelles au procès, et cela est conforme au droit (Ferjuste c. R. (C.A., 2026-03-13), 2026 QCCA 334, SOQUIJ AZ-52199860, 2026EXP-790). Bien que cet arrêt s’inscrive dans le contexte d’un plaidoyer de culpabilité, la règle est la même après un procès; l’accusé ne peut tenter de contredire les conclusions essentielles à sa culpabilité ni les conclusions ou les inférences tirées de la preuve par le juge du procès ou encore, dans le cas d’un jury, celles qui sont nécessaires au verdict. Ensuite, si, comme le prétend l’appelant, la preuve de sa motivation initiale de commettre les crimes est différente de celle qui l’a poussé à persévérer dans leur commission, cette nuance ne peut modifier sa responsabilité morale, telle que l’a retenue la juge. De même, contrairement à ce qu’il allègue, la lettre de son thérapeute ne constitue manifestement pas une expertise, mais plutôt un compte rendu des perceptions de l’appelant sur son cheminement dans une prise de conscience relativement à ses gestes. Au surplus, le thérapeute n’a ni témoigné au procès ni été déclaré expert, et certaines des affirmations contenues dans cette lettre sont contraires à la preuve.

Enfin, la juge a utilisé la jurisprudence soumise par les parties, lesquelles ont fait valoir les distinctions et les rapprochements qui s’imposaient. Ayant évalué les circonstances de l’espèce, elle était consciente des distinctions et, en définitive, elle a retenu que la criminalité s’apparentant à du piratage informatique et à des intrusions dans l’intimité des victimes, notamment motivées par le voyeurisme, menait généralement à des peines d’emprisonnement, parfois avec sursis. Il n’y a pas d’erreur à ce chapitre.

Dans le présent dossier, le nombre de victimes est important et les crimes sont graves. La juge a évalué tant le crime que ses conséquences. Elle a soupesé la responsabilité morale de l’appelant et a retenu un agir criminel structuré, planifié et intrusif qui s’était poursuivi sur une longue période, même après une perquisition. Compte tenu de tous ces facteurs, même s’il fallait se montrer critique à l’égard du refus du sursis et du poids de la médiatisation, laquelle était particulièrement importante dans ce cas, il demeure qu’une pondération sérieuse a été effectuée. Quant à la médiatisation, une conséquence indirecte «à ce point directement liée à la nature de l’infraction qu’elle est presque inévitable» peut voir son importance diminuée. En l’espèce, l’appelant a pris pour cible certaines personnalités connues, ce qui a eu pour effet d’attirer l’attention des médias. À bon droit, la juge n’a pas quantifié ce facteur. Elle l’a néanmoins pondéré en raison des conséquences pour l’appelant qui avaient été prouvées.

Le texte intégral de la décision est disponible ici

The post Summaries Sunday: SOQUIJ appeared first on Slaw.

As a supplement to our Sunday Summary each month, Supreme Advocacy LLP in Ottawa presents Supreme One-Liners, a super-short descriptive guide to the most recent decisions at the Supreme Court of Canada. Supreme Advocacy LLP offers its more comprehensive weekly electronic newsletter, Supreme Advocacy Letter, summarizing all Appeals, Oral Judgments and Leaves to Appeal granted.

Oral Judgment

Criminal Law: Fresh Evidence
R. v. Maadani, 2026 SCC 11 (41972)

Appeal re fresh evidence dismissed 5:2.

Appeals

Criminal Law: Forfeiture
R. v. Nguyen, 2026 SCC 10 (41400)

Stay of proceedings not bar forfeiture proceedings.

Appeal (Reasons)

Criminal Law: Sexual Assault; Alibi
R. v. G.G., 2026 SCC 12 (41963)

Crown “generally not required to establish…exact timing of…offence”.

The post Summaries Sunday: Supreme One-Liners appeared first on Slaw.

In the midst of the ongoing concerns about hallucinations, particularly related to citations in documents filed with courts, I wonder if the particular focus on AI generated errors, and the penalties that have been imposed in response, are at least partly due to perceptions of these tools as cheating or aesthetic ideas about how “real” legal writing should happen. And I query the rationales for recent instances of judges issuing sanctions against people who have inadvertently included them. It seems that mistakes in AI generated documents are treated differently from mistakes that can and do appear in any piece of writing. And the particular concerns about these errors occurring in court filings and the possibility that they will be duplicated in judgements seem especially interesting. One can find errors, whether minor or major, in many (all?) collections of published documents and precedents, whether traditionally published research materials, firm precedent banks, published academic articles, and court decisions.

We should assess whether and how AI hallucinated errors differ from other types of errors. Tools like commercially published precedent collections and firm document banks have certainly existed for decades and possibly centuries, so it has never been the norm that every document must be written from scratch each time. And it was always possible to take one of these documents and not check or update it properly. There have also been many instances where a particular case comes to be accepted as a reference for a particular point of law, but when the original case is checked, it says something different. In the case of incorrect citations in particular, legal publishers already all have policies to address how to handle these errors as they are of such long standing and so common. The real difference in an environment with generative AI is the speed at which these errors are proliferating, not their type.

The major change is not that the category of these errors is different, but that the volume of generative AI created content is making judges’ and lawyers’ jobs more difficult, and they are becoming understandably frustrated. Systems that make applications almost instant remove the friction that inhibited many people from initiating actions in the courts. Here is a story from The Guardian last year by Aisha Down and Robert Booth that outlines how this is affecting construction planning in the United Kingdom: “AI-powered nimbyism could grind UK planning system to a halt, experts warn.”

This is paired with general lack of savviness on the part of many people in the legal system using these tools. This group of people includes members of the legal profession and of the public, as well as students, professors, paralegals, and dare I say judges, which means that there is a mental shift required for this content as it forces creators and recipients of these documents to move from primarily creating to verifying while not really understanding what the tools they are using are doing.

One significant change is that generative AI tools allow people who create materials for use in court that look significantly more professional with less effort and background knowledge than was previously possible. This means that the common lack of understanding of how generative AI tools work doesn’t cause the outputs to look less proficient in a cursory review. Whereas a document created by someone who uses tools like word processors or thesauri without knowledge or care is quite immediately apparent. This change in the signalling — and the common accompanying increase in length — means that judges are forced to approach all materials with added suspicion.

The work of a judge cannot be easy, and I hope that judges feel personal responsibility to be correct in their reasoning. I discussed this topic with Matthew Waddington, and he attributed part of the frustration with the rise in computer generated randomness to the fact that we are accustomed to computer outputs being determinative, and we are having to shift our perceptions around how they behave. In contrast, human outputs are not determinative, our senses and minds did not evolve to tell us the truth. They evolved to keep us alive. In any extended exchange or conversation among people, it is almost certain that there will be things said that are not accurate.

Large language models behave more like us in this way, which gave rise to the famous criticism that they are “stochastic parrots.” This criticism from Emily M. Bender et al in their article “On the Dangers of Stochastic Parrots: Can Language Models Be Too Big? .” They asserted that as large language models are trained on large bodies of language data to provide plausible sounding language that is not based on actual meaning or understanding, it encourages people to ascribe meaning where there is none. This argument was refuted by Sam Altman, and there was extensive discussion about the issue, but the underlying reality these systems create more random results continues to be true.

We are all accustomed to interacting with people around us and evaluating how much trust we put into their outputs, and extensive structures within the legal system surrounding evidence, professional practice, and cultural norms, are designed to address these concerns in different ways. We are less equipped to deal with the automated systems we are confronted with now.

It seems unfair to penalize self represented litigants for errors in cited material in their submissions, as they use new tools that allow them to navigate the justice system more smoothly than they could have in the past. The primary concern appears to be that judges are frustrated by the systemic issues that generative AI is exacerbating, and that is not these people’s fault. However, examples of unsophisticated use of generative AI by lawyers fits more easily in the category of sanctionable behaviour, as it should be the responsibility of professionals to understand how to operate the tools they use appropriately. Nevertheless, these situations do fit within larger groupings of existing errors, and it isn’t necessarily clear why they are categorically different.

This column continues my theme of AI driven hallucinations and legal citation from my last column, which you can read here. I’d like to thank Matthew Waddington, Samuel Dahan, and Lachlan Deyong, who spoke with me as I wrote this column.

The post New Panic Over Old Mistakes: Judicial Sanctions and Hallucinated Citations appeared first on Slaw.

Several times each month, we are pleased to republish a recent book review from the Canadian Law Library Review (CLLR). CLLR is the official journal of the Canadian Association of Law Libraries (CALL/ACBD), and its reviews cover both practice-oriented and academic publications related to the law.

Quiet Rebels: A History of Ontario Women Lawyers. By Mary Jane Mossman. Waterloo, ON: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 2024. xi, 528 p. Includes bibliographic references and index. ISBN 9781771125925 (hardcover) $95.00; ISBN 9781771125932 (ePUB); ISBN 9781771125949 (PDF).

Reviewed by Melanie R. Bueckert
Legal Research Counsel
Manitoba Court of Appeal

As stated in its subtitle, Quiet Rebels is a history of Ontario women lawyers. But it is so much more! Mary Jane Mossman has crafted a masterpiece, weaving individual biographies into a tapestry coloured by contemporaneous political, social, and economic events spanning from the late 1800s to the present. I learned about the amazing achievements of many women lawyers over the years, and while I started out reading the stories of other women, it slowly became my story, too. I am genuinely glad that I had the opportunity to read this book and cannot recommend it highly enough.

The primary focus of the book is the period when law school and articling occurred simultaneously in Ontario, from 1897 until 1957. It chronicles the lives and contributions of the 187 women admitted to the Ontario bar during those six decades. It is written as a “group biography,” revealing “details of gendered patterns in the legal profession, and how its professional culture created barriers, both direct and more subtle, for women lawyers” (p. 23). Expertly placing the individual stories of these women into the context of their times, Mossman critically examines whether “the historical context in which women lawyers worked, and the gendered patterns that shaped their opportunities, provide connections to challenges faced by some contemporary women lawyers” (p. 391–92). The book concludes that “many women lawyers remain on the margins of power and privilege” and that “changes in opportunities for some women lawyers, even in the twenty-first century, may often reflect continuity rather than transformation in status relative to men” (p. 418, 423).

In addition to a preface, prologue, and epilogue, the book comprises four parts: (1) the first women lawyers; (2) the interwar years; (3) the Second World War and post-war reforms; and (4) post-1957. In addition to imparting what is known about each of the 187 women lawyers admitted until 1957, each of the first three parts also begins with a discussion of “legal education and developments in legal practice within differing political, economic, and social contexts” (p. 23). The book also includes an appendix of Canadian statutes that regulated the admission of women as lawyers, a lengthy bibliography organized by source type, an index of the names of the women lawyers, and a topical index. It makes excellent use of quotations from oral histories to give the reader a sense of these women’s personalities. Today’s law students will be shocked to learn that female students were required to sit in the first row of the lecture hall and were excluded from participating in moots. There were also no women’s robing rooms in the courts.

Beyond the individual biographies, this book addresses topics such as the challenges of lawyering as a married woman and mother, pay equity, racial barriers, and the types of jobs open to women lawyers. It describes historical limitations on married women’s property, suffrage, and jury service. While it is focused on Ontario, it touches briefly upon international events and refers to relevant developments in other Canadian provinces.

My only two quibbles with the book are, first, that there were several instances of unclear citation where, instead of a footnote immediately following a quotation, there was one combined footnote for multiple sources given at the end of a paragraph. Second, there were a few occasions where topics or individuals were introduced that were already mentioned earlier in the text, but this was likely unavoidable given the structure of the text.

If you are a woman involved in the study or practice of law, you should read this book. It will undoubtedly be of interest to lawyers in Ontario, as many big firms are referenced. Indeed, this book made me wish that there was one like it for every jurisdiction in Canada. While there are biographies of individual woman lawyers and judges, this magnum opus is in a class of its own. The only similar title of which I am aware (besides Professor Mossman’s earlier works) is LexisNexis’s Leading the Way: Canadian Women in the Law, a compilation of biographies of 50 Canadian women in the legal profession published in 2015.

The post Book Review: Mary Jane Mossman’s Quiet Rebels: A History of Ontario Women Lawyers appeared first on Slaw.

In my last two articles, I introduced the RECLAIM model as a cultural operating system for law firms, and then explored the first element of the model: Respect.

This month, I turn to the next two elements: Equity and Clarity.

To begin, let me introduce you to Sam.

Sam runs a busy practice. She has a legal assistant whose performance has been inconsistent for years. There are regular typos, misspelled client names, and a lack of attention to detail that means Sam must review everything herself. The opportunities for Sam to delegate are limited, even for simple tasks.

The assistant has also been with Sam since she founded his firm.

When talking to a friend about the situation, Sam says: “I know I should be more business-like, but I don’t want to be unkind.”

This mindset, that you are either business-like or kind, is more common than many lawyers realize.

It is also wrong.

The highest-performing law firms are not choosing between business discipline and humanity. They are environments where both are alive and well. People are treated with respect. The firm supports its people. At the same time, expectations are clear, accountability is real, and systems are applied consistently.

In other words, they are strong on Equity and Clarity.

Clarity: The Foundation of Performance

There is a simple expression that captures the role of clarity in leadership:

Clear is kind.

Clarity gives people solid ground to stand on. It reduces guesswork, lowers cognitive load, and allows people to focus their energy on doing good work rather than trying to guess at what is expected of them.

In a law firm, clarity shows up in very practical ways:

• Clear expectations about performance and roles
• Defined processes and workflows
• Transparent criteria for advancement
• Consistent approaches to feedback and evaluation
• Communication is prioritised.

Feedback is a critical part of clarity. Catching success, recognizing progress, and helping people understand how to improve their performance are not “nice extras” — they are essential leadership behaviours. So is holding people accountable when expectations are not met.

Communication is the mechanism through which clarity is delivered. People want to know:

• How was this decision made?
• What process was followed?
• What are the expectations going forward?
• What is valued here?

When these questions go unanswered, people fill in the gaps themselves, often in ways that increase stress and erode trust.

Equity: The Experience of Fairness

Human beings are highly attuned to fairness. We are constantly scanning for cues about whether we are being treated justly in relation to others.

In a law firm, equity is reflected in:

• How hiring decisions are made
• How work is allocated
• How performance is assessed
• How people are evaluated, rewarded, and promoted
• How compensation decisions are made
• How policies are applied
• How opportunities are distributed

Importantly, equity is not just about what decisions are made. It is about how those decisions are experienced.

When standards are applied inconsistently, when some people are held accountable and others are not, the impact on culture is immediate. Trust erodes. Motivation drops.

Where Clarity and Equity Meet

Equity and clarity are deeply interconnected.

A firm can invest significant time and effort into designing fair policies, compensation systems, and decision-making processes. But if those systems are not clearly communicated, their fairness is invisible.

Clarity is what makes equity visible.

Without clarity:

• Fair processes can look arbitrary
• Thoughtful decisions can appear biased
• Differences in outcome can appear unjust

With clarity:

• People understand the reasoning behind decisions
• They can see how processes are applied
• Even when they disagree with an outcome, they are more likely to accept it

People do not need to agree with every decision. They do need to be able to see that the process was fair.

Returning to Sam

In Sam’s case, this is not a situation of neglect or lack of effort. Her assistant has been asked numerous times to improve attention to detail, and suggestions have been provided on how he might do so.

Sam’s tolerance, while well-intentioned, is not kind, it is unfair. It is unfair to Sam, who is carrying unnecessary stress and unable to fully rely on the support she needs. It is unfair to the rest of the team, who are compensating for gaps in performance. And it is unfair to the assistant himself who is being left in a role that does not align with his strengths and experiences the stress of repeated failure to meet the standard.

Equity, in this context, requires action. The assistant should be performance managed with clarity and care, given a genuine opportunity to improve, and if he is unable to meet the expectations of the position, supported in an appropriate transition out of the role, including fair remuneration. This is what fairness and genuine leadership looks like in practice.

Equity and Clarity as Leadership Practices

Equity and clarity are not abstract values. They are built through everyday decisions:

• Setting and communicating expectations
• Applying standards consistently
• Explaining how decisions are made
• Providing regular, specific feedback
• Addressing performance issues directly

These are not acts of harshness. They are acts of leadership.

A Final Thought

Law firms are people businesses. The firm’s revenues depend on the intellectual output of the lawyers supported by staff. Every day, the people in your firm are interpreting signals about whether their environment is fair, predictable, and trustworthy. When the workplace provides a sense of security motivation and performance increases. When people feel insecure, unclear, or that they or others are being treated unfairly, the work will suffer.

Equity and clarity are two of the most powerful signals you can send. They are not in opposition to kindness. They are what kindness looks like in a high-performing organization.

The post RECLAIM Part III: Equity and Clarity Are the Foundation of a High-Performing Law Firm appeared first on Slaw.

“Progressions can’t be made if we’re separate forever.” – Q-Tip (A Tribe Called Quest)

Whether your path to addressing a dispute is collaborative or adversarial, some degree of interaction with others engaged in the conflict is typically required. The frequency of such interactions can heighten their strain, particularly in circumstances where disputing parties co-exist in close proximity, such as if they share a workplace or are neighbours.

Establishing shared understanding can go a long way in mitigating anxiety and offer comfort through what is often an uncomfortable process – particularly if the dispute resolution path needed is an adversarial one. Having an interaction plan helps set expectations and avoid the toll of surprises.

While the notion applies to the disputing parties themselves, others engaged in the conflict can benefit from embracing interaction plans, too. Consider the difference between one party’s legal representative unexpectedly serving opposing counsel after 4pm on the Friday before a long weekend as opposed to offering the courtesy of a head’s up that they have something coming and coordinating timing together as professionals. Common decency can go a long way, particularly when modelled by those without emotional ties to the matter.

For the parties themselves, the benefits of an interaction plan may vary based on the dynamics of the situation. Yet, it is almost always the case that folks in conflict will have some form of interaction as they address their issues. In the setting of a conflict arising in a workplace, condominium community or other environment where space is shared, it is not uncommon for there to be both anticipated and unanticipated interactions.

Anticipated interactions involve some advanced warning of an encounter with the other party. Such as a meeting scheduled in advance to come together at a set day and time, for a particular purpose. With this comes a chance to prepare for the interaction. This preparation opportunity can breed anxiety and discomfort, especially if there isn’t an established understanding of how the interaction will go. By this, I do not mean the difficult subject matter to be addressed, but the way in which people engage.

Unanticipated interactions are often just chance encounters. The stars aligning for people in a spat to happen to run into one another without expecting it. Sharing an awkward elevator ride or just happening to bump into one another in passing are common anxiety-provoking unanticipated interaction possibilities in these circumstances. We are often reminded of what a small world we live in, particularly when we continue to run in the same circles or close vicinity as those we have beef with.

It may feel counter intuitive to try to find agreement with someone you are disagreeing with – particularly if that disagreement is going to be expensive to address. Yet, it can go a long way to enhance the procedural experience for everyone.

Elements of an Interaction Plan

While there is not one single template for an interaction plan, common focuses of them can include…

Greeting

If the parties involved in a conflict run into one another, how will they address each other? Will they go with first names, more formal salutations or ignore one another? Has the relationship deteriorated so much that there is no room to exchange casual banter about the weather, or a courtesy inquiry into how the other is doing? The range of what is comfortable varies by individual preference and situation, but a shared understanding can be helpful.

Sharing Space

Returning to the nightmare scenario of riding an elevator, only for the doors open and the person you are in conflict with coming in… what happens? On some occasions, parties can agree in advance to actively try to avoid the awkward scenario. Not entering the elevator, for example. Another approach is to avoid eye contact. This makes the elevator ride awkward, yes, but it is often more comfortable to establish in advance how this will work than to risk being on separate pages around what is appropriate.

Touching

Some engaged in a dispute are fine to still shake hands with others involved in the issue. Others are not so keen to do that. Having an understanding around how this works can prevent someone feeling left hanging by extending a hand without reciprocation, or like they should pull back the hand they extended for a shake and run their fingers through their hair like a good old-fashioned schoolyard psyche.

The Risk of Attempting an Interaction Plan

While establishing an interaction plan can help make the dispute resolution journey more comfortable, efforts made to try to make such a plan can also make one feel vulnerable. By proposing how interaction should go, you may also be showing your hand on the type of interaction you do not want to have with others involved in the dispute. If they are petty, that could be taken as offering up your buttons to be pushed, like a road map on how to make addressing the conflict even more uncomfortable for you. While this does not mean the benefits of interaction plans should be disregarded, it does justify giving pause and reflecting upon how best to approach attempting an interaction plan.

Best Practices

While there is nothing preventing anyone experiencing a conflict from attempting to form an interaction plan with those involved in the dispute, there are some common approaches that can make this exploration easier.

Involve People Not Directly Involved in the Conflict

Whether you consider involving a lawyer, a friend or someone sharing relations with others involved in the dispute, someone without deep emotional ties to a matter can help cooler heads prevail and facilitate reaching a base level of understanding. They can also be leveraged to make suggestions, reducing concern around exposure of vulnerabilities.

Put the Interaction Plan in Writing

Any understanding agreed upon should be captured in a record that everyone can look back to for clarity in the future. This prevents different recollections from fueling conflict. While this is often considered in instances of a fulsome settlement being reached, there is value in creating a record of any agreement – including about how ongoing interactions will go.

An interim understanding of how the parties will interact should be captured in writing as a frame of reference. It creates an opportunity for both good or bad faith behaviour to be clear. There is also a school of thought that people are more likely to adhere to what they agree to if the agreement is offered visually and committed to more formally.

This is not to say that an interaction plan has to be long or be presented in legalese.

Keep it Simple

There may be temptation to break down an interaction plan, such as by different potential scenarios. While you may imagine a wide array of possible situations in which there may be anticipated and unanticipated interactions, it is typically better to keep it simple. This avoids the prospect of negotiating interaction becoming time-consuming and costly. It also makes it easier to retain. Proactive arrangements like this offer people guidance in the event something occurs in the future. It is much easier for people to remember what to do in anxious or flustered moments if the agreement is simple. Kind of like a safe word.

Added Benefit – Planting Seeds

An added benefit of forming an interaction plan that I have seen play out on many occasions is how parties establish a framework for collaboration in agreeing on how they will disagree. Honouring the terms of an interaction plan can improve relationships and build trust over time. The conflict is about bigger issues with higher stakes and may need time to be addressed. It may not be possible to collaborate in resolving all of the issues in dispute. Still, good faith gestures and respect can plant seeds that grow over time into opportunities to explore what else might be possible to accomplish.

The post Agreeing to Disagree: The Value of Having an Interaction Plan as a Dispute Is Addressed appeared first on Slaw.

Each Monday we present brief excerpts of recent posts from five of Canada’s award­-winning legal blogs chosen at random* from more than 80 recent Clawbie winners. In this way we hope to promote their work, with their permission, to as wide an audience as possible.

This week the randomly selected blogs are 1. Le Blogue du CRL 2. Precedent: The New Rules of Law and Style 3. Robichaud’s Criminal Law Blog 4. Administrative Law Matters 5. Double Aspect

Le Blogue du CRL
Arrêt Fox : Un avocat peut-il se servir de communications privilégiées dans sa propre défense ?

Dans l’arrêt Fox[1], rendu le 6 février 2026, la Cour suprême du Canada réaffirme que les droits fondamentaux des accusés prévalent sur le privilège du secret professionnel de l’avocat. Elle rejette ainsi la vision absolutiste du secret professionnel que la juge de la première instance et la majorité de la Cour d’appel de la Saskatchewan avaient adoptée. De ce fait, la Cour est d’avis que les personnes associées au système de justice ne doivent pas bénéficier d’un traitement de faveur. Les critères établis dans l’arrêt McClure[2]concernant la communication de renseignements privilégiéssont les mêmes que l’accusé soit avocat ou non. …

Precedent: The New Rules of Law and Style
LinkedIn is Tinder. Tinder is LinkedIn

The internet was once a collection of neat little app silos. Now, it’s more like a giant, lukewarm bowl of connectivity soup in which everything is touching everything else. Popular websites and apps of all kinds have officially broken containment. Frankly, it’s getting weird out there—especially if you look at the bizarre identity swap happening between LinkedIn and your average dating platform. Let’s begin with a look at LinkedIn. It used to be the digital equivalent of a stiff suit, a place to park your CV and hope that someone with a hiring budget would notice you. Now? It’s a chaotic mashup of hustle-culture fan fiction and boasts about pre-dawn green-juice routines. It’s gone so far off the rails that it’s even started to function like a stealth dating site. A 2024 study found that 52 percent of singles have managed to land a date on a networking platform, LinkedIn included. …

Robichaud’s Criminal Law Blog
Can I Change by Bail Conditions?

Most accused charged with criminal offences will have some sort of conditions they must comply with while they are waiting for their criminal matter to make its way through the system. The two most common forms of release are an Undertaking to a Peace Officer (a Form 10) or a Recognizance of Bail Release Order by a Judge or Justice of the Peace (Form 11). Both contain conditions the person must comply with. In both cases, conditions can be varied in certain circumstances. …

Administrative Law Matters
The Notwithstanding Clause as a Constitutional Safety Valve

This week, the Supreme Court of Canada heard argument in the appeal from the decision of the Quebec Court of Appeal in Organisation mondiale sikhe du Canada c. Procureur général du Québec, 2024 QCCA 254. One of the issues in this sprawling and complex case, is whether the Quebec legislature’s use of the notwithstanding clause in relation to Bill 21, which outlaws the wearing of religious symbols by public employees (and contractors engaged by the government), is constitutionally valid. …

Double Aspect
Nothing Matters Still

_________________________

*Randomness here is created by Random.org and its list randomizing function.

The post Monday’s Mix appeared first on Slaw.

Every week we present the summary of a decision handed down by a Québec court provided to us by SOQUIJ and considered to be of interest to our readers throughout Canada. SOQUIJ is attached to the Québec Department of Justice and collects, analyzes, enriches, and disseminates legal information in Québec.

PÉNAL (DROIT) : Une directive portant sur l’utilisation limitée du silence de l’appelant, l’auteur de l’attaque au sabre dans le Vieux-Québec, était nécessaire; l’absence de directive exige que la tenue d’un nouveau procès soit ordonnée.

Intitulé : Girouard c. R., 2026 QCCA 435
Juridiction : Cour d’appel (C.A.), Québec
Décision de : Juges Martin Vauclair, Suzanne Gagné et Christine Baudouin
Date : 31 mars 2026

Résumé

PÉNAL (DROIT) — procédure pénale — procédure fédérale — appel — procès devant jury — déclaration de culpabilité — meurtre au premier degré — tentative de meurtre — droit de garder le silence — refus de répondre aux questions de la police — recevabilité de la preuve — preuve relative au silence de l’accusé — pertinence réelle et justification légitime — état mental de l’accusé — inférence tirée de la preuve — directives du juge au jury — absence de directive portant sur l’utilisation limitée du silence de l’accusé — insuffisance des directives — moyen de défense — troubles mentaux — contrôle — témoignage d’expert — intervention du juge — absence de directive limitative — répétition des directives de mi-procès dans les directives finales — tenue d’un nouveau procès.

PÉNAL (DROIT) — garanties fondamentales du processus pénal — droit de garder le silence — refus de répondre aux questions de la police — procès devant jury — recevabilité de la preuve — preuve relative au silence de l’accusé — pertinence réelle et justification légitime — état mental de l’accusé — inférence tirée de la preuve — directives du juge au jury — absence de directive portant sur l’utilisation limitée du silence de l’accusé — insuffisance des directives — moyen de défense — troubles mentaux — contrôle — témoignage d’expert — intervention du juge — absence de directive limitative — répétition des directives de mi-procès dans les directives finales — meurtre au premier degré — tentative de meurtre — appel — tenue d’un nouveau procès.

DROITS ET LIBERTÉS — droits judiciaires — personne arrêtée ou détenue — droit de garder le silence — refus de répondre aux questions de la police — procès devant jury — recevabilité de la preuve — preuve relative au silence de l’accusé — pertinence réelle et justification légitime — état mental de l’accusé — inférence tirée de la preuve — directives du juge au jury — absence de directive portant sur l’utilisation limitée du silence de l’accusé — insuffisance des directives — moyen de défense — troubles mentaux — contrôle — témoignage d’expert — intervention du juge — absence de directive limitative — répétition des directives de mi-procès dans les directives finales — meurtre au premier degré — tentative de meurtre — appel — tenue d’un nouveau procès.

PÉNAL (DROIT) — infraction — infractions contre la personne — meurtre — meurtre au premier degré — 2 victimes — victimes attaquées au sabre — exécution d’un projet meurtrier — procès devant jury — droit de garder le silence — refus de répondre aux questions de la police — recevabilité de la preuve — preuve relative au silence de l’accusé — pertinence réelle et justification légitime — état mental de l’accusé — inférence tirée de la preuve — directives du juge au jury — absence de directive portant sur l’utilisation limitée du silence de l’accusé — insuffisance des directives — moyen de défense — troubles mentaux — contrôle — témoignage d’expert — intervention du juge — absence de directive limitative — répétition des directives de mi-procès dans les directives finales — déclaration de culpabilité — appel — tenue d’un nouveau procès.

PÉNAL (DROIT) — infraction — infractions contre la personne — tentative de meurtre — 4 victimes — victimes attaquées au sabre — exécution d’un projet meurtrier — procès devant jury — droit de garder le silence — refus de répondre aux questions de la police — recevabilité de la preuve — preuve relative au silence de l’accusé — pertinence réelle et justification légitime — état mental de l’accusé — inférence tirée de la preuve — directives du juge au jury — absence de directive portant sur l’utilisation limitée du silence de l’accusé — insuffisance des directives — moyen de défense — troubles mentaux — contrôle — témoignage d’expert — intervention du juge — absence de directive limitative — répétition des directives de mi-procès dans les directives finales — déclaration de culpabilité — appel — tenue d’un nouveau procès.

PÉNAL (DROIT) — preuve pénale — recevabilité de la preuve — preuve relative au silence de l’accusé — pertinence réelle et justification légitime — état mental de l’accusé — inférence tirée de la preuve — droit de garder le silence — refus de répondre aux questions de la police — procès devant jury — directives du juge au jury — absence de directive portant sur l’utilisation limitée du silence de l’accusé — insuffisance des directives — moyen de défense — troubles mentaux — contrôle — témoignage d’expert — intervention du juge — absence de directive limitative — répétition des directives de mi-procès dans les directives finales — preuve d’expert — absence de notes — meurtre au premier degré — tentative de meurtre — appel.

Appel d’un verdict de culpabilité. Accueilli; la tenue d’un nouveau procès est ordonnée.

Le jour de l’Halloween, l’appelant a quitté la région de Montréal pour se rendre dans le Vieux-Québec. Il s’est alors promené à pied dans les rues, armé d’un sabre japonais, attaquant les personnes qui croisaient son chemin; il en a tué 2 et blessé 4 autres physiquement. Il a été déclaré coupable, par un jury, de meurtres au premier degré ainsi que de tentatives de meurtre. Au procès, tant la défense que la poursuite ont voulu invoquer à leur avantage le silence de l’appelant: la première, pour soutenir la défense de troubles mentaux; et la seconde, pour contrer celle-ci puisque, selon son expert, le «silence» était incompatible avec un état de psychose.

Décision

M. le juge Vauclair: Le silence d’une personne accusée alors qu’elle est arrêtée ou détenue est un sujet qui, en principe, ne peut pas être présenté au jury. La règle n’est cependant pas absolue et, en l’espèce, parce que le silence était en lien avec les troubles mentaux, soit une question mise de l’avant par l’appelant, la poursuite a établi une pertinence réelle et une justification légitime quant à la réception de cette preuve. Si le silence était pertinent pour la défense de troubles mentaux, il ne pouvait pas l’être, en droit, pour la culpabilité. À cet égard, des directives étaient nécessaires, mais il fallait aussi procéder au contrôle des témoignages d’experts. Il aurait été approprié que le juge veille à ce que le thème du silence soit abordé, notamment par les experts, de façon compatible avec le respect du droit constitutionnel. Une intervention en amont des témoignages aurait permis d’éviter de déposer des éléments susceptibles d’amplifier inutilement les inférences interdites sur la culpabilité. Sur ce point, l’expert psychiatre que la poursuite a fait entendre a dépassé la limite des inférences permises, notamment en faisant une allusion préjudiciable à la motivation sous-jacente à l’exercice du droit au silence de l’appelant; au surplus, aucune directive limitative n’a été donnée. Le juge ne pouvait laisser à l’appréciation du jury les différents propos formulés par les témoins et les experts sur le silence de l’appelant sans lui donner des directives, d’autant moins que la directive de mi-procès pouvait jeter de la confusion sur l’utilisation permise du silence de l’appelant puisque, en définitive, elle l’interdisait totalement. La récurrence du silence dans la preuve, tout au long du procès, est raisonnablement devenue une source de confusion parce qu’elle contredisait la directive de mi-procès. Au surplus, cette directive n’était pas complète, ne faisant aucune distinction entre la défense de troubles mentaux et la culpabilité. Ainsi, même si le juge s’était contenté de répéter sa directive de mi-procès — les directives de mi-procès portant sur l’utilisation permise et interdite d’une preuve devant préférablement être répétées dans les directives finales —, cela n’aurait pas répondu aux exigences de la situation. L’appelant démontre l’existence d’un risque réel que son silence ait été utilisé erronément. Dans ces circonstances, l’erreur est importante et la disposition réparatrice est inapplicable. L’absence de directive portant sur l’utilisation limitée du silence de l’appelant exige qu’un nouveau procès soit ordonné.

M^me la juge Gagné: La juge partage la conclusion de ses collègues, mais pour des motifs quelque peu différents. La preuve relative au silence était recevable seulement en tant que partie inextricable du comportement de l’appelant dans les minutes et les heures ayant suivi son arrestation. Toutefois, la preuve de l’exercice du droit au silence, plus précisément la preuve de la motivation sous-jacente à l’exercice de ce droit, était irrecevable, et ce, que ce soit pour évaluer la défense de troubles mentaux ou trancher la question de la culpabilité. Le jury n’avait pas le droit de tirer de conclusion défavorable à l’appelant parce que ce dernier avait choisi d’exercer son droit au silence. Malgré cela, la juge est d’accord que le juge ne pouvait laisser à l’appréciation du jury les différents propos formulés par les témoins et les experts sur le silence de l’appelant sans lui donner de directive appropriée.

Le texte intégral de la décision est disponible ici

The post Summaries Sunday: SOQUIJ appeared first on Slaw.

A quote I always use when I’m teaching statutory research is, “Statutes are not cuddly, and no one reads them for fun.”[1] The legal profession relies primarily on the written word, and those words typically aren’t light bedtime reading. Legal research, when compared to other mandatory text-dense courses, can offer a reprieve. As a practical course it is often rooted in processes that benefit from visual aids.

This post will provide an overview of some visual aids for teaching legal research that I’ve developed over the past few years. I share these based on positive student feedback and with the hope that others might find them useful in their own teaching or training.

These visuals have been removed from their original presentations and made uniform in their design. To reduce the number of images in this post, information originally shown on multiple slides has been combined. As a result, I have added text to the images and provided written descriptions to attempt to address any lost context. I hope these adjustments do not detract from the visuals overall. These are shared under a CC BY-NC 4.0, primarily for the NC component. Please remix, adapt, and build upon these materials.

Integrating Generative AI into the Legal Research Process

Generative AI is now embedded in all three major legal research platforms. I understand the temptation to begin a search using these tools, particularly if a written hypothetical or clear fact pattern is provided. However, regardless of where the legal research process starts, generative AI can only supplement the existing legal research process. Traditional methodology and legal research skills are still essential. This visual displays points where generative AI can be integrated into the legal research process as an assistive tool.

The expanded legal research process highlights where the essential processes of evaluation and verification must occur, and maintains essential skills like subject-based searching, noting up, and completing a legislative history. This is meant to communicate that a researcher can flow back and forth between generative AI and traditional techniques and tools during their research process.

Another goal is to visualize the reality that incorporating more research techniques and tools doesn’t always streamline research. It’s a busy image! Adding generative AI to the research process may take longer than using a traditional skill, like simply checking a case digest or noting up a section of a statute. It’s a reminder to always pause and ensure the research techniques and tools being applied match the research task, rather than force the task to fit a generative AI tool. It might save a lot of time.

*Note: There are lots of skills omitted from this visual. It is not comprehensive.

Impact of Generative AI Overreliance

Following retrieval of sources using a legal research platform, a researcher critically evaluates their evidentiary value and application. Drafting is the point where a researcher’s synthesis of different perspectives, approaches, and interpretations is communicated in their analysis. This visual encourages researchers to remember that research and writing, while they can overlap, are utimately two distinct processes with their own unique value.

[ Figure 2. Impact of Generative AI Overreliance ]

In summary, supporting the idea that generative AI is an assistive tool to supplement the traditional legal research process, relying heavily on generative AI early in the research process can alter source selection and knowledge synthesis and interpretation. Overreliance removes the researcher from valuable intermediary intellectual processes where knowledge and understanding are built, tested, and refined. Avoiding overreliance on generative AI and engaging in the research process will help you develop a deeper understanding of the law and develop stronger legal arguments.

Boolean, Plain Language, and Prompting

Plain language searching did not render Boolean useless, and generative AI hasn’t replaced either of the former techniques. Generative AI has provided another search technique that a researcher can add to their repertoire once they understand how to use it effectively. This visual attempts to flag the differences in how results are retrieved and displayed with each search technique and open a discussion about how that might impact subsequent interpretations and analysis.

[ Figure 3. Compare and Contrast: Boolean, Plain Language and Prompt Search Techniques ]

Underlying this approach is the assumption that there is a finite, identifiable collection of documents that can be filtered and navigated through with deliberate choices. This reflects a very different research psychology than using generative AI. Boolean searching is grounded in the idea that legal knowledge is built through locating and engaging with sources themselves. Boolean emphasizes precision, transparency, and reproducibility. It is, however, a more technical skill.

Plain language provides control over the query, but the search engine determines which terms are most important, expands concepts using synonyms or related terms, and ranks results based on relevance signals. Results are ordered by likelihood of relevance to terms and, because the system makes minor transformations to the query, the exact reasoning behind result ranking may be opaque and vary between platforms. Plain language searching is quicker and more accessible than Boolean, but slightly less transparent, precise, and reproducible.

Prompting offers the least control of the search methods covered. The entire prompt is interpreted through inferring semantic context between words using probabilistic language modelling. The model predicts a response based on its training data, parameters, and retrieval augmented generation (RAG) if available. Legal research platforms that use RAG do surface hyperlinked citations, but only some models expose their reasoning steps, making it difficult to understand and impossible to reconstruct how the tool moved from prompt to output. On top of this, the non-deterministic nature of generative AI means that the same model, given the same prompt, will produce a different response each time. Compared to plain language or Boolean searches, prompting offers significantly lower transparency and reproducibility.

Generative tools can produce an endless stream of new interpretations or syntheses of those sources. The onslaught of information can distract from the value of a structured Boolean search, because it moves attention away from discovering and evaluating documents and toward consuming generated interpretations of them. This subtly reframes the source of legal knowledge as the analysis generated about sources of law rather than the sources of law themselves.

It’s important to consider that the UI and UX of LLMs will change as this area develops and this visual may need to be adjusted. For example, the new CanLII Search+ tool generates a Boolean query as a response to a prompt instead of a narrative or analytical response and explains the reasoning for the construction of the query. CanLII maintains the standard results page, making the research transparent and reproducible. I think this is an excellent, effective amalgamation of techniques and tools.

I’ve also tacked on an imperfect analogy at the bottom of this visual (because apparently I think research and transportation have a lot of overlap). Boolean is like plotting out the exact coordinates of the route before a trip begins. Plain language is plugging your start point and end point into Google Maps: You are a passenger along for the ride guided by an algorithm. Prompting is like asking someone for directions: You’ll likely get to your destination, but the conversation is unlikely to be repeated verbatim and you don’t know whether the person has deep knowledge of the area or they just gave you their best guess.

Practitioner vs Scholarly Legal Research

Law students come from many different academic disciplines and possess a range of credentials. Their familiarity with writing a major paper (legal essay, scholarly article, etc.) varies greatly. At the Schulich School of Law, our first-year Legal Research and Writing (LRW) course focuses largely on practitioner research and writing, relying on the legal research process of using secondary sources to find and understand the law. When students are required to write a mandatory major paper in their second and third years, some default to the standard legal research process taught in LRW. While there are transferable skills between practitioner and scholarly research, there are also key differences. This visual compares the standard practitioner legal research process to a flow chart of a simplified scholarly research process to flag some of those differences.

[ Figure 4. Practitioner Legal Research vs Scholarly Legal Research ]

It also notes the difference between prescriptive legal writing and more descriptive, exploratory scholarly writing. Prescriptive legal writing tells the reader what rules apply to a set of facts and, depending on the document type, persuasive arguments about the application of the law. Both types of writing evaluate options, develop arguments, and consider policy implications, but scholarly writing does so in a descriptive way. Scholarly writing uses more reflective and exploratory perspectives to observe and examine patterns or evidence to understand the law and suggest recommendations for consideration.

Legal Citation as a Unique Style

To end on a lighter but appropriate note, since legal writing must reference authorities, I will conclude with legal citation. In a decade of teaching, I have yet to meet a student who arrived at law school excited about legal citation. Most have never heard of it and, quite reasonably, many wonder why they need to learn an entirely new citation style. To explain, I use a visual that analogizes legal citation with bread.

[ Figure 5. Why Legal Citation is Unique ]

Citation styles work the same way. Different disciplines rely on “default” sources and methods. Engineers cite standards, conference papers, and datasets, so their citation systems are designed for those materials. Law revolves around cases, legislation, parliamentary debates, policy documents, etc., and its citation style is designed to communicate these sources effectively.

Bread traditions are not just cultural preferences, they developed because certain breads worked best based on the available materials and methods. Citation styles have evolved in much the same practical way.

Final Notes

I hope these visual aids can be helpful for training and teaching about legal research processes, techniques, and tools. Or, at the very least, maybe they can be a break from 12-point Times New Roman.

____________________

[1] Arlene Blatt & Joanne Kurtz, Legal Research: Step by Step, 5th ed (Toronto: Emond, 2020) at 17.

The post Seeing Is Believing: Visualizing Legal Research appeared first on Slaw.

A professional legal advocate occupies a unique position, interposed as they are between the justice system on one hand, and their client on the other. Each advocate has a duty of commitment to the client’s cause, and must resolutely pursue the client’s legitimate goals using all legal means. At the same time, the advocate is an officer of the court and must help the legal system accomplish its own objectives. The need to reconcile duties to client with duties to the law comes up frequently in the practice of law, and pervades the study of legal ethics.

The balancing act isn’t just about what the advocate does, and how they do it, it’s also about when advocacy occurs. Sometimes, a court or tribunal will require submissions on a short timeline, perhaps seemingly too quick for the advocate to do a great job for the client. More common, in Canada’s justice system, is the opposite problem – systemic delay means that it takes far longer than it seemingly should to get results for the client. What resources and ideas might help lawyers and paralegals dealing with such time-related challenges?

Dealing with Systemic Delay

Many niches of Canada’s justice system are notoriously slow. The World Justice Project ranks the systems of countries around the world. Canada ranks high overall (13^th out of 143 countries), but our lowest score, out of the 40+ components of the WJP’s index, is for delay in the civil justice system (42 points out of 100). While some of our courts and tribunals deliver timely justice, many do not. At Ontario’s Human Rights Tribunal, for example, out of the 33 decisions-on-the-merits issued in the 2023/2024 year, Tribunal Watch reports that 29 were filed more than 4 years previously. A disciplinary proceeding against a lawyer which lasted over 6 years was found by the Supreme Court of Canada to not constitute inordinate delay.

Needless to say, systemic delay complicates the efforts of lawyers to secure timely resolutions for their clients. What can be done?

• Legal Remedies Canadian law offers some legal remedies for parties who have been subject to excessive delay. A person charged with an offence, who benefits from the Charter right to be “tried within a reasonable time,” can bring an application to have the prosecution stayed. A non-criminal prosecution (e.g. for an alleged regulatory or disciplinary infraction) may become subject to dismissal as an abuse of process if the public authority delays too much, although the bar is high. The remedy of mandamus, compelling a tribunal to speed the hearing of a certain matter, is available on judicial review, although this too is rarely granted.
• Settlement is also obviously an option. Reaching an agreement will end the “slow burn” of time and money for all parties involved in a dispute. Timeliness is one of the reasons why settlement (including plea bargains and joint submissions on remedy) is the most common mechanism by which legal advocates produce results for their clients. Sometimes, however, in high-conflict cases advocates will fall into a “tunnel vision” focus on preparing for adjudication, disregarding opportunities to settle on advantageous terms. Even if one explored settlement of a case without success last month, it’s possible that new opportunities have emerged this month.
• Arbitration can be defied as privatized judging. If all parties want a resolution faster than the court or tribunal can provide one arbitration is an option. Under provincial arbitration statutes, parties can generally agree to have arbitrators decide about most legal disputes. An arbitration will typically be available much more quickly than a court date.
• Fees and Financial Arrangements In some cases, the biggest problem with systemic delay is that the client can’t afford to wait for justice. This may happen if the client is depending on a judgment or settlement to provide the money that they need to live on. In such circumstances, having to wait months or years may seem intolerable, creating pressure on the client to accept an unreasonably low settlement offer. A lawyer or paralegal may have some financial power to assuage this problem. If billing of legal fees is deferred until the matter resolves (whether or not the fee itself is contingent on the outcome), the fee will not be a source of additional financial pressure on the client. Going a step further and lending money to the client creates a conflict of interest, but at least one of Canada’s law societies takes the position that this conflict can be managed with the fully informed consent of the client.

Short Timelines

Less commonly, a court or tribunal will require an appearance, or written materials, on an uncomfortably short timeline. “Justice hurried” may be “justice buried”, if the pressure of time leads to substandard advocacy, or makes it impossible for the client and their evidence to be properly heard. For example, British Columbia’s Residential Tenancy Act creates timelines as short as 48 hours for deciding whether to seek internal review of certain administrative decisions. It has been argued that this timeframe undermines access to justice, especially in cases with literacy impediments or key evidence in the hands of a third party. How should advocates deal with such situations?

• Adjournments may be available, if an advocate can’t make a proposed hearing date or deadline. However, Ontario’s Civil Rules Review argues that excessive recourse to adjournments is a major contributor to the system’s overall slowness. Advocates should not resort too quickly to adjournment requests in these situations, especially when the client’s interest is in a speedy resolution.
• Good enough is Good Enough There is such a thing as materials that are “too perfect,” especially when there is time pressure. A factum that has been proof-read by three pairs of eyes, with every word perfectly chosen, is in one sense better than one that just gets the necessary points across. However, the latter may be functionally equivalent and available much more quickly, in which case it is superior in a more important sense. Good adjudicators know they aren’t judging writing competitions for advocates, but rather determining the real world rights of parties, so they are unlikely to rule against your client because of a typo or two.
• Good Enough is More Affordable The “quick and dirty” (albeit complete and accurate) written piece is also cheaper for the client, if you’re billing by the hour. When the client is paying for every minute, their lawyer or paralegal is ethically obliged to make file management decisions driven exclusively by the client’s interest, which includes their financial interest in paying lower fees. In appropriate cases, an advocate might have a duty to consider using AI or other technology in their practice, if it can produce cheaper and quicker results for their clients with no sacrifice of quality.
• Send for the Backups. A senior advocate might see that it’s impossible to meet a short timeline because of other demands on their time. Before requesting an adjournment, the possibility should be considered that someone else could serve the client just as well. This could be a junior in the same firm (whose abilities may be underestimated for lack of opportunities), or a “locum” from outside the firm who is pinch-hitting for a particular appearance. Inability to reconcile the advocate’s personal schedule with the demands of a tribunal process for timeliness could also be a sign that future matters (and perhaps the matter at hand) should be referred out to lawyers or paralegals with more capacity. It is ethically problematic for an advocate to keep an “inventory” of cases that they can work on whenever they like or whenever they get to them, if this means slowing justice for the client and the system.

Timeliness is a challenge not only for the Canadian justice system as a whole, but also for individual advocates who must reconcile the demands of the system with the needs of their clients, not to mention the advocate’s own need for a manageable work schedule. A creative and open-minded attitude helps one identify opportunities to produce timely justice.

__________

Adapted from a paper presented to the Law Society of Ontario’s Eight Minute Administrative Lawyer, March 6 2006.

The post The Time’s Not Right: Advocacy When a Tribunal Is Delayed or Imposes Short Timelines appeared first on Slaw.

For years I’ve been buying the same turkey bites from the grocery store (Canadian made, of course). They’re a high protein, grab-and-go snack. And, for years, I’ve paid about $7.00 for them. During my last visit to the grocery store, those same turkey bites were a whopping $12.99. Reading the sticker price led to an audible gasp while strangers around me nodded in agreement, because without having to say anything, we were all thinking the exact same thing – yes, an 85% price increase is astronomical, but this is our new reality.[1] Just after my shopping experience, I came across a few articles published about the Grocery Code of Conduct (the “Code”) with headlines framing it as a response to affordability.[2] I read the articles expecting to learn how grocers intended to respond to public concerns about pricing. I was wrong. The Code does not address higher prices and instead it seeks to clarify the roles of sellers and producers. While the Code doesn’t address how grocers will reduce the price of my turkey bites, it does offer a useful illustration of the limits of industry self-regulation.

What is the Grocery Code of Conduct (the “Code”)?

It took roughly 5 years of consultation, meetings and negotiation before the grocery industry published its first voluntary code of conduct signed by major grocers including Loblaws, Metro, Costco Canada, Walmart Canada and Empire Co., along with roughly 150 suppliers.[3] The Code follows the path paved by other, similarly situated countries, like Australia, and it addresses concerns raised by producers, suppliers and farmers about the consistency and predictability of fees paid by these participants to grocers. By introducing the Code, the industry is hoping to level the playing field, create more certainty and allow suppliers to escalate disputes. By clarifying the roles of the grocer and the producer, the benefit to the consumer will be more of a knock-on effect. The thinking is that more fee predictability will lead to lower prices for consumers. However, according to research conducted by CIBC, who surveyed retailers, wholesalers, suppliers, brokers and industry participants, respondents believe that there will be no notable impact from the Code.[4]

Broad (and Meaningless) Language

The Code and the governance structure that supports it is an attempt at industry self-regulation, and industry self-regulation can be tricky. While it is more cost effective for governments and it can succeed, one of the major flaws in this type of approach is that foundational instruments may be diluted to achieve industry support.

A reading of this code of conduct suggests that the industry took the ‘watered-down’ approach to achieve industry sign-on. The Code starts out strong with a statement of principles:

“Contribute to a thriving and competitive grocery industry, delivering the vital goods upon which Canadians in every community depend, recognizing the needs of all stakeholders in the grocery value chain, including the unique realities facing small and medium enterprises, the realities of the Canadian marketplace, and the importance of environmental, social and governance principles.”[5]

However, after this statement of principles, the principled language in the Code dramatically falls off.

The Code does not address how retailers and suppliers will achieve their stated goals or go deep on important definitions, most importantly, it is silent on the meaning of environmental, social and governance principles (“ESG”). The Code avoids defining ESG. Defining ESG may have been challenging, given that its meaning varies widely across companies and industries. While each of the Code’s signatories may have understood ESG differently, to be meaningful, it is important that those principles be explicit. For example, specific issues that could be of interest in the grocery supply chain could be numerous, including labour practices, environmental impact and supply-chain ethics. The potential ethical issues in the global grocery industry supply chain are manifold and complex and while these issues are often addressed through the procurement processes, or through corporate ESG benchmarks, reporting and other internal governance processes, the Code lumps all potential social concerns into an overall “ESG” bucket. A more principled approach would have been to clearly define the most important terminology and identify the red lines.

After its statement of principles, the Code then reiterates concepts that already exist in law. For example, section 1 reiterates the state of law as it currently exists: that parties have the right to contract, negotiate terms of agreements and enter into agreements, that the parties have to act fairly in their dealings, and it reinforces the Competition Bureau’s pre-existing authority. Defining pre-existing law (and common law), the authority of the Competition Bureau, or re-confirming the purpose of existing contracts or agreements (again, likely already defined in the procurement process) adds little substantive value and misses and opportunity for clear guidance.

The above examples illustrate the dilution pitfall in industry self-regulation. To help get industry buy-in, often meaningful principles are weakened so they’re more palatable to more parties, but this weakens the foundation.

Lacking ‘Teeth’

When establishing industry self-regulation another tricky element includes compliance and oversight which can be weakened by inadequate power provided to enforce the Code and voluntary engagement. Effective monitoring and enforcement powers help to provide ‘teeth’ to the foundational document as does mandatory participation.

In an interview with the Financial Post, Gary Sands, Senior VP of the Canadian Federation of Independent Groceries, describes the Code as a set of principles or provisions.[6] For industry self-regulation to succeed, the Code’s signatories should approach it as a set of mandatory ethical requirements to which all participants in the Canadian industry must adhere. Additionally, all members must agree to embed the Code into their organizational governance structures and abide by the consequences if they fail to meet the Code’s principles.

The Code is administered by the “Office of the Grocery Sector Code of Conduct” (“OGSCC”) and the Code’s signatories bear the financial burden of ensuring industry compliance through this newly established governance framework[7] which includes the appointment of an Adjudicator to administer the Code and resolve disputes between members.[8] Signatories must also adhere to the authority granted to the Adjudicator and abide by the Adjudicator’s recommendations, regardless of whether they agree with them. At this stage, it appears that the Adjudicator will only preside over issues involving two signatories to the Code but only once all other complaint resolution mechanisms have been exhausted. The Adjudicator’s decisions are non-legally binding with consequences somewhat limited to public notice of non-compliance and remediation recommendations.[9] Without strong decision-making authority and consequences that include monetary fines or penalties, an Adjudicator’s decision-making authority to enforce the Code are unlikely, on their own, to drive meaningful compliance.

Some players in the Canadian grocery industry are not currently signatories to the Code and that position is understandable. The benefit to being a non-member at this stage since they benefit from being ‘free riders’. They can participate at their discretion and opt in whenever they like. While they do not contribute financially, they receive the benefit from the industry’s initiatives, which includes improved overall reputation and the lack of governmental regulation and oversight. At this early stage, given that inclusion is voluntary, it may be more beneficial for some organizations to sit on the sidelines and wait to see how the process unfolds by observing the Adjudicator and its decision-making from afar.

A Missed Opportunity

Here’s the final pitfall of industry self-regulation that I would like to address here – the missed opportunity to address consumer concerns. At this moment, most people worry about the price of their groceries, they worry about price inflation, consistency in pricing, and some believe that there is no incentive for members of Canada’s food industry to reduce prices because there is little competition in the market.[10] These concerns are hotly debated in parliament, news and through social media outlets impacting industry reputation. While clarity between grocers and suppliers was likely the low-hanging fruit that needed addressing, after prices steadily increased during COVID with stressed supply chains, the grocery industry had a genuine opportunity to add to public dialogue, but they seemed to have missed the opportunity to implement meaningful and impactful consumer policies to address public concerns.

Some Concluding Thoughts

It may be premature to judge the Code and the OGSCC at this early stage of development and, who knows, these initiatives might ultimately lead to reduced prices for consumers. Industry self-regulation has its benefits. It allows the industry self-determination, greater flexibility, and it may be the most cost-effective solution for governments.[11] But, for now, it seems that I may have to find a protein substitute for my turkey-bites.

__________________

[1] Soon after drafting this blog, ‘Operation Epic Fury’ began with significant shipping challenges occurring in the Strait of Hormuz. It is likely that these global events will further exacerbate shipping issues and food costs over the next few months.

[2] One of the articles: The Canadian Press, “Canada’s grocery code of conduct kicks in Jan. 1, with buy-in from 5 major grocers: Code could improve grocer-supplier relations, but not a silver bullet for prices” (CBC: January 1, 2026) (Online: https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/canada-grocery-code-of-conduct-jan-1-9.7031468); “Canada Grocery Code of Conduct Provisions” (OGSCC: 2026) (Online: https://canadacode.org/code/code-of-conduct/)

[3] “Canada’s First-Ever Grocery Code of Conduct Comes Into Effect” (FDA: February 2, 2026) (Online: https://apps.fas.usda.gov/newgainapi/api/Report/DownloadReportByFileName?fileName=Canada%27s%20First-Ever%20Grocery%20Code%20of%20Conduct%20Comes%20Into%20Effect_Montreal_Canada_CA2026-0003.pdf ); “Retail fees in the Canadian food industry: Findings of the Federal-Provincial-Territorial (FPT) Working Group on Retail Fees” (Government of Canada: July 2021) (Online: https://agriculture.canada.ca/en/sector/data-reports/retail-fees-issue-canadian-food-industry).

[4] Denis Paglinawan, “New Grocery Code of Conduct won’t have notable impact, insiders say” (Financial Post, January 28, 2026) (Online: https://financialpost.com/news/retail-marketing/grocery-code-conduct-wont-impact): Quote by Mark Petrie and Chantel Pearce, CIBC analysts.

[5] Emphasis (underlining) added by me.

[6] “Grocery code of conduct could cut food prices,” Interview: Larysa Harapyn and Gary Sands (Financial Post: November 20, 2023) (Online: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYEuw-8sYck).

[7] The Code is read together with a Governance Framework, By-laws and Operating Rules that will only apply to those who are registered members.

[8] “OGSCC Finalizes Governance Framework and Launches Formal Recruitment” (OGSCC) (Online: https://canadacode.org/news/ogscc-finalizes-governance-framework-and-launches-formal-recruitment/).

[9] “Dispute Resolution Management Process” (OGSCC: 2026) (Online: https://canadacode.org/code/dispute-resolution/). For the DRMP to apply, it requires that both parties be participating members at the time of the alleged dispute (s. 2.2). The decision of the Adjudicator is non-legally binding (s. 6.3(d)) and consequences of non-compliance with the Code and the Adjudicator’s decision or remediation recommendation includes publishing a Notice of Non-Compliance and report on the OGSCC website (s.6.4).

[10] “Canada Needs More Grocery Competition” (Competition Bureau Report: June 27, 2023).

[11] The federal government has stepped in to offer GST rebates while food affordability continues to be hotly debated. “Carney announced grocery rebate amid growing affordability issues for Canadians,” Press Conference (Global News: January 26, 2026) (Online: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9l-6o4Ech50).

The post Why the Grocery Code of Conduct Won’t Lower Prices and What It Shows About Industry Self-Regulation appeared first on Slaw.

Each Monday we present brief excerpts of recent posts from five of Canada’s award­-winning legal blogs chosen at random* from more than 80 recent Clawbie winners. In this way we hope to promote their work, with their permission, to as wide an audience as possible.

This week the randomly selected blogs are 1. Reconciliation Syllabus 2. David Whelan 3. IFLS at Osgoode 4. Excess Copyright 5. Global Workplace Insider

Reconciliation Syllabus
Learning Land and Relationship

For some time, I have been wanting to bring experiential learning related to land to a 3^rd year course I teach in an undergraduate Legal Studies program at Ontario Tech University: LGLS 3310U – Indigenous Peoples, Law and the State in Canada . This is the story of how this happened. Val Napoleon and Hadley Friedland discuss “stories as tools for thinking”, for both tellers and listeners, in their work on engagement with Indigenous legal traditions.[1] Although my topic is much smaller, telling this story gives me space to think – about the land, about teaching and relationships, and about myself as a teacher — if you feel you can take it up as a thinking tool, too, please do. …

David Whelan
The Two Speeds of Law Practice Technology

It is funny how you can be aware of something but, until you explain it to someone else, it doesn’t really take form. So far this semester, we have been looking at law practice technology from the perspectives of efficiencies: doing things more quickly and more accurately. Now that we’ve hit some security topics, the focus is on shifting into reverse and slowing down: how do you add friction. When I read about lawyers running into trouble with practice technology, increasingly it seems as though they’ve allowed their focus on efficiency to get out of balance with their need to induce friction. A law practice without friction is on a very slippery slope. …

IFLS at Osgoode
Why the Rule of Law Matters Now More Than Ever

At a time when courts, constitutions, and core democratic values are under increasing pressure, Osgoode Hall Law School convened a public conversation to examine a fundamental question: why the rule of law matters now more than ever. Hosted by Osgoode and York University, the event brought together judges, lawyers, scholars, students, and policy leaders for a focused discussion on law’s power and capacity in this dramatically challenging moment in history. The conversation featured the Honourable Bob Rae, former Premier of Ontario and Canada’s Ambassador to the United Nations. Opening the event, Dean Trevor Farrow situated the discussion in a context familiar to many in the room. …

Excess Copyright
Blacklock’s Pyrrhic Victory in the Federal Court of Appeal

I have blogged about Blacklock’s war against fair dealing for over a decade during which it has been protracting its long lasting litany of litigation losses. This began notably with Justice Barnes’ 2016 decision in a case in which he ruled against Blacklock’s and stated that “Although there are certainly some troubling aspects to Blacklock’s business practices it is unnecessary to resolve the Attorney General’s allegation that this litigation constitutes a form of copyright abuse by a copyright troll.” See 1395804 Ontario Ltd. v. Canada (Attorney General), 2016 FC 1255 (CanLII), [2017] 2 FCR 256, <https://canlii.ca/t/gvrbx>. Incidentally, the Government’s lawyer on that case, Alexandre Kaufman, has since been appointed as a judge of the Ontario Superior Court. …

Global Workplace Insider
Mandatory ethnicity and disability pay gap reporting: government response

On 25 March, the government published its response to the consultation on mandatory ethnicity and disability pay gap reporting, confirming its intention to proceed with a new reporting regime for large employers. Reporting will apply to organisations with 250 or more employees, aligning with the existing gender pay gap framework and avoiding additional regulatory burden on smaller employers, who will instead be encouraged to report voluntarily with the support of guidance. …

_________________________

*Randomness here is created by Random.org and its list randomizing function.

The post Monday’s Mix appeared first on Slaw.

Every week we present the summary of a decision handed down by a Québec court provided to us by SOQUIJ and considered to be of interest to our readers throughout Canada. SOQUIJ is attached to the Québec Department of Justice and collects, analyzes, enriches, and disseminates legal information in Québec.

PÉNAL (DROIT) : Le juge de première instance n’a pas erré en concluant que, même si l’accusé n’avait pas la possession réelle des armes à feu trouvées dans l’appartement de son ex-conjointe, duquel il avait été expulsé, il en avait la possession imputée.

Intitulé : S.G. c. R., 2026 QCCA 351
Juridiction : Cour d’appel (C.A.), Montréal
Décision de : Juges Jocelyn F. Rancourt, Genviève Cotnam et Christine Baudouin
Date : 16 mars 2026

Résumé

PÉNAL (DROIT) — infraction — infractions relatives aux armes — armes à feu — entreposage négligent d’armes à feu, de munitions et de dispositifs prohibés — entreposage d’armes à feu, de munitions et de dispositifs prohibés en violation des règlements — possession non autorisée d’armes à feu — possession non autorisée de dispositifs prohibés — chargeur à haute capacité — possession d’une arme à feu en sachant que son numéro de série a été modifié, maquillé ou effacé — présomption légale (art. 108 (4) C.Cr.) — violation d’une ordonnance d’interdiction — armes trouvées dans l’appartement de l’ex-conjointe de l’accusé — expulsion — possession imputée (art. 4 (3) a) C.Cr.) — contrôle — connaissance — intention de reprendre possession des biens — appréciation de la preuve — preuve circonstancielle — déclaration de culpabilité — requête en non-lieu — rejet — appel — caractère raisonnable du verdict.

PÉNAL (DROIT) — preuve pénale — appréciation de la preuve — infractions relatives aux armes à feu — armes trouvées dans l’appartement de l’ex-conjointe de l’accusé — expulsion — inférence tirée de la preuve — possession imputée (art. 4 (3) a) C.Cr.) — contrôle — connaissance — intention de reprendre possession des biens — preuve circonstancielle — preuve de l’occupation des lieux — possession des clés par l’accusé — propriété des outils de travail de l’accusé — démarches effectuées par l’accusé pour récupérer ses biens — degré de visibilité de l’arme — seule inférence raisonnable — spéculation — hypothèse d’un tiers ayant laissé les armes à l’insu de l’accusé — témoignage — crédibilité des témoins — lacunes — corroboration — preuve matérielle — modification du numéro de série — présomption légale (art. 108 (4) C.Cr.) — appel.

Appel d’une déclaration de culpabilité. Rejeté.

L’appelant a été déclaré coupable, par la Cour du Québec, sous 6 chefs d’accusation en lien avec la possession interdite et l’entreposage négligent d’armes à feu, de munitions et de dispositifs prohibés. Des armes ont été trouvées dans l’appartement de l’ex-conjointe de l’appelant, alors que ce dernier y a habité pendant près de 6 mois avant d’être expulsé des lieux.

Décision

Le juge de première instance n’a pas erré en concluant que la preuve, évaluée dans son ensemble, permettait d’établir autant la connaissance que le contrôle par l’appelant des biens saisis dans l’appartement. La preuve de l’occupation des lieux, le témoignage de l’ex-conjointe et la possession des clés par l’appelant suffisaient pour rejeter la demande en non-lieu. Par ailleurs, à elle seule, l’expulsion de ce dernier quelques jours avant la saisie ne fait pas échec à la possibilité d’invoquer la possession imputée. La preuve ne permet pas de conclure que, en raison de son expulsion, l’appelant avait perdu tout contrôle sur l’appartement et les biens s’y trouvant; au contraire, il possédait encore les clés permettant d’y accéder et ses biens y étaient entreposés, notamment ses cartes de crédit, ses pièces d’identité, ses vêtements et de nombreux outils d’une certaine valeur. Son intention de reprendre possession de ses biens ressort des démarches répétées qu’il a effectuées à la suite de son expulsion. Son ex-conjointe reconnaît d’ailleurs qu’ils étaient censés s’organiser pour qu’il revienne chercher ses affaires. Le juge pouvait donc inférer de cette preuve circonstancielle que l’appelant conservait un certain contrôle sur les biens saisis et les autres biens lui appartenant dans l’appartement.

Le verdict ne peut être qualifié de déraisonnable. Le juge était pleinement conscient des lacunes du témoignage de l’ex-conjointe, reconnaissant qu’il n’était pas possible de s’y fier en ce qui concerne les circonstances de la découverte des armes, la connaissance par celle-ci de leur présence dans son appartement ou son consentement quant à cette présence. Il a cependant retenu son témoignage relativement à certains éléments plus objectifs soutenus par une preuve extrinsèque. Le juge a conclu que, même si l’appelant n’avait pas la possession réelle des armes, il en avait la possession imputée (art. 4 (3) a) du Code criminel (C.Cr.)). Le verdict se fonde sur: le degré de visibilité de l’arme «militaire», entraînant une inférence de connaissance pour toute personne habitant les lieux ou circulant dans la pièce; le lien entre l’appelant et les autres objets présents dans les pièces où les biens saisis ont été trouvés, particulièrement ses documents officiels; l’occupation importante de ces pièces par l’appelant, permettant une inférence de contrôle; ainsi que le nombre d’armes, leur valeur et leur dangerosité, desquels émerge l’inférence selon laquelle de tels objets ne seraient pas laissés par un tiers sous le contrôle d’une personne qui en ignore la nature et la présence. Au surplus, il était raisonnable de rejeter la suggestion voulant que des tiers aient pu laisser les armes dans l’appartement à l’insu de l’appelant. Cette suggestion, qui est entièrement spéculative, relève d’une hypothèse sans assise. L’unique inférence raisonnable était celle d’une possession par l’appelant des biens saisis.

Quant au chef d’accusation d’avoir eu en sa possession une carabine en sachant que son numéro de série avait été modifié ou effacé, le juge a mentionné que l’on pouvait inférer de la possession de l’arme que l’appelant savait que le numéro de série avait été effacé. Bien qu’il n’ait pas fourni davantage d’explications à ce propos, cette conclusion est conforme à la présomption légale prévue à l’article 108 (4) C.Cr. L’appelant n’a fourni aucune preuve de nature à contrer l’effet de cette présomption.

Le texte intégral de la décision est disponible ici

The post Summaries Sunday: SOQUIJ appeared first on Slaw.

As a supplement to our Sunday Summary each month, Supreme Advocacy LLP in Ottawa presents Supreme One-Liners, a super-short descriptive guide to the most recent decisions at the Supreme Court of Canada. Supreme Advocacy LLP offers its more comprehensive weekly electronic newsletter, Supreme Advocacy Letter, summarizing all Appeals, Oral Judgments and Leaves to Appeal granted.

Appeals

Insurance: Presumption of Death
Riddle v. ivari, 2026 SCC 9 (40986)

“Return” of a person declared dead, established on a balance of probabilities.

The post Summaries Sunday: Supreme One-Liners appeared first on Slaw.

Most professionals review their financial portfolios regularly. They assess what’s performing, what’s stalled, and what no longer fits the strategy. They make deliberate decisions about where to invest time and capital.

Almost no one applies the same discipline to the most valuable asset in their professional life: their relationships.

The Asset You’re Not Managing

A contact base that isn’t actively maintained doesn’t stay neutral. It erodes.

The client you worked with intensively three years ago and haven’t spoken to since? They’ve moved on. The colleague who moved to an interesting company but slipped off your radar? They needed someone with your expertise last month and called someone else. Not because they don’t respect you. Because you weren’t visible when it mattered.

These relationships rarely end dramatically. They fade.

The result? The contact still exists in your CRM, you might see their LinkedIn posts occasionally, but the connection has gone quiet. Reaching out can feel awkward, like calling someone after years of silence and pretending nothing happened.

Here’s the thing: it’s normal and it happens to everyone. Acceptance is the first step.

Honestly Review Your Contacts

Before you reach out to anyone, spend time understanding what you’re working with. The audit must come first – and it must be honest

Think about your contacts in terms of relationship temperature, not industry or revenue. Who have you spoken to – not emailed, not liked on LinkedIn – in the last twelve months? Who is in a position today that didn’t exist when you last connected? And critically, who should no longer be on this list at all?

That last question matters more than most people expect because it focuses your attention. Most people, when they do this exercise, honestly, discover their active network is significantly smaller than they assumed. That’s not a failure, but it is useful information.

The Intelligence You’re Not Using

Today, you don’t have to guess what’s happening with your network. The information is largely available, it just isn’t being collected and used.

LinkedIn, when used as an observation tool rather than a broadcasting platform, reveals role changes, company news, and professional milestones in real time. Google Alerts costs nothing and takes minutes to set up. Think of it as preparation.

The professionals who reach out at the right moment with a relevant observation aren’t lucky, they are paying attention.

Outreach That Doesn’t Announce Itself

The worst business development communications have one thing in common: they are obviously about the sender. The most effective way to revive a dormant relationship is through outreach that asks for nothing.

This sounds simple, but most professionals struggle with it. We are conditioned to view every interaction through the lens of business development, which makes outreach feel transactional even when we don’t intend it to be.

A true no-ask message might congratulate someone on a recent accomplishment, share an article relevant to their work, or simply note that you were reminded of them. Keep it brief. Three or four sentences at most.

The other type of outreach references something real and it makes a defined ask. Not a vague coffee, but a stated purpose: “I’d like 20 minutes to understand what’s on your plate this year.”

That’s the difference between managing a network and investing in one. Investment requires putting something in first.

The Team You Are Probably Underusing

If your firm has marketing, communications, or business development professionals, you need to leverage their capabilities. These teams have access to tools, data, and perspectives that you don’t have or at least don’t have time for.

Here are a few things they can help with – research a prospect before you reach out, monitor clients for news and trigger events, audit your CRM so it reflects reality rather than history, and help identify which relationships are worth reactivating.

What only you can do: have the relationship, exercise the judgment, make the call.

Spend 30 minutes with your BD team and share your top 20 names. Ask what they know. It will almost always surface information you didn’t have.

A Career-Stage Reality Check

As with everything in this space, your approach should vary depending on where you are in your career.

Early career: Your list is small – that’s fine. The goal is habits, not volume. One substantive outreach per week is a practice. That person you were in school with may be a decision-maker later. Be there when they need you

Mid-career: You have more contacts than time. Prioritization is the skill you need to hone. Identify your top 15-25 contacts with real and genuine potential. Give them real attention. Trying to actively maintain 200 relationships means maintaining none of them well.

Senior level: Relationships built over decades still erode without attention. Bringing in colleagues and broadening points of contact is good practice management and good client service. Don’t underestimate the weight your personal outreach still carries.

What Results Actually Look Like

Let’s be honest about timelines. Not every reconnection will lead to new business. You must be comfortable with that. Some relationships are valuable for referrals, others for knowledge sharing, while others simply for what they add to your professional life.

Real near-term results look like this: a conversation that surfaces a need you didn’t know existed. A referral that traces back to a reconnection made months ago. A CRM that your whole team can actually use. One dormant relationship genuinely reactivated.

Make It A Habit

There is a version of professional life where business development is reactive — something you do when work slows down. Most professionals spend most of their careers there.

There is another version where your contact base is something you understand clearly and draw on strategically. Where your outreach is specific enough that people actually respond. Where the relationships you have built translate into opportunity. Not because you are the best at what you do, but because the right people know it at the right moments.

The difference between those two versions isn’t talent or luck. It is whether you are managing your network or investing in it. Professionals who do this consistently don’t win because they are lucky. They win because they are visible.

The post Stop Managing Your Network. Start Investing in It. appeared first on Slaw.

Several times each month, we are pleased to republish a recent book review from the Canadian Law Library Review (CLLR). CLLR is the official journal of the Canadian Association of Law Libraries (CALL/ACBD), and its reviews cover both practice-oriented and academic publications related to the law.

Legal Knowledge in Organizations: A Source of Strategic and Competitive Advantage. By Robert C. Bird. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 2025. xxv, 261 p. Includes bibliographic references and index. ISBN 9781009596671 (hardcover) $143.95; ISBN 9781009596695 (softcover) $47.95; ISBN 9781009596701 (eBook) $41.99.

Reviewed by Gillian Eguaras
Research Librarian
McMillan LLP

Legal Knowledge in Organizations spans 10 comprehensive chapters, each exploring the crucial role of legal knowledge in today’s fast-paced and competitive business landscape. Author Robert C. Bird, a business law professor and Eversource Energy Chair in Business Ethics at the University of Connecticut, addresses the challenges that organizations face to maintain a competitive advantage, highlighting how the protective shield of legal expertise can also drive sustainable business success. Bird offers a clear, practical, and step-by-step methodology that organizations of any size or industry can use to harness the law as a strategic organizational asset. Rather than viewing law merely as a set of compliance obligations or a source of liability, Bird reframes legal knowledge as a dynamic force that promotes organizational growth and innovation.

Central to the book is Bird’s introduction of a five-part framework for applying legal knowledge to business strategy: avoidance, conformance, prevention, value, and transformation. Each stage represents a different way organizations can interact with and leverage legal knowledge, moving from simply steering clear of legal trouble (avoidance) or adhering to the rules (conformance), to actively preventing problems before they arise (prevention), finding creative ways that legal knowledge can add business value (value), and, finally, using legal insights to fundamentally transform business models and markets (transformation). This progression encourages organizations to develop a more sophisticated and integrated approach to legal management, rather than treating legal issues as isolated events.

In each chapter, Bird meticulously details actionable methods for building robust legal expertise within an organization. He does not just speak to legal departments or top executives: his recommendations also empower managers, team leaders, and many other non-legal personnel to develop a deeper understanding of legal issues relevant to their roles. One of Bird’s key points is that legal knowledge does not have to be the exclusive domain of lawyers. When knowledge about contracts, regulations, intellectual property, and risk management is democratized within an organization, it allows for faster, coordinated, and more informed decision-making.

Another strength is the book’s emphasis on innovative risk management tools. Bird recognizes that the legal landscape is always shifting, with new regulations, court decisions, and business practices emerging regularly. To help organizations not just react but proactively prepare for unforeseen legal threats, Bird outlines practical tools and techniques for anticipating legal risks, identifying emerging issues, and responding with agility; for example, how to apply the prevention legal knowledge strategy in competitive environments. Managers with conformance-oriented mindsets focus on meeting the requirements of a mandate or prohibition without necessarily addressing or considering the underlying reasons the rules exist. A manager applying a legal prevention approach identifies and understands the causes and conditions that may threaten compliance with a legal mandate and can implement measures designed to eliminate or limit those risks before they arise. Bird’s succinct, yet thorough, discussion of the various mindsets is continued throughout the text, with multiple case studies in subsequent chapters.

A crucial thread running through all 10 chapters is the importance of ethical decision-making in the use of legal knowledge. Bird is careful to demonstrate that while legal knowledge can be a source of competitive advantage, it also comes with a responsibility to act ethically and fairly. Using case studies and real-life examples, Bird encourages leaders and legal professionals to develop ethical practices that align business interests with broader societal interests. To Bird, this approach not only protects organizations from legal and reputational harm, but it also creates trust with stakeholders, regulators, and customers, further cementing competitive advantage.

Figures and tables enhance the book’s utility. These elements break down complex legal concepts into digestible parts, so readers can easily apply these ideas within their own businesses. Whether readers are grappling with the basics of legal compliance or exploring how to use legal innovation to gain market leadership, Bird’s frameworks and diagrams clearly illustrate how to turn this knowledge into action.

Importantly, Legal Knowledge in Organizations is designed for academic and corporate law firm libraries. It balances rigorous academic analysis—evidenced by its over 1,200 footnotes, which reference legal commentary and scholarship—against accessible, real-world business insights. The book is equally valuable for students and scholars interested in business law and organizational behaviour, as well as for corporate leaders, managers, and attorneys seeking to improve their firm’s competitive positioning through better legal practices.

Bird’s text offers much more than a theoretical treatise on the importance of law for businesses: it serves as an essential playbook to transform legal knowledge from a peripheral concern into a central pillar of business strategy. By combining thorough research with clear, actionable guidance and a focus on ethical leadership, Legal Knowledge in Organizations can equip organizations to not only survive but also thrive in a constantly evolving marketplace.

The post Book Review: Robert Bird’s Legal Knowledge in Organizations: A Source of Strategic and Competitive Advantage appeared first on Slaw.

Each month, we tell you which three English-language cases and French-language cases have been the most viewed* on CanLII in the previous month and we give you a small sense of what the cases are about.

For this past month, the three most-consulted English-language decisions were:

1. Kapahi Real Estate Inc. v. Elite Real Estate Club of Toronto Inc, 2026 ONSC 1438

* As of February 2025 we measure the number of unique pageviews that a case gets; as well, a case once mentioned won’t appear again for three months.

The post Wednesday: What’s Hot on CanLII? – March 2026 appeared first on Slaw.

During my Spring Break, I decided to reread some examples of classic literature, including my favorite one of all times, Don Quixote. Since I was a kid, I have always been obsessed with the scene on windmills and the “quixotic” battle that ensues. Don Quixote’s faithful companion, Sancho Panza puts an end to it with his insightful remark: Mire vuestra merced que aquellos que allí se parecen no son gigantes, sino molinos de viento (Look, your grace, that those appearing over there are not giants, but windmills).

[ Photo by Alberto Gasco on Unsplash ]

More recently, we had the removal of an incredibly important free source of information, the CIA World Factbook. I believe it’s fair to say that the Factbook was widely used, not only by Americans, but also by people everywhere interested in reliable and trustworthy facts about countries and territories around the world. Several months ago, the database was unceremoniously removed without any reason or explanation given to anyone. As someone who has done this work for years, this action may be described as a celebration of wilful ignorance in close dialogue with so many other governments in the world which thrive in the blindness of its citizens. In the wise words of Don Quixote, El conocimiento es la mejor herramienta de que puede disponer el hombre (Knowledge is the best tool available to man).

Therefore, please allow me to show you three free sources which are great alternatives to this type of information as well as a research technique which may prove to be of importance. It’s all about resilience, my dear readers.

Our first stop is Our World in Data (OWID), the flagship project of the non-profit organization, Global Change Data Lab based in the UK and operating since 2013. From the homepage, you have three ways of navigating the richness of the information on their site: topics, data and insights. Personally, I prefer to start my research with which board topic I’m interested in and then navigate the data from there. OWID is organized in ten topics: Population and Democratic Change; Health; Energy and Environment; Food and Agriculture; Poverty and Economic Development; Education and Knowledge; Innovation and Technological Change; Living Conditions, Community and Wellbeing; Human Rights and Democracy; and Violence and War. Once you have selected the topic you are interested in, there are numerous sub-topics to choose from and it takes you to an intro page from where you can select data, charts and blog posts. The project is related to the University of Oxford. Therefore, their experts seem to be current and former academics with connections to the academic institution.

A newer free source alternative is OpenFactBook (OFB) which claims to be a “community-maintained successor to the CIA World Factbook”. True to the World Factbook format, OFB allows users to choose from a total of 254 places ranging from fully-independent and internationally recognized countries as well as territories from all over the world. Once you click on your place of interest, you will find data categories which we are all familiar with such as Geography, People & Society, Government, Economy and so on. A major improvement from the CIA Factbook is how OFB allows researchers to compare and rank countries and territories based on the available data for different categories. You can choose to build your comparison yourself from scratch or you can use one of the pre-formatted rankings in topics such as Life Expectancy, Unemployment Rate, Internet Users and others. I hope they are able to maintain and expand in the future.

When searching for primary data or expert analysis on different topics at an international level or for comparison purposes, another important research strategy to keep in mind is finding regional and/or international organizations that work on the area. These organizations do collect vast amounts of data and information including their member states as well as other countries/territories related to whichever topics they are interested in. Finding which international organizations cover completely or partially your topic of interest is not an easy task.The list of intergovernmental organizations maintained by Wikipedia is a great starting point, albeit with its limitations. For a more extensive list, the reputable and well-known Yearbook of International Organizations published by the Union of International Associations has its own free version called, Open Yearbook. Here you can sort by regions or topics and find both non-governmental organizations as well as intergovernmental organizations.

Lastly, I have the utmost confidence in the resilience of our FCIL community of researchers, librarians, professors and students that do this work every day. A few years ago, I began teaching students in my courses about the importance of visualizing themselves as resilient researchers able to face any challenge coming their way. That is how we have always succeeded in the past and this time, it will not be any different.

The post The Quixotic Journey of Country Information and Data appeared first on Slaw.

It has been clear for a long time that self-represented litigants struggle to understand the system they are often thrown into. By contrast, lawyers study for years, and have the benefit of ever-mounting daily experience, topped off with the privilege and deference associated with belonging to the legal profession. It’s no wonder then that SRLs tend to muddle blindly through the system, piecing together whatever information they can find from a host of sources, some more reliable than others. Naturally they make mistakes, and are inefficient, contributing to the existing backlog and straining the legal system. These litigants are very aware of this, and it adds to their stress and embarrassment. It’s not pleasant to feel, based on your own experience and the reactions of others, that you are inadequately navigating an unforgiving system not built for your participation. As a consequence, SRLs often feel lost, isolated, and scared.

The National Self-Represented Litigants Project (NSRLP) has long worked to address SRLs’ challenges, in part by providing practical, plain-language resources to assist litigants to navigate the system more smoothly, when the option to hire legal representation is out of reach. Our library of “primers” has been an important and much-used resource since the early days of the organization (in the past year the primers have been viewed over 3600 times), but we always envisioned a more cohesive educational initiative, something that would give SRLs a big-picture “crash-course” in important elements of the legal system, putting them on firmer footing to understand where they are in the system and how it operates, and equipping them with practical strategies for navigating it.

In 2022 we were able to realize this goal thanks to funding from the federal Department of Justice that allowed us to create a pilot project, the “School for Family Litigants.” The pilot version encompassed two separate runs of a 12-week program, where SRLs from across Canada attended weekly virtual sessions taking them through a syllabus that included the structure and basics of family law, as well as best practices and strategies for navigating the system while self-represented. Each week consisted of a lecture by a legal professional followed by a live question and answer session with the lecturer and 2-3 other experts (our lecturers and panelists were lawyers, judges, academics, law librarians, mediators, paralegals, former SRLs, etc., all of whom generously donated their time to this project). The participants were also encouraged to connect with each other via a private Facebook group, where they could share experiences, questions, tips, and resources with each other. The pilot program was incredibly successful, with both sessions filling up almost immediately, and effusively positive feedback via messages and NSRLP surveys. (To learn more about the pilot program see this previous Slaw column.)

Unfortunately, the pilot iteration of the School was not sustainable or scalable given the limited staff and financial resources of the NSRLP; however the value was undeniable, and we were committed to finding a way to make the program permanent, and expandable. With a small top-up of funding from the DOJ, we re-worked the model into a proposed hybrid version, which would consist of recorded lectures (available thanks to the pilot program), regular (though not weekly) live Q&A sessions, a community forum, and various other collected resources.

We are pleased to say that as of late February, the revamped School for Family Litigants is now operational, and has already attracted over a hundred participants, with more signing up each day. We are in the early, growing stages of this initiative, but we are excited to learn and improve as we go, and hopeful that it will have a positive impact on the ability of Canadian SRLs to navigate the family justice system. We strongly believe in the combination of reliable legal information content that SRLs can access in their own time, with interactive Q&A sessions that allow participants to gained a deeper and more nuanced understanding of the legal information they access.

Another goal with this new iteration is to begin providing jurisdiction-specific content – this need became very obvious the longer the pilot program went on, as participants (from across the country) naturally had questions about the forms and processes in their specific provinces. To that end, NSRLP has been seeking funding in various jurisdictions, with the goal of creating complementary material to supplement the national content. We are very grateful to the Law Foundation of Saskatchewan for being our first provincial funding partner, and we look forward to starting to release Saskatchewan-specific materials in the School very soon. Following after will be both Prince Edward Island and Ontario content, thanks to their respective Law Foundations. The support of family law professionals is essential to this endeavor, as it relies on access to justice-oriented volunteers to help create content and serve on live session panels. We therefore encourage any professionals interested in helping with this project, particularly those in Saskatchewan, PEI, and Ontario, to reach out to us at representingyourself@gmail.com.

We are learning as we go with this initiative, but one demonstrable benefit is its flexibility and adaptability. New content can be added at any time, old content can be removed or adapted, participants can stay as long as they wish or come in and out, and the School is scalable to a very large capacity. We look forward to adding modules not only on jurisdictional content, but on content for special populations, such as those who have experienced family violence. We also see the School as a clearinghouse of other resources – working with provincial partners, we are seeking to share existing resources without duplicating them, while at the same time creating new content where gaps in legal information remain. Furthermore, it helps tackle issues of remote access to justice by virtue of its virtual setting. The School will grow along with our capacity, and discrete injections of funding will add to the long-term practicality and viability of the program.

The School for Family Litigants fills a crucial gap in resources for self-represented litigants; we hope it will become one of NSRLP’s primary initiatives, and we invite participation and collaboration from as many jurisdictions and stakeholders as possible.

The post The New “School for Family Litigants” appeared first on Slaw.

Each Monday we present brief excerpts of recent posts from five of Canada’s award­-winning legal blogs chosen at random* from more than 80 recent Clawbie winners. In this way we hope to promote their work, with their permission, to as wide an audience as possible.

This week the randomly selected blogs are 1. Canadian Appeals Monitor 2.Vincent Gautrais 3. Family Health Law Blog 4. PierreRoy & Associés 5. Le Blogue du CRL

Canadian Appeals Monitor
What does 2026 hold for Canada’s technology sector?

AI, digital infrastructure and tech buildouts continue to dominate not only the tech sector but the economy as a whole. Our Technology Perspectives Outlook examines what impact these have on Canadian businesses at both a macro and an operational level. Drawing on insight from our Technology Group, this year’s Outlook provides a grounded, practical analysis of the trends organizations need to understand as they optimize products, streamline operations, and manage risk in an increasingly complex environment. …

Vincent Gautrais
Qu’en est-il des données de vos comptes fidélité ? Le rappel de la dépersonnalisation des données par le CPVP (décision Loblaw)

Nous avons déjà tous adhéré à un compte fidélité d’un magasin ; ils permettent de gagner des points qui peuvent se traduire par des rabais ou encore des offres commerciales. On finit souvent par en accumuler une grande quantité. Mais avez-vous déjà essayé de supprimer un de ces comptes fidélité ? C’est ce qu’ont tenté de faire les détenteurs d’un compte fidélité (aussi appelé PC Optium) offert par les compagnies Loblaw. Certains se sont heurtés à des difficultés techniques et ont donc contacté le service clientèle du magasin ; mais aucune réponse. Après un certain temps d’attente, des plaintes ont été déposées auprès du Commissariat à la protection de la vie privée (CPVP) afin de signaler un potentiel abus. …

Family Health Law Blog
Ontario Surrogacy in 2026: New Funding & Legal Rights

One of the most significant updates for Ontario families this year involves time away from work. As of early 2026, the Employment Standards Act has been updated with a category called “Placement of a Child Leave.” …

PierreRoy & Associés
Renouvellement hypothécaire en 2026 : comment se préparer au choc des taux

L’année 2026 marque un tournant majeur pour des millions de propriétaires canadiens. Selon les données du marché, environ 60 % des prêts hypothécaires au pays arriveront à échéance cette année. Pour ceux qui ont acheté leur propriété pendant la pandémie, profitant de taux historiquement bas oscillant entre 1,79 % et 2 %, le réveil risque d’être brutal. …

Le Blogue du CRL
Les leçons du rapport TikTok – Partie 2 : La biométrie

Après avoir examiné, dans la première partie, les enjeux liés à l’efficacité des mécanismes de vérification de l’âge et à la validité du consentement, le second volet de notre analyse reprend le Rapport d’enquête sur TikTok Pte. Ltd.[1] (« TikTok »), publié à la fin de 2025 par le Commissariat à la protection de la vie privée du Canada (« CPVP »), la Commission d’accès à l’information du Québec (« CAI »), ainsi que leurs homologues de la Colombie-Britannique et de l’Alberta (collectivement, les « Commissaires »). Dans la continuité des constats formulés précédemment, ce second volet porte sur l’utilisation par TikTok de technologies d’estimation de l’âge fondées sur l’analyse des traits faciaux, ainsi que sur leur qualification juridique en tant que renseignements biométriques. Ce débat met en lumière une tension entre l’innovation technologique et les exigences en matière de protection de la vie privée. A. La position de TikTok…

_________________________

*Randomness here is created by Random.org and its list randomizing function.

The post Monday’s Mix appeared first on Slaw.

Michael Geist had a lawyer on his Law Bytes podcast recently to talk about how AI is radically transforming his practice. For this long-time listener of one of the best law podcasts out there, the episode with New York lawyer Zack Shapiro was among the two or three most interesting and informative episodes I think Geist has ever done.

As someone who follows developments in legal AI closely, I found Shapiro’s insights into how to make the best use of AI outstanding. This is an episode that anyone interested in where law is headed — and concerned with not being left behind — can’t afford to miss.

Shapiro had three core insights to impart that, when combined, give you, in his words, “superpowers of the kind we have not seen in the law yet.” And he paints a vivid picture of how these powers have transformed his practice at a small transactional firm focusing on tech startups and investors. (Shapiro has conveyed some of these ideas in a few essays that have gone viral X.)

I will briefly sketch his insights, which I think are entirely valid and empowering. But my larger aim here is to make the point that, as exciting and inspiring as this glimpse into the AI future may be, it’s a partial vision. It leaves a lot out.

It’s not unlike a news clip of a crowd protesting in front of city hall, which looks large close-up, but, as the camera pans out, is revealed to be not that big.

To be clear, the buzz and excitement here is real. Some superpowers are now attainable. But much of this is localized. It’s clustered in some areas of practice, for some things.

First, the good news.

Shapiro’s three insights

Stop using bespoke legal AI

In the past three months, he says, we’ve reached a tipping point. Off-the-shelf, frontier models like Claude and ChatGPT are so good that it’s time to stop using AI tools tailored for law, such as Protégé, Westlaw, Harvey, and so on.

Shapiro sees these as unnecessary “wrappers” around a language model, with buttons and controls meant to assist you but that only get in the way. Remove all the clutter and learn to work with the best models directly.

Why? Because there’s something you need to be doing — constantly — that Harvey and Westlaw won’t let you do. You want to be using AI to teach you how to use it better, and you want to build a library of background instructions that run with every prompt, so as to make your output ever more responsive and accurate, and to automate more steps in your process.

Use AI to create a virtuous cycle of greater efficiency

Shapiro singles out a key feature of Claude that I don’t believe any other AI provider has a true equivalent of yet. For a while, all the big platforms (ChatGPT, Gemini, etc) have allowed you to upload sources to the model and to create ‘projects’ that can have specific instructions for all chats within it.

Claude has something unique called ‘skills,’ which are files you can create that contain plain-language instructions for how you would like certain things to be done or things Claude should keep in mind with every prompt (your style, voice, formatting preferences, etc). They can also contain code for complex operations, like opening a Word file, making requested changes, and creating a new file.

How does this help?

You can get Claude itself to make skills for you, critique the ones you’ve made, amend them, troubleshoot them, and so forth. You can also use them for more technical things, like moving files in a directory, comparing documents, etc. It’s not clear that other models can do this yet.

Shapiro describes a process in recent months of working with Claude to build and refine an elaborate set of skills that have automated stages in the creation, review, and revision of complex contracts using a host of special instructions and technical shortcuts. What used to take him four or five hours to generate a draft of a contract now takes minutes.

The quality of the output has only been improving, he says, as he harnesses Claude to make and revise skills, based on what has worked well and what hasn’t.

Your prompts need to be longer, much longer

The point is often made that the quality of output with AI depends on the length and specificity of your prompt. Shapiro is emphatic on this point. He says that the average length of his prompts is 2,000 words. In a Word doc, that’s roughly 8 pages double-spaced.

You need to load your prompts with detail. Everything should be in there: your client’s multifarious concerns, what the other side is likely to accept or not accept and other sticking points, prevailing law, key terms you think should be included, and so on.

Shapiro makes the general point that if you take the time to craft prompts that are extensive and nuanced enough, the quality of the output can and often will be comparable to what a mid-level or senior associate would produce. And once you begin working with a sufficiently large library of skills — or other background instructions — you’ll be producing at a pace never before possible, with no discernible loss in the quality of your work.

What this picture leaves out

I’m all over Claude and building a library of skills to generate a recursive cycle of greater efficiency.

But outside of a practice focused mainly on writing contracts and a few other areas, even the most bullish embrace of AI will result in productivity gains that are far less dramatic.

The fact is that for many other forms of practice — for lawyers who do research-heavy work, who spend most of their time negotiating, or who litigate in certain areas — AI will play a more limited, often peripheral role.

It was telling, I thought, that Shapiro gave only two concrete examples of how he uses AI in his practice: to generate contracts and to write opinion letters. (Near the end of the episode, he also described how he uses AI to help draft social media posts.)

I’m in touch with a litigation lawyer in BC who is experiencing something similar to Shapiro’s miraculous epiphany. He reports saving countless hours in recent months using AI to review documents in his employment practice, to generate demand and opinion letters, and to draft settlements. He also notes that his prompts tend to be extensive, in many cases well over a thousand words — and that he often gets AI to help him formulate better prompts.

So there is certainly an argument to be made that Shapiro’s insights apply to litigation and can lead to a significant boost in productivity.

But not in every kind of litigation, and not in every kind of law.

Over here in criminal law land, its use has been far more limited. We get tons of disclosure from the Crown, lengthy documents, often terabytes of data on whole hard drives. We grapple with whether we can upload these documents to any language model hosted in the cloud, bespoke or otherwise, given the uncertainty around privacy. And no one is sure whether sensitive client information is safe with AI.

The larger narrative in litigation is that lawyers relying on AI to draft court submissions has been a disaster. I don’t think it’s well suited to writing submissions — or opinion letters for that matter — even if a lawyer confirms that law is summarized accurately. These are things, I’ve argued, that lawyers need to do on their own, to ensure they’re done competently.

And although I’m seeing progress in using AI to assist with legal research — including the possibility of using Claude to look things up for you on CanLII — the efficiency gains there are significant, but not as striking as in Shapiro’s case.

And of course, for lawyers who spend a good portion of their time dealing with clients and negotiating with opposing counsel or appearing in court, AI will not bring about a radical transformation of their practice.

The AI revolution is coming, but it will be jagged and uneven. Some parts of the future will look distinctly like the past.

The post The AI Future of Law Is Already Here — It’s Just Not Evenly Distributed appeared first on Slaw.

The post Summaries Sunday: Supreme One-Liners appeared first on Slaw.

Every week we present the summary of a decision handed down by a Québec court provided to us by SOQUIJ and considered to be of interest to our readers throughout Canada. SOQUIJ is attached to the Québec Department of Justice and collects, analyzes, enriches, and disseminates legal information in Québec.

PÉNAL (DROIT) Dans une affaire de voies de fait causant des lésions corporelles commises lors d’une bagarre à la sortie d’un bar, l’erreur de la juge de première instance est d’avoir refusé de considérer tout fait qui n’avait pas été exposé lors du plaidoyer de culpabilité et d’avoir refusé à l’accusé la possibilité de présenter la preuve tendant à expliquer qu’il n’avait pas agressé la victime sans motif.

Intitulé : Ferjuste c. R., 2026 QCCA 334
Juridiction : Cour d’appel (C.A.), Montréal
Décision de : Juges Martin Vauclair, Geneviève Cotnam et Myriam Lachance
Date : 13 mars 2026

Résumé

PÉNAL (DROIT) — détermination de la peine — infractions contre la personne — voies de fait — voies de fait causant des lésions corporelles — agression armée — homme — coup à la tête avec une bouteille de bière — recevabilité de la preuve — observations des parties — faits pertinents — juge ayant refusé de considérer tout fait non exposé lors du plaidoyer de culpabilité — preuve additionnelle — pertinence — circonstances de l’infraction — motivation du geste — absence d’agression gratuite — entente entre les parties — exposé des faits — proportionnalité de la peine — culpabilité morale — rapport présentenciel positif — faible risque de récidive — remords — condamnation avec sursis — appel — erreur — absolution inconditionnelle — intérêt véritable de l’accusé — intérêt public — accusé ayant déjà purgé sa peine — ordonnance de prélèvement de substances corporelles à des fins d’analyse génétique.

PÉNAL (DROIT) — détermination de la peine — principes généraux — rôle et pouvoirs des cours — recevabilité de la preuve — observations des parties — faits pertinents — application des articles 723 et 726 C.Cr. — juge ayant refusé de considérer tout fait non exposé lors du plaidoyer de culpabilité — preuve additionnelle — pertinence — circonstances de l’infraction — voies de fait causant des lésions corporelles — agression armée — motivation du geste — absence d’agression gratuite — faits admis — entente entre les parties — exposé des faits — éléments essentiels de l’infraction (art. 606 (1.1) b) (i) C.Cr.) — proportionnalité de la peine — culpabilité morale — condamnation avec sursis — ordonnance de purger sa peine dans la collectivité — appel — erreur — substitution de la peine — absolution inconditionnelle — intérêt véritable de l’accusé — intérêt public.

PÉNAL (DROIT) — détermination de la peine — principes généraux — facteurs à prendre en considération — observations des parties — faits pertinents — recevabilité de la preuve — application des articles 723 et 726 C.Cr. — juge ayant refusé de considérer tout fait non exposé lors du plaidoyer de culpabilité — preuve additionnelle — pertinence — circonstances de l’infraction — voies de fait causant des lésions corporelles — agression armée — motivation du geste — absence d’agression gratuite — faits admis — entente entre les parties — exposé des faits — éléments essentiels de l’infraction (art. 606 (1.1) b) (i) C.Cr.) — proportionnalité de la peine — culpabilité morale — pertinence — condamnation avec sursis — ordonnance de purger sa peine dans la collectivité — appel — erreur — substitution de la peine — absolution inconditionnelle — intérêt véritable de l’accusé — intérêt public.

PÉNAL (DROIT) — preuve pénale — recevabilité de la preuve — observations des parties — faits pertinents — application des articles 723 et 726 C.Cr. — juge ayant refusé de considérer tout fait non exposé lors du plaidoyer de culpabilité — preuve additionnelle — pertinence — circonstances de l’infraction — voies de fait causant des lésions corporelles — agression armée — motivation du geste — absence d’agression gratuite — faits admis — entente entre les parties — exposé des faits — éléments essentiels de l’infraction (art. 606 (1.1) b) (i) C.Cr.) — proportionnalité de la peine — culpabilité morale — pertinence — condamnation avec sursis — ordonnance de purger sa peine dans la collectivité — appel — erreur — substitution de la peine — absolution inconditionnelle — intérêt véritable de l’accusé — intérêt public.

Requête en autorisation d’appel et appel de la peine. Accueillis.

À la sortie d’un bar, une bagarre est survenue entre la victime et un ami du requérant. Souhaitant aider son ami alors qu’il se faisait poursuivre par la victime, le requérant a frappé 6 fois celle-ci derrière la tête à l’aide d’une bouteille de bière, qui ne s’est pas cassée. La victime a été coupée à la tête. Le requérant s’est ultérieurement livré à la police. Il a plaidé coupable à 2 infractions, l’une de voies de fait causant des lésions corporelles et l’autre de voies de fait armées. Le requérant suggérait une absolution inconditionnelle. La juge de première instance, qui a refusé de prendre en compte la preuve que voulait présenter le requérant à propos des circonstances de l’infraction, lui a plutôt infligé une peine de 12 mois d’emprisonnement avec sursis. Elle a expliqué que l’unique raison de refuser l’absolution tenait au caractère «gratuit» et «sans motif» de l’attaque du requérant à l’endroit de la victime.

Décision

M. le juge Vauclair: La juge a refusé au requérant la possibilité de faire la preuve «d’autres faits» que ceux «admis» lors du plaidoyer. Or, la preuve et les observations qu’un accusé peut présenter à l’audience sur la peine ne sont pas limitées aux faits justifiant l’accusation qui ont été exposés lors du plaidoyer de culpabilité. Bien entendu, cette preuve n’est pas l’occasion de remettre en cause la culpabilité ou les admissions consenties. Cependant, en principe, les faits exposés lors du plaidoyer sont ceux qui sont nécessaires pour justifier l’accusation, rien de plus (art. 606 (1.1) b) (i) du Code criminel (C.Cr.)); c’est précisément le rôle des exposés des faits qui sont livrés de façon routinière aux juges d’instance par les avocats. Il est vrai qu’une entente peut prévoir le dépôt d’un exposé complet des faits relatifs à une accusation; ainsi, au-delà des faits justifiant l’accusation, l’exposé peut comprendre, par exemple, l’admission de facteurs aggravants ou atténuants ou encore en exclure d’autres. Sans entente complète et précise, une preuve additionnelle pertinente est toujours possible. Un exposé des faits qui se veut exhaustif doit être explicite et précis à cet égard.

La nécessité d’une preuve complète découle du principe fondamental de la proportionnalité, lequel commande que le juge soupèse toutes les circonstances pertinentes liées à l’infraction ou à l’accusé. À l’évidence, des informations destinées à éclairer le juge sur la motivation du geste criminel sont pertinentes et peuvent être utiles, ne serait-ce que pour tempérer la responsabilité morale de l’accusé; cela ne remet aucunement en cause l’admission de culpabilité.

En l’espèce, l’erreur de la juge est d’avoir refusé de considérer tout fait qui n’avait pas été exposé lors du plaidoyer de culpabilité et d’avoir refusé au requérant la possibilité d’en faire la preuve. Cette erreur a eu une incidence sur la détermination de la peine. Par conséquent, il appartient à la Cour de refaire l’exercice.

La juge aurait sérieusement considéré la possibilité d’accorder l’absolution demandée si elle n’avait pas commis cette erreur. Celle-ci l’a empêchée de recevoir la preuve tendant à expliquer que le requérant n’avait pas agressé la victime sans motif. Vu le profil très favorable du requérant et son intérêt véritable à l’absolution, qui est admis, il s’agit d’un cas où l’absolution peut être envisagée. La Cour n’est pas convaincue que l’absolution inconditionnelle demandée par le requérant aurait été la peine la plus appropriée, compte tenu du crime et des circonstances. L’absolution conditionnelle aurait mieux servi les objectifs de la peine, notamment celui d’assurer la quiétude de la victime pendant un certain temps. Or, cet objectif est rempli selon la poursuite. Au surplus, le requérant a déjà purgé la totalité de sa peine, laquelle était assortie de conditions beaucoup plus restrictives de liberté que celles qui auraient été imposées dans le cadre d’une probation.

Ainsi, il y a lieu d’absoudre inconditionnellement le requérant.

Le texte intégral de la décision est disponible ici

The post Summaries Sunday: SOQUIJ appeared first on Slaw.

Artificial intelligence is quickly becoming part of everyday professional practice in dispute resolution. As its use expands across the legal profession, questions are beginning to arise about how these tools should be used by mediators and arbitrators.

Until recently, the issue has received little attention within the ADR community itself.

At present, most mediation and arbitration codes of conduct say little or nothing about artificial intelligence.

While much of the discussion about AI in law focuses on lawyers using these tools, far less attention has been paid to their use by mediators and arbitrators. Yet as AI becomes more common in legal practice, questions about its use by dispute resolution professionals are likely to arise.

This raises an important question: should mediators and arbitrators disclose when they use AI tools in a case?

The answer may shape emerging expectations about transparency in dispute resolution practice.

For ADR practitioners, the question is not whether these tools will be used, but how they can be used while preserving the principles that make dispute resolution processes credible: fairness, transparency, and trust in the neutral.

When AI Use May Arise in Practice

In Canada, where mediation and arbitration are widely used across commercial, employment, construction, and condominium disputes, these questions are becoming increasingly relevant.

Mediators and arbitrators may encounter AI-generated chronologies, summaries, or draft submissions before they ever decide to use these tools themselves.

In mediation practice this can arise in simple ways—for example, when a party submits a chronology or summary prepared with AI assistance.

As these tools become more widely used in legal practice, their presence in dispute resolution processes will become increasingly difficult to ignore.

Three Emerging Approaches

Discussion in mediation, arbitration, and legal ethics circles is beginning to coalesce around three broad approaches to disclosure.

Each reflects a different view of how technology should fit within the professional responsibilities of mediators and arbitrators. Despite these differences, they share a common concern: how to integrate new technology without undermining fairness, confidentiality, or trust in dispute resolution processes.

AI as a Professional Tool

One view emerging among practitioners—and currently the most common—is that disclosure is unnecessary when AI is used purely as a professional support tool rather than as a decision-making mechanism.

Under this approach, AI is treated much like other technologies professionals routinely use. Lawyers rely on research databases, document management systems, and proofreading software without disclosing their use to clients or opposing counsel. AI tools, in this view, represent another form of professional assistance.

Applied to ADR practice, mediators and arbitrators might use AI systems for tasks such as organizing issues, summarizing submissions, improving written communications, drafting procedural correspondence, or refining written materials.

So long as the neutral remains responsible for all analysis and decisions, the use of AI in these ways is comparable to other productivity tools. On that basis, disclosure may not be required.

Transparency and Party Confidence

A second perspective holds that some level of disclosure is good practice, even if not strictly required.

ADR processes depend heavily on party confidence in the neutrality of the mediator or arbitrator. Because AI remains a relatively new technology, clarity about its use may strengthen confidence in the process.

Under this approach, disclosure would not need to be extensive or technical. A neutral might simply acknowledge that secure technological tools—including AI systems—may be used for administrative or drafting assistance while retaining full responsibility for all professional judgments.

Such disclosure could appear in a mediation agreement, procedural order, or general statement of practice. The objective would not be to regulate AI use, but to avoid misunderstanding about the role technology plays in the neutral’s work.

When AI Influences Decision-Making

A third perspective supports disclosure when AI tools play a more substantive role in analysis or decision support.

Examples might include situations where AI systems are used to analyze large volumes of documents, identify evidentiary patterns, generate predictive assessments of case outcomes, or assist in drafting arbitral awards.

In these circumstances, the concern is not simply transparency but process fairness.

This issue is particularly significant in arbitration. Arbitrators issue binding decisions and are expected to exercise independent judgment. Several arbitration institutions have emphasized that while AI may assist with research or editing, the arbitrator must remain solely responsible for the reasoning and decision.

Where technology materially influences analysis or recommendations, parties may reasonably expect to be informed.

Emerging Guidance on AI in ADR

Outside the ADR field, courts and legal regulators in Canada have also begun addressing the use of artificial intelligence in legal practice. Several courts have issued guidance reminding counsel of their obligation to verify authorities and submissions prepared with the assistance of AI tools. Law societies have likewise emphasized duties of competence, supervision, and protection of confidential information when using AI in legal work.

Although discussion about AI in dispute resolution is expanding rapidly, formal guidance remains limited.

Several ADR organizations have begun addressing the issue, particularly in the context of arbitration. Guidance and discussion materials have been published by organizations such as the ADR Institute of Canada, the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators, the American Arbitration Association /ICDR, the Silicon Valley Arbitration & Mediation Center, and the International Bar Association, which has issued Guidelines on the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence in Mediation. In Canada, professional discussion about the appropriate use of AI in ADR practice is continuing as institutions and practitioners consider how guidance may evolve.

As experience with these tools grows, ADR practitioners will inevitably shape the norms that govern their responsible use.

Most of this guidance focuses on arbitration rather than mediation, reflecting the different roles neutrals play in those processes.

Although emerging guidance addresses responsible use more often than disclosure specifically, it consistently emphasizes transparency and professional accountability. Both the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators and the American Arbitration Association stress that arbitrators must remain fully responsible for their analysis and decisions even when technology assists with research, drafting, or document management.

Ethical Considerations

Although ADR-specific rules on AI remain limited, broader legal ethics guidance is beginning to converge around several common principles.

Professionals who use AI tools are expected to understand the capabilities and limitations of the technology, supervise its use appropriately, verify outputs for accuracy, protect confidential information, and maintain independent professional judgment.

AI systems can also produce inaccurate or “hallucinated” information, reinforcing the need for neutrals and counsel to verify outputs carefully before relying on them.

These obligations apply whether or not AI use is disclosed.

A Practical Way Forward

In practice, the distinction for most mediators and arbitrators may be relatively straightforward.

Using AI tools to edit writing, organize issues, or assist with administrative drafting is unlikely to affect the neutrality or integrity of the process. In such circumstances, disclosure may not be necessary.

More caution—and greater transparency—may be appropriate whenever technology begins to influence substantive analysis, recommendations, or decisions.

For mediators and arbitrators, the practical question may simply be this:

Would the parties expect you to disclose that these tools were used?

The use of artificial intelligence in dispute resolution practice is still in its early stages. As experience with these tools grows, mediators, arbitrators, and ADR institutions will play an important role in shaping the professional norms that guide their responsible use.

Technology will evolve quickly.

The principles that sustain trust in dispute resolution should not.

The post AI and ADR Neutrals: When Should Its Use Be Disclosed? Three Emerging Approaches to Transparency in Mediation and Arbitration Practice appeared first on Slaw.

A few recent data points about AI and the law, along with one bracing conclusion.

1. At the end of February, American lawyer Zack Shapiro published an article on Linked titled “The Claude-Native Law Firm.” It described how his two-person firm is powered by customized “skills” that capture and encode his legal frameworks and judgment into Anthropic’s Claude AI, enabling Claude to deliver legal outputs rapidly and transferably across the firm. This interview with LawDroid’s Tom Martin relates what Shapiro is doing and why it’s potentially momentous: It suggests that properly and thoroughly instructed general-purpose Gen AI might prove as effective for legal work as more expensive legal-specific Generative AI (e.g., CoCounsel , Protégé, Harvey, vLex).
2. In early March, Canadian lawyer Robert Diab published an article in the CBA National describing how he compared Claude Cowork’s legal research ability with that of the far more expensive LexisNexis Protégé. He assigned a series of advanced legal research question to both programs, setting Cowork loose on the CanLII database and asking Protégé to examine its own data. Protégé’s performance was spotty, missing some cases and misinterpreting others; Cowork was nearly flawless. “Using an agentic tool like [Cowork] with CanLII strikes me as the most accessible and powerful way to do legal research using AI,” Diab wrote. “Given the cost, it is a tool well worth using.”
3. In mid-March, American corporate counsel Laura Jeffords Greenberg published an article on LinkedIn detailing her own comparison between Claude Cowork and Thomson Reuters’s CoCounsel on an employment law question. CoCounsel provided a summary and walkthrough with little elaboration, whereas “Claude told me the current rule, what’s changed in the last 14 months, what to watch for when drafting, and why it matters. It did the interpretive work. … In-house counsel asking a legal question needs a practical answer with citations for verification; not a summary of everything that’s ever been true.”

Now, we always need to be careful when assessing claims like this. Three data points is a microscopic sample size from which to draw conclusions about wider trends across the legal sector. Feel free to discount these claims to the extent your own skepticism warrants.

But there’s a difference between skepticism and outright denial. At the very least, these examples suggest we could be underestimating just how powerful a legal tool general-purpose AI can become when it’s been deeply customized, carefully instructed, and connected to authoritative public legal sources.

That possibility is reinforced by recent gains in the advancement of Generative AI itself. Gen AI analyst Ethan Mollick reported in March that “AI systems are increasingly being used to build better AI systems, creating a feedback loop… If you make models that are good at coding and good at AI research, you can use them to build the next generation of models, speeding up the loop.”

It might turn out that general-purpose Gen AIs like Claude Cowork really can, with enough focused preparation and effort, match or even outperform far more expensive legal-specific Gen AIs in at least some settings. I’m not saying that for certain. Dramatic claims demand dramatic evidence, and three data points that crossed my desktop hardly prove that Cowork can beat Protégé or CoCounsel across the board.

But we need to pay close attention when credible users report that general-purpose models are outperforming expensive legal-specific tools on practical legal tasks. Because if that proves to be the case more broadly, the implications would be enormous. Legal data would still matter to any AI system hoping to compete in the legal market; but the absence of that data might no longer be disqualifying. And that alone is something few of us would have believed when GPT-4 arrived just three years ago.

The post What if Legal AI Doesn’t Need Legal Data? appeared first on Slaw.