It’s interesting that both of these articles came through on my feed in the same day:

Ahmed Otmani Amaouim, “Canada’s new Ministry of Artificial Intelligence and Digital Innovation: What it means for Canadian innovators” (MNP, last accessed September 12, 2025), online: https://www.mnp.ca/en/insights/directory/what-it-means-for-canadian-innovators.

and then

Patrick Butler, “N.L.’s 10-year education action plan cites sources that don’t exist” (CBC, September 12, 2025), online: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/education-accord-nl-sources-dont-exist-1.7631364.

Falsified Education Policy?

Let’s just call it – it was Newfoundland and Labrador’s **Education Accord** (10 year policy document) (that cost $755,000 dollars, no less) which contained falsified sources:

Yumna Iftikhar, “PCs ‘not prioritizing’ review of AI policies following Education Accord scandal” (The Independent, November 12, 2025), online: https://theindependent.ca/news/lji/pcs-not-prioritizing-review-of-ai-policies-following-education-accord-scandal/

Remind me how replacing public servants with commissioned reports and AI is going to a) save money, and b) improve policymaking in this country?

This entire episode is especially ironic considering it was their EDUCATION POLICY affected by hallucinated sources. What was the extent of the contractor’s expertise to write that report -using unverified AI outputs – in the first place? And why are governments hiring such persons to draft such critical policies?

I’m assuming the under resourcing of the public sector is to blame, leaving very few people to a) research and write critical policies, and b) actually engage in intelligent procurement practices.

Are we Headed for a Falsified Future?

Ultimately, what does this say about the future of policy making and government in this country, especially considering the Mark Carney government’s intention to further under-resource the public sector while investing in AI (see source above).

Getting rid of a long vilified public sector in favour of AI is, in my opinion, not only a foolish conjecture, but also ill-advised.

Keeping humans in the loop is an important part of the equation in ensuring the safety of AI.

With the perfect storm of cuts to the public sector accompanied by AI implementation with limited governance (see the PC government’s response in the Iftikhar article referenced above), it is my opinion that we are going to run the serious risk of the day-to-day work of government being riddled with errors and hallucinations, with no humans to catch it.

I’ve watched too many failed system migrations to see this ending well. The government fails to resource these projects properly – so they are doomed to fail from the outset.

See my previous posts on this topic.

All of the bells and whistles that companies parade before under-resourced procurement teams never come to fruition, and just result in on-going unresolved frustrations for public servants and clientele alike.

Cutting Libraries is Part of the Problem

In the mix is increasing number of government libraries being forced to close under this and previous governments.

This is an excellent commentary on why libraries are needed more than ever in this day and age. Take five minutes to find out why he referred to the American Association of School Librarians as “the most dangerous room in the country…”

Steve Hofstetter, “Full speech to the American Association of School Librarians” (last accessed, November 14, 2025), online: https://www.facebook.com/reel/1139338981678764

In my opinion, this perfect storm of influences is a risk to our entire democracy.

The post Cost Savings, AI and the Public Sector appeared first on Slaw.

“Bridging Borders, Businesses and Global Connections”
September 5, 2025
Faculty of Law, University of Windsor

Free to attend.

Featuring:

Jan Scazighino- Consul, Senior Trade Commissioner -Consulate General of Canada, Detroit

Prof. Justin Onwenu- Director of Entrepreneurship and Economic Opportunity, City of Detroit, Mayor’s Office

Ryan Donally- President and CEO, Windsor Essex Chamber of Commerce

Prof. Chios Carmody- Director of Canada-US Law Institute, Associate Professor, University of Western Ontario Faculty of Law Deepti Panda- PhD Candidate, Queen’s University Zain Mookhi- PhD Candidate, Queen’s University

Shreya Gupta- Director, Legal Counsel, Loblaw Companies Ltd

Arun Krishnamurti- Senior Counsel, Google Canada Corporation

Nadja Pelkey- Digital Initiatives & Partnerships Coordinator, Art Windsor-Essex

Nia Thompson- Executive Director, Art-ology

Prof. Tolu Falokun- Assistant Professor, University of Detroit Mercy School of Law

Dr. Caroline Hossein- Founder of Diverse Solidarity Economies Collective, Associate Professor, University of Toronto-Scarborough

Helena Maikido- LLM Candidate, Queen’s University

Dr. Anneke Smit- Director of Windsor Law Centre for Cities, Associate Professor, University of Windsor Faculty of Law

Prof. Maya Watson- Director of Business and Community Law Clinic, Assistant Professor, Wayne State University Faculty of Law

Dr. Janice Makokis- Assistant Professor, University of Windsor Faculty of Law

Sylvia McAdam- Assistant Professor, University of Windsor Faculty of Law

Conference Agenda

Conference website and registration page

The post Windsor Law Conference September 5, 2025 – Bridging Borders, Businesses and Global Connections appeared first on Slaw.

Based on my back-of-the-napkin calculation, this was my 18th CBA immigration conference. In 2017, I presented on the STCA and in 2019, we hosted the conference in Winnipeg. Immigration is a constantly changing field and these annual conferences allow us to cover important program updates, pilot programs, new requirements as well as to review recent jurisprudence that has shifted or affected various legal tests. Much of the content may be extremely useful, especially for junior lawyers, and I always encourage other practitioners to attend.

“Off The Record” Commentary

From my perspective, the juicy bits of the conference follow comments such as “I may lose my job if I tell you this but…”; or, “these comments are my personal thoughts and I am not speaking on behalf of the government but….”; or, “as long as no one is recording this, let me share this with you…”; or, “I’m about to retire so it won’t matter if this comment comes back to bite me but…”; or, “as long as this is ‘off the record’, let me add…” The commentary & insight that followed was frank and unfiltered. Honestly, that’s when my ears perked up!

I will not disclose the commentary that followed as I want to respect the anonymity of the IRCC Officers, DOJ lawyers or Federal Court judges who made the decision to share their unvarnished insight (I imagine you know who you are). At the same time, I cannot overstate the importance of these comments. Those nuggets make the conference worthwhile. Those are the comments that make the price of getting myself to Montreal and taking me away from my business worthwhile. For example, during one session, the director of a program was describing internal procedures within his department and explained how one applicant may be selected while another applicant may not be. These “behind the curtain” insights into the minutia of what actually happens during the decision-making process is invaluable. As he shared these unpublished procedures, he would occasionally pause and ask, “no one is recording this, right?”

The Liberal government was elected on a platform of being open and transparent. In 2015, Trudeau campaigned on the promise that, “Only Liberals have a plan for real change that will restore trust in our democracy, and ensure an open and transparent government.” To an extent, IRCC Officers and federal employees have followed that promise. I remember when we had these conferences during the Harper Administration, for example, Officers and other decision-makers were extremely reluctant to speak their minds or provide any details beyond those that had been approved in their PPT slides. I even remember a CBA conference where an IRCC (then CIC) Officer simply read the slides and, when faced with questions, would again reread the points verbatim, exactly as written. Ugh. That Administration handled our immigration system quite differently. They focused on long-term, systemic, legislative amendments to push their agenda. Under the pall of that administration, government speakers at those CBA conferences were not able to speak their minds and we were left with many unanswered questions.

I have to give credit to IRCC Minister Miller, the DOJ and to the Court on fostering an office culture where individuals may speak their minds. As I have been reiterating for years, from my perspective, we are on the same side. To an extent, our job is to explain government laws and regulations to our clients so they can understand how the system works. I have sat through many meetings where a client does not believe (or understand) an IRCC Officer or a CBSA Officer and they simply need me to confirm the information to be accurate.

A Healthy Dose of Anxiety

To the second part, you did not misread the title. Indeed, the post is also in praise of ongoing AI anxiety. In my humble opinion, we need a healthy dose of anxiety. This topic, for better or worse, warrants our anxious thoughts. Many have opined on the potential existence threat, if not the looming potential threat to the profession. If your mental health is not affected by the looming era of AIs that seem to have emerging tentacles into every facet of the legal profession, you are either not paying attention, you are much more optimistic than I, or…. send me contact information for your therapist.

I knew the CBA conference would have a strong theme of AI. I did not realize, however, that it would have an omnipresence in every session. During one session on LMIAs, we almost got through the entire session without reference to AI. Then, during the Q&A portion, an attendee raised potential AI tools that may impact LMIA applications. Of course. At this point in the conference, raising the potential concern re AI seemed inevitable.

On the litigation side, the Court released a guide for counsel on the disclosure of AI tools at the end of 2023. Then they released an update to that guide a few weeks ago. I would not be surprised to see yet another iteration of the guide before the end of 2024. Over the conference, we learned that over the past 5 months, the Court has only received one (1) Declaration for AI-Generated Content… and that was by a self-represented litigant. (Full disclosure: this post has been drafted with no AI tools and this author has no inclination, possibly to my detriment, to use any such tools.)

IRCC has been using AI-adjacent (they have refused to call their tools “AI” outright) tools for years, possibly to avoid litigation. My office has successfully overturned many IRCC decisions “processed with the assistance of Chinook 3+”. During the conference, IRCC disclosed that it continues to develop more tools. Interestingly, during one panel that included a senior IRCC Officer, a lawyer at the DOJ and a few private bar immigration lawyers, each one of them, at different points, noted that these AI tools may replace them at some point. They easily acknowledged they are working to develop tools that may put them out of a job. Kudos to Will, Mario and Zeynab for all their work to shed light and explain these tools that seem to be on the horizon. To quote Darth Vader, “the student has become the master.” Only in this case, these AI students may not only replace their creators, but all masters.

Last year, at the 2023 CBA Immigration Law conference, AI was on our radar; however, it was not front and centre. As I recall, a few sessions gave us a warning on what to expect. It was not, however, omnipresent as it was during the 2024 conference. Perhaps, we may want to preemptively rename next year’s CBA Immigration Law conference (which is to be held in Victoria and I am greatly looking forward to going back to the city of my alma mater). Here are my suggestions: 1. A conference for immigration lawyers to learn the tools that will eventually replace them; or, 2. A reunion of immigration lawyers and Officers to reminisce on how we used to be relevant to the application and decision-making process; or, perhaps, we may want to simply ask one of the AI tools what we should name the conference as they seem to be taking over.

Confession

My confession: I used to love new technologies. In law school, I was the go-to guy when it came to solving IT issues. At that time, Queen’s did not have Mac support so I developed procedures for Mac users to use the library printers, for example. Now, many years later, Macs are ubiquitous and these new AI tools shake me to the core. I hear the IRCC Officers who see these tools as a way of quickly dealing with huge backlogs. I hear the DOJ lawyers who describe how AI litigation tools may easily comb through all relevant jurisprudence in a matter of seconds. Work that, if done by flesh and blood lawyers, could take hours and, even then, could not be as comprehensive.

From my humble seat, I see a future where a representative submits AI-generated arguments, raising issues from a decision made by an AI decision-maker on behalf of the government and then, in turn, defended by the DOJ AI litigation tool, to a Court where a Federal Court judge, using an AI assistant, will render a decision. In such a model, does that decision have any value? Ultimately, if the initial IRCC AI decision-maker learns and becomes an expert on all potential issues and considers all relevant jurisprudence, would there be any point to judicial review? If the Court adopts its own AI tools, would the review even be “judicial”? I could see a future where lawyers’ main advantage is to sell access to expensive proprietary AI tools that may give their well-heeled clients a fighting chance to game the IRCC AI decision maker and get a positive decision where a less sophisticated (off-the-shelf) AI tool may fail. If the best tools are released for free, would there be any point to legal representation? Jordan Furlong has been sounding this clarion call for years.

This space, it seems, has almost become dedicated to AI news (as well as my podcast stream). From this post (which was drafted with the assistance of AI). To this post. To AI concerns. To a post that I wrote in 2022. I want to be clear that the focus of this post is not on the pending AI coup. My main takeaway from the 2024 CBA conference was the benefit of having conferences in person and getting candid, unfiltered remarks from speakers. If they are reading, thank you for your insight and I hope you will continue to share your thoughts at our future meetings.

The post In Praise of in-Person CPDs and (Ongoing) AI Anxiety appeared first on Slaw.

The Experiment

I gathered up a list of interesting readings on the topic of AI and the legal profession. Many of them pointed to horror stories or emerging policies and guidelines in the area. Later I decided to record my findings in my AI Regulation LibGuide.

I made all of this available in an optional readings folder.

AI Panel Weighs In

The day of the class, I invited Shaunna Mireau from Alexi and Colin Lachance from Jurisage for a 20 minute virtual discussion about some general issues pertaining to AI and the legal profession.

We tossed around the usual questions such as: “Are the Rules of Professional Conduct ready for this?” and “Are recent court practice directions going in the right direction?” The students appreciated the discussion.

The AI Activity

AI wasn’t really available to show in LRW products at the time. So I approached Alexi and BluJ Legal. I asked for permission to provide the students with screenshots of the prompts process, the outputs and other key info. They generously agreed to let me use some samples. I also pulled content from CCH Answer Connect and from Lexis+ on a fairly straight-forward “failure to remit taxes” corporate liability question.

Analyzing AI

As court practice directions and law society directives are emerging, there is a definite focus on the importance of lawyers verifying AI outputs. So this was an important focus of the activity.

The students were assigned three of these products. (Included in the mix were screenshots of the prompt and output of asking the same question of ChatGPT). They were given a worksheet asking them to compare the products on a variety of questions.

Upshot and Next Steps

The students enjoyed a change of pace in the classroom, and had some good critical observations to make in this process.

Traditionally, I’ve been a librarian champion of the importance of secondary sources. So I was rather shocked to see key info such as “publication date” was not available for the commentary that answered this question on Answer Connect. The case law relied on by the other products was much more up to date. So this reinforced the general importance of checking currency dates for all materials relied on!

Ultimately, the worksheet that I gave to the students was turned into my “Draft AI Guidance for Law Students” LibGuide. This is an open document, and I invite comments on it.

Soon, we should be able to see Lexis+ AI and Thomson Reuters CoCounsel Core in Canada.

We’ll see what happens next! Let’s hope that the product roll-outs and access issues get sorted out in time for my class in the fall of 2024!

The post AI in the Law School Classroom – My Experiment appeared first on Slaw.

Courses in arbitration practice are available from organizations across Canada. While these courses are of a generally high quality, their primary focus tends to be the arbitration of employment, construction and corporate/commercial disputes. Family law disputes, however, have important differences that set them apart and demand a special approach to their management and resolution. Family law cases cannot be handled with the same off-the-shelf approach that might be used to resolve other civil cases.

The National Family Law Arbitration Course provides a complete introduction to the arbitration of family law disputes and the unique skills, processes and procedures these cases require. This course provides the opportunity to learn from senior, well-respected family law lawyers with established arbitration practices in Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba and Ontario in an interactive remote learning environment. The course is open to lawyers, mental health professionals and financial professionals interested in expanding their practice to include arbitration or parenting coordination.

This acclaimed, 40-hour training is provided by Lorne Wolfson (Torkin Manes, Toronto), Lawrence Pinksy, KC (Taylor McCaffrey, Winnipeg) and me (John-Paul Boyd Arbitration Chambers, Calgary). It starts with two optional six-hour pre-course programs, one on the basics of psychology for family law lawyers and another on the basics of family law for mental health professionals, on Friday 26 and Saturday 27 January 2024. The course itself runs by Zoom every other Friday and Saturday, for a total of six days, beginning on Friday 9 February 2024.

Download the syllabus for the 2024 course. Registration and additional information, including our all-star faculty list, at https://nflac.ca/the-course/.

The post Announcing the National Family Law Arbitration Course, 2024 appeared first on Slaw.

Whether your role involves drafting, negotiating, enforcing, or litigating contracts, you need to be up to date on how contract law is changing today.

Make sure you’re prepared with , running December 6, 2023. Fully updated for 2023, this wide-ranging annual update features an expert faculty of judges, litigators, solicitors, and academics. Over one intensive day, our esteemed speakers will guide you through the latest developments in contract law, and how to navigate shifting norms strategically and proactively.

Join us in-person or online for this unique opportunity to learn from and connect with contract professionals from across the country.

Program Highlights:

• Key takeaways from significant contract case law of the past year, and implications for contractual interpretation and performance
• Practical strategies for negotiating and interpreting standard terms and boilerplate clauses
• A View from the Bench: perspectives and strategies for contract litigation from three levels of court
• How Artificial Intelligence tools can support contract drafting, negotiation, due diligence and post-execution analysis
• Addressing professionalism concerns when using AI tools
• Best practices for drafting consumer contracts
• Trends in consumer contracting and the digital marketplace
• Moving strategically from RFP to contract in the unique public procurement context
• Supporting clients to maximize value out of a procurement contract

NOT TO BE MISSED! Hear from a judicial panel featuring:

• The Hon. Thomas Cromwell, Supreme Court of Canada (retired), Senior Counsel, BLG
• The Hon. Justice David Brown, Court of Appeal for Ontario
• The Hon. Justice Jessica Kimmel, Ontario Superior Court of Justice

Who Should Attend:

• Corporate and commercial lawyers
• Government and public sector lawyers
• Procurement professionals
• Commercial litigators
• In-House Counsel
• Construction contract and procurement specialists
• Transactional counsel

National Annual Symposium on Canadian Contract Law: Essential Updates and Practical Analysis 2023

December 6, 2023
9:00 AM – 5:00 PM ET
(In person at 1 Dundas St W, Toronto OR Online – Live)

OR

January 19, 2024
9:00 AM – 5:00 PM ET
(Online – Replay)

Can’t make the date? Registration includes 120-day unlimited online access to the recorded program.

Group rates and Newly-Licensed Discounts are available.

Don’t miss out on this crucial annual update.

The post OsgoodePD’s Annual Contract Law Symposium Is Back! appeared first on Slaw.

If you’ve ever taught law, you will have had to decide whether to build your course around an established casebook authored by somebody else, or from materials (cases, legislation, and articles) you’ve compiled yourself.

As a law book publisher, I’d like to make the case for teaching from a casebook; and, if you have the opportunity – contributing to one.

For one thing, when choosing to teach from a book, you’re not just making a straight choice between your own and someone else’s materials. Even if an authored casebook is the work of a single author, by the time it’s in its third or fourth edition, several different academics will have taught with it for multiple years. Many of these educators will have provided influential feedback to the author, and like a rough river stone tumbled smooth by the current, any problems with the book will have been corrected. Structural flaws will be addressed, gaps will be filled, and tangents will be trimmed – or else the book will not be successful enough to warrant revision, and it will die out.

In the much more common instance of a multi-authored casebook, the content is often the result of rigorous debate: contributors will have had to defend to each other their choices with respect to both content and approach. They will also have had to fight for a share of page count, an exercise that helps correct imbalances in emphasis and encourages an efficient approach to the material.

Then there’s where you yourself come in: in adopting the book for your course, you will no doubt identify areas of dissent. Articulating these will force you to examine your own biases and idiosyncrasies. While an educator can always choose not to assign a chapter or to supplement another, in making these choices you will be engaging critically with the material in a way you might not if you were simply selecting your preferred cases and compiling them. It’s akin to having a colleague stand over your shoulder asking, “why that resource? And why not this? On what basis do you disagree?”

The result is that in engaging with a resource developed by your peers, you will be challenged to refine and develop your own personal theory of the doctrine and to situate that theory within the broader context of how your course is taught at other Canadian schools. In other words, in striving for a deeper understanding of how we think about a subject area, it helps to first understand how others think about it, and how they teach it. To develop our own approach against the backdrop of a clear understanding of others’ approaches is to participate in a meaningful way in academic discourse.

This engagement can only increase your confidence in the value of your own unique perspective on a subject. If you have the time and the opportunity, you may even be inspired to join the book’s author team for the next edition, or to spearhead a rival text that reflects an alternative approach. If you are in private practice, authoring a casebook can be more than just a way to boost the prestige of your bio on the firm’s website. Law students who use the book will be introduced to your name and reputation before they even enter the profession. Not only can this encourage them to apply to work for the firm, but it can raise the firm’s profile generally, communicating not only that the firm employs practice-area leaders, but also that it encourages its lawyers to give back to the profession. I hope you’ll give it some thought!

—

Nora Rock (she/her)
Publisher, Law School
Emond Publishing

The post Why Should I Teach From (And Contribute To) a Casebook? appeared first on Slaw.

This conference is our first in-person event since our 2019 meeting in Edmonton. Our virtual events were very successful the last couple years. Member focused activities like the Association’s Annual General Meeting are remaining virtual so this In Real Life event is an educational and networking event. We are absolutely delighted to have an opportunity to connect in person with attendees, speakers and exhibitors and sponsors.

There is a wonderful lineup of plenary speakers. Attendees can look forward to hearing and meeting Teresa Scassa, Dr. Jennifer Leitch, and Benjamin Alarie and Abdi Aidid. A pre-conference workshop featuring Vicki Whitmell will help you become a resonant leader.

Haven’t been to Hamilton? It is a vibrant city with plenty of activities to keep you interested and engaged. And the food! Sunday May 28 in Hamilton we feature several tours.

Plenty of educational sessions round out the event:

Innovation in the provision of library services is the focus of many presentations by CALL/ACBD members.

• Alexia Loumankis will be describing her “lending library” of Research Assistants, who support the needs of professors with short-term projects and questions.
• Fiona Chiu and Ellen Norlander will be describing how the BC Courthouse Libraries used the pandemic to re-align the libraries’ service model to meet strategic goals, re-engineer business processes and empower staff to add new skills to their repertoire
• Improving metadata and description of resources to emphasize inclusion and diversity is the focus of a presentation by Laura Daniels & Jacqueline Magagnosc.
• Alan Kilpatrick will be presenting Saskatchewan’s SALI project (Saskatchwan Access to Legal Information) – a multi-institutional collaboration which improves public access to legal information.
• “Advocating for Yourself and Your Law Library” is a presentation from Kim Nayyer, Sabrina Sondhi and Eve Leung. Gain support for your innovative ideas and services by learning how to understand and anticipate the pressures on decision-makers.
• Tania Djerrahian and Katarina Daniels’ will introduce us to “Visualping- our top 2022 #lifehack,” which supports a variety of services at Davies LLP.
• Sandra Craig and Amy Tang’s lightning talk on Indexing Large-Scale digitization projects.

Technology is a component of our Innovation theme.

• Dominique Garingan will explore the integration of AI with instruction in advanced legal research in her lightning talk, “AI-Generated Content as Unorthodox ‘Secondary Sources’.”
• Mita Williams’ presentation “What is Wikidata and Why You Should Do Data Entry For the Greater Good” will introduce us to a potentially useful resource (and challenge us to contribute to this emerging community).
• Mark Doble, Colin LaChance and Brenda Lauritzen will discuss the use and implications of ChatGPT in legal applications.

 
CALL/ACBD members support the research activities of their clients, but they also conduct their own research to support learning and decision-making.

• James Bachmann & Matthew Renaud will present “Legal Research Instruction in an Academic Setting – Best Practices/Methods for Teaching Success,” recounting their experiences in teaching Advanced Legal Research in person and on-line, finding traditional and non-traditional methods to help students develop critical thinking skills and to understand the limitations and advantages of a variety of research tools.
• Erica Smith & Bryony Livingston’s lightning talk “What is the “gold standard”? Developing a Best Practices for Reference Writing Guide” will outline how the Legislative Library staff created a guide to give their communications a consistent, branded voice.
• Lisa Levesque, Kim Clarke & Dominique Garingan present “Finding your way into Research,” challenging participants to identify information gaps and research opportunities to support their professional practice.
• Mita Williams introduces us to Wikidata and makes the case for the use of and contributing to this global resource.
• Nicholas Lobraico will present the results of his practicum project in his lightning talk: “Researching reference transactions.”
• Kim Clarke will demonstrate the advantages of career management in her presentation.
• Fiona Chiu & Ellen Norlander show the research methods used to support the evolution of library services in “How we adjusted our reference services in response to COVID-19.”
• Dominique Garingan returns with a lightning talk,”AI-Generated Content as Unorthodox “Secondary Sources”: Towards the Recognition and Integration of Advanced Legal Technologies in Legal Research Instruction.”
• Alexia Loumankis will be describing her “lending library” of Research Assistants, who support the needs of professors with short-term projects and questions.
• Julie Lavigne and Yolanda Koscielski will show us how their work supports the study of law at institutions without a law school. “What’s Law Got To Do With It?” and how is the work of law librarians changed by these new perspectives?

Leadership can be more than management. Use this theme to challenge your thinking about the roles you occupy in your organization and your profession. Expand your horizons!

• Zena Applebaum’s lightning talk, “7 Leadership Skills in 7 Minutes” – distilled learning!
• Eileen Lewis will offer lessons from the past few years in her session: “How to lead through the storm without losing your humanity.” How can we support the organization’s goals and sustain an empathetic connection with staff?
• Influencing decision makers and making a successful case for resources is the focus of Kim Nayyer, Sabrina Sondhi and Eve Leung’s presentation, “Advocating for Yourself and Your Law Library.”
• Can your library help the organization become more inclusive? Yes, according to Laura Daniels & Jacqueline Magagnosc in their session, “Finding a way: collaboratively forging paths to more inclusive descriptive practices”
• Jaimie Kechego, Vicki Leung & Lyonette Louis-Jacques will help us understand how to create respectful land acknowledgements.
• Fiona Chiu & Ellen Norlander show leadership in their session “How we adjusted our reference services in response to COVID-19.”
• Kim Clarke asks “Are you using Career Management?” which will challenge managers and individuals alike to take an active role in planning a satisfying progression through working life.
• Planning your retirement goes well beyond the financial aspects. Join Louise Hamel and Wendy Reynolds for an overview of the professional and personal considerations which should accompany your entry into a new chapter of your life story.

I look forward to seeing everyone in real life!

The post CALLABCD Conference IRL appeared first on Slaw.

The Clinic’s services are available to anyone in British Columbia who needs information related to a business law question, regardless of their income or business experience. Each client has one or two students assigned to their file. The students interview the client, help identify the client’s legal issues, research the client’s legal issues, and produce a written memorandum of the information discovered. The students are not licensed to give legal advice or opinions, so the final memorandum contains purely information that clients can use to make their own decisions or obtain further legal advice.

The Business Law Clinic produces benefits for students, the public, and legal professionals, alike.

For students, the Clinic provides exposure to solicitors’ work, which is otherwise largely missing from the litigation-focused law school curriculum. The students also benefit from the opportunity to develop skills that will become central to their future legal careers: interviewing clients, narrowing down legal issues, conducting legal research, and producing legal writing. Lastly, students know that, unlike most of their schoolwork, the work they produce for the Clinic affects real people.

The public benefits from having access to legal information that can otherwise be difficult and expensive to obtain. For some legal issues, Clinic clients may have enough information that they are able to take next steps themselves. When Clinic clients need further advice from a lawyer, the Clients’ participation in the Clinic gives them background information so they know what types of questions to ask a lawyer and what types of information about their business or non-profit that the lawyer is going to want to know. This will save the client time and money.

From the perspective of legal professionals, they benefit both from the better-trained students who will become part of their practices and from the well-informed clients that the Clinic aims to provide. Moreover, in this access to justice-focused time, when limited-scope retainers are a possibility for clients with limited resources, information services like the Clinic can be a valuable tool for legal professionals trying to provide unbundled services. Legal professionals will not have to charge clients for providing information and can instead provide valuable legal advice and drafting.

Come visit us at the UVic Business Law Clinic and see what we’re all about!

The post Practical Business Law Experience: A Win-Win-Win at UVic Law appeared first on Slaw.

On June 23 and 24, 2022, the Peter A. Allard School of Law hosted the third Canadian Law of Obligations (CLO) conference, held on the grounds of UBC’s Green College. The theme of the conference was The Power and Limits of Private Law. This edition of the conference honoured the accomplishments and career of Dr. Lionel Smith, the Sir William C. Macdonald Professor of Law at McGill University. The timing of the honour reflects Professor Smith’s appointment to the Downing Professorship of the Laws of England at the University of Cambridge, a post he will take up in the coming academic year.

Introducing Professor Smith for his keynote address on “Confusion, Illusion, or Delusion: The Irreducible Core of the Common Law Trust,” conference hosts Professors Moore and Beswick emphasized how the honouree had not simply defined himself through exceptional work. Throughout his career, Professor Smith has guided and supported innumerable students and younger faculty as they have embarked upon their own careers. Over the course of the conference, many attendees recognized Professor Smith’s contribution to their legal fields, as well as their appreciation for his example, mentorship and collegiality.

[ Pictured (From Left): Assistant Professor Samuel Beswick, Professor Lionel Smith, Hon. Justice Marshall Rothstein (retired), Dean Ngai Pindell, Assistant Professor Marcus Moore. ]

Well-known Allard Law alumna Angela Swan O.C., of Aird & Berlis, also delivered a plenary address. A powerhouse as both a professor and counsel, Swan’s career has given her a great deal of insight into the working realities of the law. In her lunchtime address, she explored the law of contract through the eyes of a solicitor–emphasizing the practical and working realities of the solicitor’s perspective to the operation of contracts in the marketplace.

I found her comments on good faith in contracts made for especially salient observations. In law school and through theoretical discussions, we discuss the controversy over whether parties should be able to opt out of obligations of good faith conduct; yet Swan compellingly argued that the idea of “opting out” of acting in good faith in real-life contracting relationships is simply ridiculous. Her analysis of Bhasin v. Hrynew drove this idea home: the Supreme Court of Canada affirmed the position that, in Swan’s words, “the obligation of good faith performance inheres in the relation, whether the parties like it or not.”

[ Angela Swan O.C. gives a lunchtime address on “A Solicitor Looks at the Law of Contracts” ]

A few notable moments for me included the co-author debate format by Assistant Professor Greg Bowley and John Enman-Beech, who looked back at the landmark decision in Uber v. Heller and considered its implications and impact on Canadian contract law; Professor Mitchell McInnes’s review of the development of the Doctrine of Frustration (and its limits), and how this has influenced court findings of contractual frustration in the COVID-19 landscape; Professor Hilary Young’s thought-provoking analysis of the unintended consequences of anti-SLAPP laws, including the high cost and long timelines that make cases unpredictable, high-stakes, and risky; and the opportunity for informal conversation with Justice Rothstein during the reception on Thursday evening.

[ Assistant Professor Samuel Beswick closes the conference with a
presentation on “The Open Casebook Revolution: Tort Law”. ]

As with the first and second CLO conferences, a number of papers from this year’s conference will be collected and published in a special-edition volume of the Supreme Court Law Review, as well as in a book published by LexisNexis entitled The Power and Limits of Private Law.

* Photographs by Melodie Eure.

The post Reflections on the Canadian Law of Obligations Conference: The Power and Limits of Private Law appeared first on Slaw.

This webinar will explore the ways in which persons with disabilities interact with the law in Canada. This will be done through an examination of barriers regularly faced by people with disabilities and how these are interpreted in foundational domestic and international equality rights instruments (including the Charter, human rights law, and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities). The authors will also provide a brief history of disability rights litigation in Canada and discuss several contemporary access to justice issues currently facing people with disabilities.

The Canadian Association of Law Libraries offers webinars to members on a complimentary basis. If you are not a member of CALL, the webinar is only $50.

Hope you can join in!

The post CALL Webinar: Law and Disability in Canada appeared first on Slaw.

While the Animal Law Research Guide provides a collection of Canadian animal law resources, the Brooks Animal Law Digest Canada Edition provides up-to-date information on developments in Canadian animal law. Published twice monthly, the Digest provides updates on animal law legislation, litigation, enforcement, academic publications, and international news. The Digest is published by the Brooks Institute for Animal Rights Law & Policy in partnership with the University of Toronto Faculty of Law. The Digest is available online and emailed to subscribers upon publication.

Secondary sources listed in the Animal Law Research Guide include books, edited book collections, book chapters, book reviews, graduate theses, encyclopedias, journal volumes, and individual journal articles. Authors include prominent animal law professors and practitioners, including Angela Fernandez, Angela Lee, Camille Labchuk, Jessica Eisen, Jodi Lazare, Katie Sykes, Lesli Bisgould, Maneesha Deckha, Peter Sankoff, Sarah Berger Richardson, Sophie Gaillard, Sue Donaldson, Will Kymlicka, and more. Open access links are provided where available, however some resources are subscription-based and may be available through institutional libraries.

The Guide also includes legislation that targets animals from both the federal and provincial levels. Federally, legislation includes the Health of Animals Act and Regulations, the Criminal Code, and various other statutes related to animals, food, the environment, and more. Provincially, legislation includes various statutes related to animal protection, food regulations, wildlife regulations, veterinary services, and more.

In addition to enacted animal law, the Guide also lists federal bills that have been proposed but either (i) were not passed into law or (ii) are currently active and have not yet been passed into law. Each piece of proposed legislation is briefly described and linked to LEGISinfo where available.

While the Guide is not a case law database, it does offer a page of leading cases in Canadian animal law. Leading cases range from early development of criminal animal cruelty in the 1950’s, to the Harvard oncomouse case in 2002, the Lucy the Elephant decisions, prosecutions against activists, and more. The cases are categorized into various topics of areas of law, such as criminal law, constitutional law, family law, administrative law, trade law, property law, patents, and municipal law. Each case is briefly described and linked to CanLII or a PDF of the decision is provided.

Several additional resources are provided. This includes an Animal Law Playlist on the UTorontoLaw Youtube Channel. The Animal Law playlist is a collection of long-form videos focussing on animal law in Canada. The videos include lectures, panels, podcasts, speeches, webinars, and more. Speakers featured in the playlist include animal law professors (e.g. Angela Fernandez, Jessica Eisen, Jodi Lazare, Katie Sykes, Maneesha Deckha, and Peter Sankoff), animal law lawyers (e.g. Camille Labchuk, Lesli Bisgould, and Sophie Gaillard), animal advocacy organizations, politicians, and more. The Animal Law playlist was created by the University of Toronto Faculty of Law with special thanks to Nina Haikara, Sam Skinner, and Angela Fernandez.

Many thanks to the team at the Bora Laskin Law Library for their work on this Research Guide, Sooin Kim, Alexia Loumankis, John Bolan, and Gian Medeves.

The post New Animal Law Research Guide From the University of Toronto’s Bora Laskin Law Library appeared first on Slaw.

Our last in-person conference was held in Winnipeg during the weekend of 30 May 2019. It was an honour to host my colleagues and show them some of our amazing culinary treasures in the city. Then-Minister Hussen made significant announcements to many programs during the conference, including headline-grabbing news related to 117/9/d. Those changes have helped hundreds of families. Then, as we are acutely aware, the world changed. The conference scheduled for Victoria in 2020 was canceled. We moved to online presentations via Zoom for 2020 and 2021.

From my experience, there were two (2) main benefits to having CPD programming online for this conference:

1. Fridays – In beforetimes, the conference was spread over a long weekend, with three (3) days packed with sessions. With the online conference format, the three (3) days were spread over three (3) weeks with the programming done on subsequent Fridays. Personally, I find Fridays are often the most relaxed workday and I often schedule maintenance items on Friday afternoons or I keep it open for emergencies. The related benefit is that we have three (3) weeks to process the information rather than three (3) days. For an old(er) brain, I have found it easier to absorb the information over the longer period of time.
2. Attendence – In beforetimes, the conference would generally have three (3) programs running concurrently. I would plan out my conference in advance and select the sessions that were most important. Sometimes I would find a friend to attend a session and share notes afterward. In contrast, with the online conference, we can attend all the sessions.

Noel Semple has recently published a column in this space comparing online hearings versus in-person hearings. Many of his points relate to comparing online conferences versus in-person conferences as well. (Adversarial? Hmmm… perhaps. In the lore of past conferences, we have had vigorous debates interpreting key decisions. Kanthasamy comes to mind and, for the record, I agree with Ron Poulton’s analysis during the CBA Immigration conference in 2016.)

The CBA Immigration section opted for a mixed/ hybrid format that was kicked off on 3 JUNE 2022 in Vancouver. For the hybrid model, we had the choice of attending in-person or online. I opted to fly from Winnipeg to Vancouver and attend in person. It was wonderful to see colleagues in-person again, and we had a lovely round table discussion at the end. Some things simply need to be said in-person.

With the in-person conference, we had other issues, of course. I believe around 35 immigration lawyers RSVPed for the in-person event; however, only ~15 ended up actually being there. There were issues with flights and I heard that a lawyer’s family member tested positive with COVID-19. Faskens was a perfect host and the facilities were top notch.

Today is Day 3 for the conference and it will start with a run through Old Montreal. Alas, I will not be able to join. Hopefully many of my colleagues are able to take advantage of the in-person programming.

The CBA Administrative Law Section recently announced their conference scheduled for November 2022 will return in-person in Ottawa. It seems they have completely abandoned online options.

Personally, I see advantages to both the in-person and online programs. Spending time with my colleagues in Vancouver in-person was wonderful and we were able to catch up and chat about so many things that feel awkward online. At the same time, the online programs offer flexibility and allow for busy professionals to participate without leaving their desk or having to deal with all the travel arrangements.

For this post, I will not delve into how all the courts, tribunals and government departments have been dealing with this transition. That may be for another post. Needless to say, courts and tribunals also seem to be in a state of flux. Thus far, the divisions of the IRB continue to operate with videoconferencing or teleconference. I have heard from my colleagues who practice Family Law that contested motions, family and civil will continue to be heard via teleconference in Manitoba, unless a request is made at least 10 days in advance. Per the 9 JUNE 2022 practice direction, it seems Bankruptcy dockets will return to in-person service starting in Sept 2022.

I remember at the beginning of this pandemic, I spoke with a Registrar at the Supreme Court of Canada. We were talking about how difficult it had been for the SCC to adapt to technological changes for many years. They had resisted and resisted. I remember having a conversation in 2016 regarding using online tools and I was told, at that time, it would require Parliament to change the Rules. Then, suddenly, the pandemic provided sufficient motivation. I think we can all agree those changes have been positive.

In comparison, IRCC has been extremely slow to adopt these technologies. As I testified to CIMM in 2020, there are many online solutions which could benefit both applicants and Officers. The lack of efficiency may have contributed to the backlog and delays in processing. 

It will be interesting to see how service providers adapt to these changing times. Will they continue to use the robust online video conferencing services or will they simply go back to how things were done during the beforetimes? We will see…

The post In-Person Conferences: Will You Show Up? appeared first on Slaw.

The tradition of moots goes back a thousand years, to the earliest inceptions of the common law, where novices in the law would get accustomed to a grilling by more seasoned practitioners.

Although moots are an excellent tool for training, especially for developing and maintaining composure and presentation while under pressure, they differ significantly from the true practice of law in one area in particular. Whereas much of the outcome of a case will be informed by the demonstrated facts and the existing law, the performance during a moot is also evaluated through the advocacy skills of the participant as well.

This focus on advocacy is often subjective, and will vary from judge to judge, and case to case. This is also true in real life, and allows participants to experience different types of pressures, and attempt different types of advocacy skills.

One of the unfortunate shortcomings of the pandemic has been that all moot competitions have moved online. While there are certainly growth and learning opportunities for online moots, in particular in preparation for online advocacy that will require familiarity and use of technological tools, it also has significant shortcomings.

The most experienced and effective moot participants rarely read or refer to their notes, and instead are particularly adept at engaging the bench. With online submissions, it’s far too easy to be staring at a screen and reading a script, with the appearance of looking into the camera but entirely missing any visual cues from the virtual bench. Creating a “presence “while presenting through a flat medium cannot be compared to the in-person alternative.

The University of Ottawa has made history this past week by hosting the first Canadian moot on the metaverse, using a 3D virtual space. Ritesh Kotak, a 3L who helped organize the moot, explained the reason for doing so,

With VR, it actually physically feels like you’re in the same room with everybody. The students are going to feel like they’re sitting at their table; when a judge looks at you, it feels like they’re looking at you right; when somebody hands you a paper it feels like something was handed to you. The whole idea behind it is how do we enhance the student experience by leveraging the technology.

The concept isn’t entirely new, and as far back as 2010, the University of Western Sydney piloted a virtual moot court through Second Life. Some of the advantages they touted include cost effectiveness, given the comparative lack of faculty and administrative support needed to host these events.

The UofO moot allowed participants to look around the court room, use gestures when speaking, and even catch an exasperated judge when they raise their arms and ask a question.

While the technology is still far too rudimentary to replace or truly simulate the experience of in-person mooting, it certainly is an interesting innovation and use of technology for educational purposes.

A copy of the virtual proceedings is available on YouTube here.

The post Mooting in the Metaverse appeared first on Slaw.

Special program: Issues in Mediation-Arbitration

“Issues in mediation-arbitration” is a 7-hour program offered on Friday 13 May 2022 and covering the unique practical and ethical issues involved in managing med-arb processes for family law disputes. Major topics include:

• Drafting and enforcing dispute resolution clauses in family law agreements
• Drafting med-arb agreements
• Addressing family violence and power imbalances in med-arb processes
• Models for med-arb processes
• Managing the transition between mediation and arbitration

Two panel discussions will debate ethical considerations in med-arb processes (Gary Joseph and Lorne Wolfson) and discuss the essential dos and don’ts of managing med-arb processes in family law disputes (Wayne Barkauskas QC , Cheryl Goldhart, Doug Moe QC, Lawrence Pinksy and Brahm Siegel). Other faculty members include Dr Rachel Birnbaum, Herschel Fogelman, Aaron Franks, Arlene Henry QC, Daniel Melamed, Krysta Ostwald QC and myself. 

The cost of the special program is $350, and a paltry $300 for members of the ADR Institute of Canada (ADRIC) and its provincial affiliates, Family Mediation Canada (FMC), the Family Arbitration and Mediation Law Institute (FAMLI), the MediateBC rosters, the Family Dispute Resolution Institute of Ontario (FDRIO), the Ontario Association for Family Mediation (OAFM) and the BC Parenting Coordinators Roster Society (BCPCRS).

Visit https://nflac.ca/special-programs/ for more information and to download the registration form. 

National Family Law Arbitration Course: 2022 edition

The National Family Law Arbitration Course is a 40-hour interactive course offering a comprehensive introduction to the arbitration of family law disputes in Canada, and includes optional six-hour pre-course programs for lawyers and mental health professionals interested in working as parenting coordinators. It provides a complete introduction to the arbitration of family law disputes and the unique skills, processes and procedures these cases require. The course provides the opportunity to learn from senior family law lawyers with established arbitration practices in Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba and Ontario in an interactive remote learning environment. 

The pre-course program on the basics of psychology for family law lawyers runs on Friday 7 October 2022 and will be taught by Dr Rachel Birnbaum, Alyson Jones RCC and Dr Lorri Yasenik. The pre-course program on the basics of family law for mental health professionals runs on Saturday 8 October 2022 and will be taught by Lawrence Pinsky, Lorne Wolfson and myself. The cost of each of the pre-course programs is $350.

The course proper runs over three Friday / Saturday pairs and starts on Friday 21 October 2022. The course covers:

• Arbitration contrasted to mediation and litigation
• Creatively designing arbitration processes
• Drafting arbitration agreements
• Arbitrating in the presence of family violence 
• Evidence and experts in arbitration processes
• Interim applications and arbitration hearings
• Drafting awards
• Managing an arbitration practice. 

The faculty are Wayne Barkauskas QC, Dr Rachel Birnbaum, Dr Barbara Fidler, Herschel Fogelman, Aaron Franks, Cheryl Goldhart, Arlene Henry QC, Alf Mamo, Danny Melamed, Krysta Ostwald QC, Lawrence Pinsky, Eugene Raponi QC, Brahm Siegel, Lorne Wolfson and myself. The cost of the special program is $1950, or $1800 for members of the ADR Institute of Canada (ADRIC) and its provincial affiliates, Family Mediation Canada (FMC), the Family Arbitration and Mediation Law Institute (FAMLI), the MediateBC rosters, the Family Dispute Resolution Institute of Ontario (FDRIO), the Ontario Association for Family Mediation (OAFM) and the BC Parenting Coordinators Roster Society (BCPCRS).

The National Family Law Arbitration Course was first offered to 50 participants in 2021, with rave reviews. Participants in the 2021 course rated the course and its impact on their knowledge of the subject matter very highly:

• 78% of participants who completed our feedback survey described the materials as very relevant and 22% described them as relevant,
• 84% strongly agreed that the course increased their knowledge of the subject matter and 16% agreed that it increased their knowledge, and
• 96% said they would strongly encourage or encourage others to take the course.

Visit https://nflac.ca/the-course/ for more information and to download the registration form. 

Law society accreditation

The special program, the course and the pre-course programs are accredited approved for continuing professional development credits by the Law Society of British Columbia, the Law Society of Ontario and the Law Society of Saskatchewan. Law society pre-approval or accreditation is not required for members of the law societies of Alberta, Manitoba, Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island. Accreditation from the Law Society of New Brunswick is in progress.

The course is also approved by the Family Dispute Resolution Institute of Ontario as satisfying the educational requirements for their FDRIO FDRP-Arb certification.

Visit https://nflac.ca for accreditation details. 

Organizers

The organizers of the National Family Law Arbitration Course are me, John-Paul Boyd QC, of John-Paul Boyd Arbitration Chambers in Alberta and British Columbia, Lawrence Pinsky of Taylor McCaffrey LLP in Manitoba, and Lorne Wolfson of Torkin Manes LLP in Ontario. 

The post News From the National Family Law Arbitration Course appeared first on Slaw.

In the summer of 2019, the EQAO engaged a committee of math specialists from Faculties of Education in Ontario to aid in the development of an assessment “Blueprint” for the MPT. The EQAO relied on its bank of math questions used for Grade 3, 6, and 9 assessments in both French and English and created new questions based on Ministry policy documents for the pedagogy component. The EQAO undertook a further review of the MPT questions in response to its Literature Review. Because the math questions were sourced from the pre-existing Grades 3, 6 and 9 EQAO math assessments, these questions had already gone through a first review against a rubric that factored in identity, social justice and equity issues. The EQAO also engaged a committee of external members of the [Ontario College of Teachers (“the College”)] as well as internal EQAO staff to conduct a second review of all MPT questions for bias and sensitivity to equity issues. The test questions were reviewed to determine whether demographic indicators or knowledge of culturally specific information would predict reduced performance on questions. Since September 2019, the EQAO has also been guided in the development of the MPT by a Governance Steering Committee (the “Steering Committee”). The Steering Committee consists of representatives from various organizations, including the College, the EQAO, the Ontario Association of Deans of Education, the Independent Ontario Deans of Education, the Council of Ontario Universities, and the Ministry of Education. To date, the Steering Committee has aided in making substantive changes and recommendations regarding exemptions to the MPT that have been adopted by the Ministry such as amending the MPT to test up to Grade 9 math (as opposed to Grade 11 math) and creating an exemption for applicants who are entitled to become teachers of Native Languages. (Paras. 24-27)

(Some appreciation of what is meant by “equity” in math can be found through a presentation prepared for the Elementary Teachers Federation of Ontario, “Centering [sic] Equity in Mathematics Teaching and Learning”, available here.) A website describes the MPT in great detail. It states, “The MPT is composed of multiple-choice type questions consisting of the following two components: mathematics content component (non-calculator and calculator-enabled items) [70%] [and] pedagogy component [30%]”. Applicants could also complete a voluntary questionaire with “identity-based questions”. The MPT could be written in English or French. The questions were derived from those given to students in grades 3 to 9 and the website directed applicants the relevant curricula. There were practice tests on the website. The results provided to students included recommendations for how to improve weaker areas. Passing required 70% successful responses. The MPT was administered twice, first as a “test” of the test (“the Field Test”) in February to March 2020 and second its actual First Administration in May to June 2021. (The Divisional Court also described the MPT, including changes made after the Field Test at paras. 28-31.) However, students would not reach this point in the process until they had acquired a three or four year undergraduate degree and, usually, completed a two year B.Ed (otherwise known as initial teacher education (“ITE”)). (Not all B.Ed programs are two years, though: see here, for example.) The extent to which students would have taken math courses during this period would vary with individual students. As the Divisional Court noted, “There are core program requirements for ITE programs but no common math education curriculum is required to be taught. Some faculties require their candidates to demonstrate math proficiency in order to complete their initial teacher education program, while others do not” (para. 12). Union representatives criticized the MPT, not necessarily on the basis the Divisional Court declared it unconstitutional, but on other grounds. For example, as the National Post reported in “Ontario teachers will have to score at least 70 per cent on math tests“,

“Expecting a kindergarten teacher to have a firm grasp of calculus makes no sense,” Sam Hammond, president of the Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario, said in a statement. “The proposed teacher candidate test will not increase math outcomes. Testing doesn’t grow confidence, competency or proficiency.” Harvey Bischof, president of the Ontario Secondary School Teachers’ Federation, said this kind of across-the-board testing of all teachers, when a majority of them will never teach math, won’t impact students’ math outcomes. “In Ontario’s high school system teachers teach in their areas of qualification,” he said. “So what we have here is the potential to have an excellent, let’s say, art or geography or history teacher, not qualified to teach because they don’t pass a math test, a course that they would never teach.”

However, until grade 6, any teacher could be required to teach math. Anyone teaching math beyond that is required to have particular qualifications in math; nevertheless, despite this, if the teacher and principal agree and a supervisory officer approves it, a teacher without the qualifications may teach math beyond grade 6 (para. 13). Ironically, the EQAO, responsible for developing the MPT, stated that standardized tests don’t necessarily improve student performance:

“Current research demonstrates that standardized teacher tests is not linked with a level of performance consistency that justifies their widespread implementation at this time. The use of caution with these tests is advised by many researchers on the basis that these tests are not consistently associated with the positive benefits that are often claimed.” (Quoted in “Standardized tests for teachers don’t necessarily improve student scores: report” [“Standardized tests”],National Post)

Furthermore,

The EQAO report also said that there are potential negative impacts of such tests for teachers, including a bias against marginalized groups. Multiple studies have found that the pass rate on standardized teacher competency tests is significantly lower for people of colour, the report said. (“Standardized tests”)

(On the research showing that racialized applicants do less well than White applicants on standardized tests, see para. 99.) The solution to resolving the “math problem” is more complicated than giving prospective teachers a standardized test (although that might indicate which future teachers might benefit from courses or from not being assigned math to teach, the latter not in tune with Ontario’s view that teachers should be able to teach almost anything). In “For the sake of kids, embrace math”, in The Conversation, republished in the National Post, Andy Hargreaves and Pasi Sahlberg explain that Ontario students’ literacy levels increased significantly when the government dedicated much energy and effort to that objective. They also suggest teachers were more likely to have been readers, while they had been less likely to take to math. They point out,

In Ontario, for example, 80 per cent of elementary teachers have no university qualification in math. However, in Finland, one of the world’s leading performers in mathematics, around half of elementary teachers have studied math or science and how to teach them effectively during their university degrees.

In Singapore, when they begin teaching, elementary teachers are paid the same as engineers: “This means students who are good at math choose teaching based on their mission and purpose in life, not on salary differentials. Perhaps Canada and Australia need to think harder about how to attract more people with math and science backgrounds into elementary teaching.” (Hargreaves and Sahlberg) In short, there appeared to be a need to improve student scores in math (or arithmetic) and the solution the Ontario government chose, the MPT, had been subject to criticism on several grounds when the government announced it, not least of which was that members of racialized communities tended to score lower on standardized tests and that it would not be effective in improving student outcomes. (The Field Test also showed that candidates indicating they had a cognitive disability had a failure rate twice that of candidates without a disability (para. 33). I note that there did not seem to be concern about women’s math scores on the MPT, whether that is because the women did not have lower scores than men; if they did, they did not raise it; or because no one compared the scores. However, there continues to be concern about whether women are confident in taking math courses: see, for example, “Confidence in math has become a major problem for girls in school“, Global News). Against this background, the Divisional Court issued its decision. THE DECISION

The Section 15 Analysis

Fundamental to the decision in Ontario Teacher Candidates’ Council, is recognition of the historical and current disadvantages experienced by Black and Indigenous students (paras. 64-65) and the difficulty internationally trained students have in acquiring Canadian credentials (para. 66). Furthermore, the proportion of racialized teachers does not reflect the proportion of racialized students in the system:

…[T]he evidence demonstrates a “diversity gap” in the teaching profession in Ontario. Twenty-six percent of Ontario students are racialized. However, only thirteen percent of teachers are racialized. Social science evidence shows that racialized students, in particular, Black and Indigenous students, benefit and perform better when they have racialized teachers. A lack of role models in the education system creates a vicious cycle – because students do not see themselves represented, they do not aspire to become teachers. … The experience of racialized students is relevant because it is those students, or a portion of them, who go on to attend university and teacher’s college, and then form the pool of teacher candidates who are now required to take the MPT in order to be licensed. There is thus a significant amount of social science evidence that shows that the claimant group experiences disadvantage associated with their race at all stages of their education. This is especially pronounced in respect of Black and Indigenous teacher candidates. (Paras. 67 & 69)

The Court also refers to American studies showing the disadvantages Black students experience compared to White students (para. 68), although it does not explain how the American school system experience is relevant to the Canadian experience. The EQAO Literature Review (“the Review”) and the report by Dr. Mary Reid, “a professor at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education whose doctoral thesis was on mathematics teacher efficacy and pedagogy”, provided the basis of the Court’s comments about the impact of standardized tests. Dr. Reid’s report centred on two points: whether the MPT is “likely to result in fewer minorities and people of colour being certified as teachers” and whether the test is “likely to accomplish its stated goal of improving student math scores”. (Para. 41) The Review “found evidence that mandatory teacher competency testing impacts the teacher workforce pipeline, workforce, teacher training and the diversity of the teacher population”. However, the Review was not able to provide explanations for these results. The Review also found that the standardized tests did not have the results claimed for them. It is important to note that the Review stated, “the potential negative impacts of these programs, including bias against marginalized groups and the decrease in the availability of qualified teachers, are more consistent impacts of these test[s] [sic]”. (Paras. 71-73) The Court noted that “the proportion of racialized teachers has not only failed to increase with the proportion of racialized Canadians, but decreased from 2001 to 2006, relative to the proportion of visible minority citizens” (para. 97). The lack of diversity is a disadvantage not only to racialized students who do not see themselves in the classroom or whose teachers may not understand their experiences, but also non-racialized students who can learn from a more diverse teacher population. As for the MPT itself,

… the results of the Field Test and First Administration of the MPT show significant disparities in success rates and correspond to the social science research. On the Field Test, Black teacher candidates had a significantly lower pass rate than White teacher candidates. The pass rate for teacher candidates who self-identified as “African” was 58 percent. The pass rate of teacher candidates who self-identified as “Caribbean” was 71 percent. In comparison, the pass rate of teacher candidates who self-identified as “White” was 87 percent. The results of the First Administration of the MPT showed similar results. The pass rate of Black teacher candidates was 70.3 percent, as compared to the pass rate of White teacher candidates of 90.5 percent. The pass rate of Indigenous teacher candidates was 71.43 percent. Put more starkly, the failure rate of Black or Indigenous teacher candidates to White teacher candidates was three to one. It is also worth noting that test-takers were disproportionately White, at 62.8 percent, as compared to 5.9 percent of test-takers who were Black. There were more than 10 times as many White test-takers as Black. Less than 0.5 percent of test-takers were Indigenous. (Paras. 75-76)

(In the Field Test, 87% of Asian and 84% of unspecified European test takers were successful; the percentages for other groups were as follows: 72% Latino, 74% Middle East and 76% “Multiple”. The figures for these groups on the First Administration test were as follows: 92.39% East/South-east Asian, 76.47 “Latinx”, 83.33% Middle Eastern, 84.89% South Asian, 78.38% “Another [unidentified] Race Category, 91.21% [unspecified] “Mix”. [Decision, Appendices A and B]) The government argued that these results are not necessarily helpful because applicants can take the test as many times as they want and pass rates after second and third attempts were far higher (Appendix B). Applicants were able to retake it once without cost, but there was a fee (unknown at the time) for additional attempts. Significantly, a large proportion of candidates did not take the test again and although there is no evidence about how that broke down, the Court surmised that “it is likely that a non-negligible proportion of the Black and Indigenous candidates are among the 259 who did not retake the test” (para. 83). Not only is there a financial cost to retaking the test more than once, there are other costs:

…while test results are available in ten days, a teacher candidate who did not pass the MPT may not be prepared to retake it during the same test cycle. In addition, the delay of waiting until the next test cycle could result in hardship, depending on a candidate’s circumstances, as they might be unable to earn an income in the interim. Further, a delay of even a few months might cause a teacher candidate to miss out on employment opportunities. For example, the second testing cycle in 2021 was after the academic year had already started.(Para. 100)

The Court was not impressed by the argument that candidates could retake the test because having to take the test again imposes an additional burden on the disadvantaged test takers. In addition, there was insufficient evidence relating to the demographic backgrounds of those who took the test again, but what evidence there is indicates that racialized test takers were less likely to pass on the third attempt than were White candidates. The government’s own expert reinforced this view (para. 84). The government argued the court should permit additional administrations of the test to obtain more data. However, the paucity of data beyond the Field and first administration of the test did not particularly concern the Court: “The fact that a greater adverse impact could be demonstrated over time does not mean that there is no adverse impact now. While evidence is necessary, it cannot be that a claimant group must wait years before it is in a position to challenge a regulation that it alleges is discriminatory.” Regardless, the available data “represent ‘clear and consistent statistical disparities in how a law affects a claimant group’” (para. 85; citation omitted). The Court relied heavily on the experience of one individual, Richard Nyelade, whose education (“master’s degrees from Cameroon and Norway and [the beginning of] a Ph.D. program in China”) had taken place outside Canada. He is Black and his first language is French, although he is multilingual. When he came to Canada, he decided to become a teacher and completed the B.Ed program at the University of Ottawa, Toronto campus. By the time he had finished the program, the MPT was in place. He took the test three times and “scored well above 70 percent on the math component all three times. However, he was only able to pass the pedagogy component on his third attempt.” Somewhat ironically, given his results on the MPT, the only course in the University of Ottawa program was in pedagogy, not content. (Paras. 87-88) (The Divisional Court stated this was the case when the government first announced the MPT; it is not clear what the situation was when Mr. Nyelade was in his second year – we know the MPT requirement did not exist when he started the program.) The focus of Mr. Nyelade’s concern was people like himself “who are newcomers to Ontario and learned math in other countries”. He also wasn’t familiar with using a computer or calculator for math and applicants take the MPT on a computer. He was also disadvantaged because the only math course in his B.Ed program was (perhaps not surprisingly?) based on the Ontario curriculum and there were initially no study materials available. However, the Court believed that it would be a loss to students if someone like Mr. Nyelade were not able to enter the system:

A teacher candidate like Mr. Nyelade, however, would have much to offer students in Ontario and the Ontario education system as a whole. The Ontario French curriculum includes learning about French cultures beyond Canada. Having studied on three continents, Mr. Nyelade is multilingual with an upbringing in the French language and African culture, Mr. Nyelade is uniquely qualified to broaden students’ awareness and understanding of Franco-African culture and cross-cultural world views. (Para. 91)

Mr. Nyelade was the only person not doing well on any portion of the MPT whose actual experience was before the Court. While admitting it would have been desirable to have heard from others, the Court explained the lack of others this way: “the fact that there is only one such affiant may reflect the stigma of disclosing in a public forum that they did not pass the MPT on their first or second attempt” (para. 93). Although the MPT requirement has prompted BEd programs to introduce math courses, the Court considers this a “so what?” defence, since this doesn’t “lessen the burdens imposed by the test itself” and in any case, the province could have taken this approach instead of the MPT (para. 103). The MPT requirement constitutes a burden on Black and Indigenous applicants and perpetuates the disadvantages they have already experienced in the education system. Although they can retake the test, “the attendant financial burden, time, stress and stigma remain”. There will be fewer Black and Indigenous teachers in the system. The lack of racialized teachers is also a disadvantage for both racialized students who will not benefit from seeing themselves in the classroom and non-racialized students who can benefit from exposure to greater diversity in the classroom. These factors underlie the Court’s finding of a contravention of section 15.

The Section 1 Analysis

In its section 1 analysis, the Court concluded that improving the educational system satisfied a “pressing and substantial purpose” (paras. 108-114). It also accepted that having to take the MPT, by prompting prospective teachers to take math courses, among other reasons, will improve teacher competency and it is reasonable to conclude that will improve student performance, thus satisfying the requirement that the MPT must be rationally connected to improving students’ math scores (paras. 115-120). The Court emphasizes that these two steps, whether there is a pressing and substantial objective and whether there is a rational connection between the measure and the objective (the first part of the proportionality test) have low thresholds to meet. The problem for the government arises at the minimal impairment stage, the second step of the proportionality analysis. The test here is as follows: “’whether there is an alternative, less drastic means of achieving the objective in a real and substantial manner’” (para. 123, citation omitted). Given the nature of the issue, the Court assumed a deferential approach:

Where the legislature is mediating between the competing claims of different groups in society, the choice of means will often involve assessing conflicting scientific or social science evidence and differing demands on scarce resources which cannot be evaluated by the courts with the same degree of certainty: … In these circumstances, the question is “whether the government had a reasonable basis, on the evidence tendered” for concluding that its chosen means impaired the right as little as possible given the government’s pressing and substantial objective: …. (Para. 125, citations omitted; also see para. 132.)

The Court accepted that there was a problem with declining math scores and needed a response. The government made some effort to address the negative effects of the MPT (“such as screening questions for bias and allowing unlimited rewrites”), and was “alive to equity issues” (para. 135), but these efforts

fail to address the Applicants’ argument that there are less impairing means that do not adversely impact racialized teacher candidates. The Respondent cannot discharge its burden by imposing an option which breaches equality rights, and then make some effort to mitigate the negative effects, if options are available that would not breach equality rights in the first place. (Para. 136)

Mandatory math courses during the B.Ed program would be less impairing and more directly address the issue than the indirect impact of students taking math courses in order to pass the MPT, as the government suggested. The Court explained, “there is no evidence to suggest that these negative diversity impacts would exist in the context of a mandatory math course (i.e. that racialized teacher candidates might disproportionately fail these math courses), and we do not think such an inference can be made on the basis of logic or common sense” (para. 142). And just as the government argued B.Ed programs would provide support for preparing to write the MPT, there could be assistance for math courses during undergraduate and B.Ed programs that would accomplish the government’s objective directly (para. 143). The Court blithely dismissed the government’s concern that requiring math courses would interfere with Faculties of Education’s autonomy: doing so was less important than ensuring the math education in the programs. The Court found that there were less impairing alternatives to the MPT and thus the government had failed to sustain a section 1 justification. Nevertheless, the Court did consider the last step in the section 1 analysis: whether the benefits of the MPT outweighed its deleterious effects. A positive effect of the MPT is that prospective (to use the Court’s term, “math avoidance”) teachers are more likely to sign up for math courses “to improve their confidence in math” and Faculties of Education are more likely to offer them (para. 150). However, these benefits do not outweigh the deleterious effects: lack of “racial diversity in the teaching pool”; the (possible) exclusion of “racialized teacher candidates and exacerbat[ion of] the trend of de-diversification that has been occurring in Ontario schools”; and increased costs for students who retake the test more than once (paras. 151-155).

In conclusion, the MPT’s deleterious effect of the breach of equality rights outweighs the salutary effect of encouraging teacher candidates and Faculties of Education to focus more on math skills. The objective could be achieved directly by introducing math course requirements for admissions to B.Ed programs or in B.Ed programs themselves. This would be significantly less impairing of equality rights and at least as efficacious in furthering the objective of improving student achievement in math. (Para. 156)

It is not clear whether the government asked for a suspension of the declaration of invalidity, although since the Court does not refer to this option, presumably it did not. Accordingly, the Court declared section 18(1)(c) of the OCTA and O. Reg 271/19 of no force or effect.

A declaration will issue that the Ontario College of Teachers shall grant certification to teacher candidates who have not passed the Mathematics Proficiency Test (or shall grant full certification in the case of teacher candidates whose certification is conditional on passing the Mathematics Proficiency Test) but have otherwise met all other certification requirements. (Para. 162)

CONCLUSION There is no question that the scores for too many members of certain demographic groups are of concern. The main reason the Court gives for this is that the MPT is a standardized test and is therefore by definition suspect (as many experts agree). But what is a “standardized” test? It is a test that consists of the same questions for all test-takers scored the same way under the same conditions (this latter characteristic is not necessarily the case during the pandemic, since applicants may take the test at home and this may be the case in the future). When many people hear the term “standardized test”, they think of tests such as the Law School Admission Test or the tests the province used to administer across schools in grade 12. People may think of standardized tests in the United States that effect funding or could result in closure for the lowest scoring schools. However, any test that fits the characteristics is a “standardized test”. A test which all students in a classroom take in English, math, science or any other subject is a standardized test if all students answer the same questions and all students’ tests are scored in the same way. Likely one could call the “assessments” of school students, using questions that appeared on the MPT, “standardized” tests. Standardized tests have been considered “fair” because they do ask the same questions of all candidates; however, this very characteristic may be the source of unfairness if the test does not take into account factors such as “cultural bias”. That is, they may not be neutral assessments of capacity or knowledge, possibly because of the underlying assumptions of at least some of the questions which reflect very different life experiences that some — or many — people from different demographic groups bring to the test. The Divisional Court’s decision does not identify specifically how the MPT is biased. It assumes it is. It refers to research about standardized tests generally and concludes the MPT is biased because racialized students have lower rates of success on the test. Yet efforts to integrate equity into the test started with the work done with the questions when they were given to the students in grades 3 to 9. (A reminder that the Court described this process at paragraphs 24 to 26.) Nor do we know from the information in the decision whether the MPT results were unevenly low or whether, like Mr. Nyelade, candidates who failed did well on one part and not on another. Although studies of the experience of Black students in the school system show, as the Court explains, that too many Black students are disadvantaged by the system or, at least, in the system (disadvantaged by factors external to the school and the curriculum that impact their performance), the Court slides over the reality that the students taking the MPT will have succeeded in undergraduate and B.Ed programs. And in the course of doing so, they will probably have written many ordinary tests that fit the characteristics of “standardized” tests. The decision provides statistics about how well the members of different demographic groups have done on the MPT. But we do not know how many applicants experienced their education in Canada and specifically in Ontario. The MPT is based on the Ontario math curriculum (possibly the curriculum has changed since at least some of these applicants were in grades 3 to 9), which candidates are able to review. Having reviewed the curricula myself, I observe that for those who studied math in Ontario, the curricula may serve to refresh memories if they have forgotten what they learned. If they do not know it, though, the documents are extremely detailed and are unlikely to help someone learn what they did not know. It would have been helpful to know how applicants who had taken a math course or courses during undergraduate or in their B.Ed program had scored compared to those who had not and how those statistics broke down on the basis of race. One assumes this information is not available. It is somewhat troubling that the Court seems to have based its decision on research that is not linked to the applicants and on a single applicant who did not receive his education in Ontario other than his B.Ed program. And Mr. Nyelade was able to score well on the actual math part of the MPT. It was the “pedagogy” part that gave him trouble. I do not doubt the Court’s confidence that Mr. Nyelade will bring a great deal to the students’ education beyond math. It remains, however, that he is hardly typical of most students who would take the MPT, but rather represents a subset, those who have brought their expereiences from elsewhere to bear. The Court placed a heavy burden on his shoulders in treating him as more representative (although it was a burden worth carrying given the outcome). I assume (I have not seen it) the pedagogy part of the test reflected the somewhat different way math has been taught in Ontario schools; interestingly, though, “that way” very much emphasizes how the need to understand the students and to take their “socio-affective characteristics” into account. Again, that portion of the test was based on Ontario policy documents and “Learning for All: A Guide to Effective Assessmentand Instruction for All Students, Kindergarten to Grade 12“, which I believe was available to applicants. (I base this on its presence on the MPT website and on the somewhat ambiguous way the Court discusses the availability of study materials.) There seems little reason not to think that the Court’s analysis might not apply to other contexts where so-called standardized methods are used (test situations or employment interviews, for example). After all, the historical experience for racialized groups does not occur only in the school system — indeed, it is brought into the educational system. And statistics might well reveal similar patterns of success and lack of success. For now, however, it seems that it would be highly desirable if more students had access to math courses before facing a math test that will determine future employment.

The post The Divisional Court’s Decision in Ontario Teacher Candidates’ Council appeared first on Slaw.

I am pleased to announce the 2022 edition of the National Family Law Arbitration Course, a 40-hour course organized by myself, Lorne Wolfson and Lawrence Pinksy. This course provides a comprehensive introduction to the arbitration of family law disputes in Canada, and includes two optional 7-hour pre-course programs for mental health professionals and family law lawyers interested in working as parenting coordinators.

While good arbitration courses abound in this country, they tend to focus on employment, construction and other corporate and commercial disputes; none are designed to address the special nature and special needs of family law disputes. This course fills that gap. It is taught by established family law lawyers, arbitrators and academics practicing in British Columbia, Alberta, Manitoba and Ontario, including Wayne Barkauskas QC, Professor Rachel Birnbaum, Herschel Fogelman, Aaron Franks, Cheryl Goldhart, Arlene Henry QC, Alf Mamo, Danny Melamed, Krysta Ostwald QC, Eugene Raponi QC, and Brahm Siegel, as well as Lorne, Lawrence and myself. We will also be joined by a special guest speaker – last year, Senator Murray Sinclair discussed Indigenous perspectives on justice and the arbitration of disputes – and by superior court judges discussing the role of the courts in arbitration processes.  Participants in the 2021 edition rated the course and its impact on their understanding of family law arbitration very highly:

• 78% of participants who completed our feedback survey described the materials as very relevant and 22% described them as relevant,
• 84% strongly agreed that the course increased their knowledge of the subject matter and 16% agreed that it increased their knowledge, and
• 96% said they would strongly encourage or encourage others to take the course.

The course is competitively priced, with a fee of $1800 for members of ADRIC, FMC, FAMLI, MediateBC, FDRIO or OAFM, and a fee of $1950 for non-members. The cost for each of the single-day pre-course programs is $350. The course is open to anyone interested in arbitrating family law disputes, not just lawyers. Social workers, clinical counsellors, psychologists and mediators, and anyone else with a practice focusing on family breakdown and restructuring, are all welcome.  The National Family Law Arbitration Course is provided through an interactive virtual platform over six days in October and November 2022, with the pre-course programs running in early October. Note, however, that this course is not a passive webinar. Participants’ active engagement in class discussions and exercises is required. Get more information, the current list of faculty, and download the registration form from the course website at nflac.ca. Please join us! Contact Lorne Wolfson (Torkin Manes LLP, Ontario), Lawrence Pinsky (Taylor McCaffrey LLP, Manitoba) or me (John-Paul Boyd Arbitration Chambers, British Columbia and Alberta) for more information about the course.

The post It’s Back! Announcing the 2022 National Family Law Arbitration Course appeared first on Slaw.

the value of going to university, including the kinds of employment graduates can anticipate, the expectations of employers and university education’s role in upward mobility in society;

the relative hidebound nature of universities, which have a reluctance to innovate and, at the same time, the need to innovate;

the relationship to government; and

the sustainability of universities, both economically and with respect to quality.

Weingarten concludes with a “recipe for reform”, the ingredients of which are several considerations necessary if universities are to move from “good” to “great”. It is generally beyond the capacity of this post to apply this recipe to law schools, other than one or two comments in the Conclusion. Here I focus primarily on the value of going to law school and law schools’ capacity and willingness to innovate. My familiarity with the inside track of law school development began with my appointment to UNB’s Faculty of Law in 1992, where I remained until I became dean at Calgary’s Faculty of Law in 2001 (until 2006). As dean, I attended the law deans’ council meetings that kept all of us deans connected to developments at law schools throughout (mainly) English-speaking Canada. My connection to law schools has since been more indirect. As the founding executive director of the Law Commission of Ontario (LCO) until 2015, I was connected to the goings on at Osgoode Hall Law School, the home of the LCO. Furthermore, I visited all the (then) law schools in Ontario annually (at least) as part of my executive director outreach. Since then, I’ve kept abreast of law school developments more as an interested “outsider”. Law schools have changed in some ways since I began teaching and less so, it seems to me, since my direct connection ended. Nevertheless, I can speak to some of the issues Nothing Less than Great raises as applied to the law school context. THE PLACE AND QUASI-INDEPENDENCE OF LAW SCHOOLS The UniRank website lists some 100 accredited public and private universities in Canada of which, according to Wikipedia‘s list, about 70 are public universities. In contrast, there are 24 law schools across the country. Five are in Quebec (where civil law predominates, with McGill providing an integrated program resulting in a civil and common law degree and Sherbrooke offering a common law and transnational JD degree) and the remainder in the rest of Canada (common law schools, with the University of Ottawa offering common and civil law degrees and Osgoode Hall Law School providing an opportunity to do both a JD and an LLB (Civil) in collaboration with a Quebec law school). I’m limiting my comments to the common law schools. The first year enrolment of Canadian common law law schools is approaching 3,000 annually. After the last law school opened in 1976 (at the University of Calgary), there were no new schools until Thompson Rivers Faculty of Law opened in British Columbia about ten years ago and the Ryerson Faculty of Law (now the Lincoln Alexander School of Law) and the Bora Laskin Faculty of Law at Lakehead University in Ontario opened in 2013 and 2020, respectively. The latter two established the most “innovative” curriculum in many years. (I wrote about these programs in a previous Slaw post, “Whither English-Canada Law Schools?“.) Law schools tend to operate as quasi-independent bodies within the university. They are subject to many of the university’s requirements (budget, research requirements, faculty evaluation processes and procedures, among them). But, by virtue of their connection to the legal profession, they also have independent sources of income on which they have become highly reliant. Their faculty, if unionized, will be in a separate bargaining unit or may be subject to a separate collective agreement from that applicable to the rest of the university. Still, they share the larger university challenges of funding, ensuring the currency of their curriculum and seeing their graduates find jobs, both as articling students (most students find places in their second year) and when these same graduates enter the workforce (after third year and usually additional professional requirements). THE “PURPOSE” OF UNIVERSITIES AND LAW SCHOOLS While the purpose of a university education is increasingly viewed as being to obtain employment of certain kinds and at a certain level (Nothing Less than Great makes clear the advantage in earnings for university graduates), a university education can be valuable in other ways. It can prepare students to be useful citizens, for example. Weingarten refers to the purposes Derek Bok identifies: “things like the ability to communicate, a capacity for critical thinking and moral reasoning, preparation for citizenship, a capacity for global thinking, and so on.” (Nothing Less than Great, p.44) Of course universities prepare students to enter many different fields and types of employment. While outsiders may think of law schools as preparing their students to practice law, in reality law graduates also enter different fields, although practice predominates. However, the question of the “purpose” of a legal education may still appear unsettled. Law schools have difficulty deciding exactly what their purpose is: training lawyers ready to practice or training people with an ability to engage the law in different ways, as well as to become active citizens. (On this, see “The Evolution of Legal Education” in Canadian Lawyer.) On the one hand, however, although some schools have stressed they prepare graduates for a career in legal practice, they have nevertheless promoted their broader education. On the other hand, schools that are able to do so more fully reflect the dual nature of law schools as trade schools and academic institutions, offering many experiential opportunities along with academically-oriented courses. With the two new schools, the demarcation between “trade school” and an academic or dual program has become clearer. Some proportion of students begin law school with an understanding of law school and the law based on a parent’s experience; intergenerational lawyering is not uncommon. Others have little knowledge of law other than what they have “learned” from television shows, which may be (and usually are) wildly unlike real life. Yet others have taken an undergraduate “law” program or believe that taking an undergrad political science degree will give them a “leg up”. When they leave law school, however, most of these students, regardless of their entry disposition, have learned (for good or ill) how to “think like a lawyer”. This is a crucial part of the law school experience: teaching law as a distinctive way of thinking that permeates one’s life (in my experience, and however, critical one might be about “the law”). CURRICULUM

Introduction

As Weingarten points out, in some professions the regulatory body establishes the components of the program for which graduates need to show competence. Law schools in Canada teaching the common law must meet the the National Requirement “that specifies the competencies and skills graduates must have attained and the academic program and learning resources law schools must have in place” for their graduates to gain admission to the law society bar admission programs. (See Canadian Law School Programs). The National Requirement does not specify courses, but competencies and skills; however, its list of “substantive legal knowledge” simply reflects certain principles that identify with particular areas of law. Law schools can name courses as they wish, as long as the content is consistent with the principles. It is easier, though, it seems to just use the traditional labels for the most part. This more ostensibly structured requirement has been the case only since 2015; previously, law schools, once accredited, developed their curricula as seemed appropriate to respond to their own goals and emerging trends affecting the law, subject to approval by academic bodies. In addition, their programs satisfied the provincial law societies’ expectations about what students should have learned. In fact, the programs are much the same as they were before the National Requirement and whatever innovations the schools have implemented are independent of the National Requirement. I review the law schools’ courses as they have developed to prepare citizens, the meaning of “ethics” education and the attention various communities have received in society .

Structure and Content of Law Programs

Common law schools in Canada offer more or less the same curriculum in first year; it has remained unchanged for many years. The first year is standard because courses reflect the building blocks of law (contracts, torts, property, criminal, constitutional law and some kind of legal method course, for example). Nevertheless, some schools do replace one or two standard courses in first year with other perhaps more immediately exciting and, from the school’s perspective, topics with which all students should be familiar. They make the omitted courses mandatory in second year. However, law schools differ considerably in their upper year programs. Some have a fairly long list of compulsory courses, with some options; some have many options with only a few mandatory courses. Those that emphasize the mandatory list tend to laud their practice-ready programs; for example, UNB’s Faculty of Law boasts of its “strong emphasis on career readiness“.

The teaching of professional ethics has long been part of the law school curriculum everywhere, as expected by the regulators. The National Requirement now requires it. However, it apparently views ethics — and one might include here moral reasoning — primarily within the narrow confines of the practice of law. This means understanding the professional rules and how to comply with them, rather than figuring out whether something is right or wrong. One of the struggles at least some law students face is how to reconcile the rules with their own concept of right or wrong or with the larger question of justice. Contrary to this narrower view, law schools on their own initiative have exposed their students to issues relevant to preparation for citizenship and similar objectives, particularly access to justice. When Windsor Law welcomed its first class in 1968, it was the first law school to define itself as centering its program on access to justice. Most schools now reference training lawyers in “access to justice” as some aspect of their purpose, but Windsor still stands out as claiming access to justice “is a pillar upon which we review everything we do“. For example, Osgoode Hall Law School’s first year curriculum includes a required course on “Ethical Lawyering in a Global Community”, which includes not only the professional rules but lawyers’ “collective responsibilities in relation to the public interest and access to justice” (see here). Students may also take an upper year course, “Legal Values: Access to Justice”, which, among other issues, requires the students to consider how lawyers contribute to a lack of access to justice (see here). Windsor’s “Comparative Law and Social Movements” includes consideration of the role of lawyers in social movements and collective action, professional responsibility and the conflicts that can arise when representing clients as a part of a larger collective strategy. This kind of approach transcends the individual lawyer-client relationship to appreciating the part lawyers can play as lawyers in the broader society. At Osgoode, the 40 hour public interest requirement supports the teaching of law professionals’ obligation to serve the public; however, the “public interest” goal does not seem to be sufficient, for the purported benefits go beyond that: “contributing to access to justice, identifying areas of interest, gaining practical skills, meeting mentors, role models and potential employers, engaging with the community and appreciating the practice of law in a profession which has the privilege and responsibility of self-regulation” (see here). And it is possible to gain credit for this “public service”, not merely contribute because it is a good thing to do.

Experiential Opportunities

Pointing out the extent to which universities have established entrepreneurial co-operative programs, Weingarten is critical that measurement of the skills students learn in these programs is lacking (Nothing Less than Great, pp.59, 75). Law schools have long integrated experiential learning into their programs. When it seemed law schools were susceptible to criticism because some of them were becoming “too academic”, the schools began not only to increase the experiential opportunities, but to proclaim rather loudly they were doing so. Students have the opportunity to participate in a legal clinic, which often has an academic, as well as practice component, or semester-long intensives, again learning substantive law integrated with skills training. Moots are “legal debates”; usually students participate in at least one moot and may be able to take upper moots for credit. In some cases, the incentive arrives from outside the law school, as is the case with Pro Bono Students, which provides advice and services in partnership with community organizations and lawyers who supervise the students. The University of Toronto’s program illustrates the range clinical programs can take (see here) from those connected to access to justice (such as an externship at the Barbra Schlifer Clinic, which assists domestic abuse victims) to a clinic on “innovation and entrepreneurship”. Some of these opportunities not only train students in practice skills, but also introduce them to the conceptual underpinning of the skills and how they are most effectively implemented. Nevertheless, on the whole, these programs echo Weingarten’s concern that they do not adequately measure students’ achievements.

Indigenous Initiatives

Law school curricula tend to go through phases. When I began teaching (as the Chair in Women and Law) at UNB in 1992, law schools were (and had been) introducing various courses on women and the law. In the years following, students have been able to take courses that consider the impact of law on various underrepresented communities, such as “Critical Race Theory” at U of T or “Disability and the Law” at Osgoode, which also offers a “Disability Law Intensive Program”. The most recent surge has been a considerable increase in courses relating to Indigenous peoples. When I attended Osgoode Hall Law School, there was one optional upper year seminar on Aboriginal law; now there is an Indigenous and Aboriginal Law Requirement (my emphasis). Some schools have included a course in their first year curriculum and almost every school offers courses in this area. Examples of first year courses include the Peter A. Allard School of Law at the University of British Columbia’s courses in “Indigenous Settler Legal Relations” and “Aboriginal and Treaty Rights”, Dalhousie University Schulich School of Law’s “Aboriginal and Indigenous Law in Context” and Windsor’s “Indigenous Legal Traditions”. At Saskatchewan College of Law, first year students take a course called “Kwayeskastasowin Setting Things Right“, which in content resembles other Indigenous law courses elsewhere; however, the course description states the course requires “skills-based training in intercultural competency, conflict resolution, human rights, and anti-racism”. (As the University of Alberta Faculty of Law website explains, “kwayeskastasowin” is “a Cree cognate for the term ‘reconciliation’ that means “setting things right”‘.) The Schulich School offers four upper year courses, addressing different aspects of Indigenous history and current life. Upper year Saskatchewan students must select one from a lengthy list of courses on Indigenous issues. Windsor also offers students a lengthy list of courses in Aboriginal law, including “First Nations Women and the Law”. Calgary Law also has developed a menu of Indigenous Initiatives, including courses (for example, Indigenous Business Law) and other activities. Some schools, such as UNB and Lakehead, have appointed an Indigenous individual as an in-house Indigenous guide (see UNB’s Wihkwatacamit or “the person who loves to tell stories”). And taking the issue beyond the traditional law school classroom, the Allard School also offers an Indigenous Cultural Competence Certificate not only to students, but also to staff and faculty. The University of Victoria’s Faculty of Law has taken the opportunity to take the study of Indigenous legal and related issues a step further; it offers a four year joint degree in Canadian common law and Indigenous Legal Orders. Although temporally-limited, two programs deserve mention in the context of Aboriginal law. In both cases, the programs’ purpose was to educate Inuit students in law in order to increase the number of Inuit lawyers in Nunavut. The first program, Akitsiraq Law School, involved co-operation between Victoria Faculty of Law and Nunavut Arctic College. It ran from 2001 to 2005. Students earned an LLB from Victoria. Created from 2017 to 2021, the Nunavut College of Law was a partnership between Saskatchewan Law, the Arctic College and the government of Nunavut. As was the first program, its purpose was to graduate lawyers to “improve access to justice for Nunavummiut” (residents of Nunavut). Students earned a JD from Saskatchewan. LEARNING CRITICAL SKILLS One can see in the National Requirement skills those Weingarten identifies as components of “classes of learning outcomes” for university students generally (Nothing Less than Great, pp. 50-51). It reflects the “learning outcomes perspective”, which, Weingarten says, “forces [an] organized, cohesive, and comprehensive approach to curriculum design” (Nothing Less than Great, p.46). Commonly, syllabi explain the learning outcomes students should expect from a course and law school course outlines are no different. However, in some cases, the law school identifies these competencies and outcomes in relation to the entire program. One commentator has suggested that “admired lawyers”

have a deep and broad knowledge of important subject areas of the law and the values, policies and principles that underlie them;

understand the potential and limits of legal institutions and their essential characteristics in a society committed to the rule of law;

have the ability to recognize and to define legal and public policy problems clearly, and to contextualize and view them from multiple perspectives;

are able to identify the arguments and interests on all sides of any issue;

appreciate the inherent ambiguities of language, the variety of potential meanings in a particular formulation, and who have an understanding of how context gives meaning to terms but also about the ambiguity of context itself;

are able to determine the relevance of the methods, theories and findings of other disciplines to legal and public policy decision making; and

have a deep appreciation of the multiplicity of factors that explain both legislative outputs and judicial decisions.

(See Kim Brooks, “The Law Practice Program Should Not Be Integrated Into Canadian Law Schools”, Slaw (2014))

This list does not address the more prosaic legal skills practising lawyers need to achieve. The National Requirement does list less advanced skills, but does not take things much further. A legal education purporting to prepare students to use law in myriad ways should allow students to take a range of courses and experiential options that encompass both these paths. As Weingarten indicates, there is a dispute about whether skills such as critical thinking or literacy “must be done within the context of the discipline” or whether they are “context independent and can be measured in a similar way regardless of the field of study” (Nothing Less than Great, p.55). One assumes that at least some critical thinking skills, for example, transcend subject matter and permit people to assess what they see and hear for whether it is internally consistent, consistent or not with similar material accessed elsewhere and with broader understandings of what works or is “right”. These are the skills (which do seem sadly lacking among too many people) that allow a “proper” reading of the newspaper or online material or a useful listening of political speeches or rants or podcasts. Or, indeed, an ability to appraise lectures in the classroom. But different disciplines require its proponents to have the ability to work within the discipline, bringing the foundational principles and knowledge to bear on the various ways it is manifested. Interestingly, in law, there is a movement to make “the law” intelligible to those who haven’t studied law, motivated by pragmatism and an ethical sense that lawyers should not have a monopoly on this knowledge and practice. Partly, this is because too many people cannot afford lawyers and we still want to believe that they can get a fair deal from law, despite evidence to the contrary, and the rise in the access to justice movement. Yet we also believe that those who are skilled at navigating the law are those who graduate from three years at law school. As far as I can tell, law schools struggle with other parts of the university in figuring out how to assess the skills needed “to think like a lawyer”. And yet, this ultimately seems to be a process of osmosis. Everything we learn in law school, different though it may be, and how differently it may be taught, results in brain synapses that just know how to analyse legal questions. Of course, some people are better at it than others, but we cannot tell that until they put it into practice, writ large. DIFFERENTIATING LAW SCHOOLS As Weingarten points out, universities differentiate themselves and are in fact different from each other in a number of ways: size, emphasis on teaching or on research, undergrad or offering grad programs, some with professional schools and others not (Nothing Less than Great, p.99). Perhaps it is not surprising that law schools seem similar to each other, since they are ostensibly preparing students for more or less the same thing. But like many animals that look quite similar to the uninitiated, law schools do differentiate among themselves and people in the law school world do distinguish them. It is also the case that law schools seek to stand out from the crowd by focusing on certain areas of law or on broad objectives. They may also distinguish themselves by crowing about the high GPAs the members of their incoming class have achieved. The University of Toronto establishes its bona fides by offering third year students “The Academic Stream Intensive“, which helps them prepare for a career in law teaching. One thing law schools share with universities more broadly is the attractiveness of their physical plant. Law schools also are “ranked”, as universities are, and there are the same questions about the validity of this process as for the larger institution Weingarten discusses. Nothing Less than Great bemoans the lack of innovation in universities. After noting how old certain universities are in Canada, the United States and Europe, Weingarten writes:

The point is that universities have been around for a long time, and so there must be something about their nature, purpose, and structure that accounts for their longevity and apparent robustness. Some have suggested that one of the reasons for this is their capacity to resist change even when the whole world around them may be shifting. If so, this is an attribute that might admired. At present, however, the apparent reluctance of universities to move and adapt quickly and to be more responsive — their seeming inability to initiate significant curriculum or program changes or reforms — is seen as a negative. (Nothing Less than Great, p.103)

University curricula, especially in the arts and sciences, “would not seem foreign or odd to someone who graduated from that institution a half-century ago” (Nothing Less than Great, p.104). One sees today articles about how the practice of law and the courts are little changed from years ago and in some ways remain the same as they were when law began in earnest in Canada. To some extent this is true, but these complaints — for they are always condemnations of the legal system — rarely consider how the system has changed (the use of technology, even before the pandemic; greater expectations about the use of different forms of dispute resolution; the rise in specialist courts; the resources available for self-represented litigants; and more). To what extent, though, has legal education changed? I’ve discussed briefly the introduction of “access to justice” type courses and particularly the more recent incorporation of extensive Indigenous courses and programs. However, the first year in all the common law law schools in Canada looks much the same as it did when I was in first year 40+ years ago, the same foundational courses in their separate categories. Even then there were efforts to ensure that students took some kind of “perspective course” or minor efforts to teach ethics as taking into account responsibilities beyond the profession’s own rules. Even a course that compared tort and criminal law would look innovative in most first year curricula. However, the rest depended on the particular school: those which were then highly structured with few options remain so today; others that were wide open as far as course selection was concerned remain so today. The distinction there was between those schools that emphasized more of a practice curriculum and those that could offer a broader curriculum to those who expected to practice and those who thought their law degree would stand them in good stead in some other way. There are new law schools that have sought to change their objectives and these have provided in some ways a contemporary version of the way law was taught in the past when apprenticeships were the basis of law study. One of the ingredients of Weingarten’s recipe for reform is to allow greater differentiation among universities. While there may be many differences among law schools, like universities, there is a tendency for most law schools to portray themselves as providing a legal education that allows for different legal careers. Recently, however, two schoolms have broken away from the pack, making it explicit that they fit into a particular box: they are training students to practise law. Although all law schools provide opportunities through clinics or placements for “hands-on” learning, two new schools provide a backward look at the nature of legal education. Legal education began with an apprenticeship with a practising member of the bar; it evolved to acquire a more academic bent within the boundaries of universities and over time the mix of practical courses and experiential options (experiential options) and the academic courses have formed a comprehensive curriculum. The focus on “apprenticeship” now takes place through the more traditional articling (eight months with an approved principal) or through the Law Practice Program (“LPP”), a combination of a four month training course and a four month placement. By incorporating the LLP into their curriculum, the Lincoln Alexander and Boris Laskin law schools turn us back to an earlier form of preparation of lawyers, albeit in a contemporary mode. The Bora Laskin Faculty of Law is unabashedly educating students to practice law: “Law professors are working with practitioners to create hands-on, realistic learning opportunities for students. Much like the model of the Northern Ontario School of Medicine, law students learn by doing; where their classroom instruction is applied in the field.” (see here.) Given the size of the school (65 students in first year), course offerings are limited, although they include two mandatory Indigenous law courses, one being an experiential course in Aboriginal Perspectives. Students are expected to undertake a four month unpaid Practice Placement. The Lincoln Alexander School of Law also prepares students for legal practice, as reflected in its first year curriculum: it is a “Co-teaching model that includes working lawyers to meld theory and practice in each subject area [with a s]pecial focus on current and future technologies that are relevant to legal service.” Ryerson also requires students to take a range of courses usually not available at law schools, such as a “Coding Intensive” and an “E[motional]Q/C[ultural]Q Intensive”. Of course, other law school graduates who do want to practise law must undertake the traditional articling or the newer LPP when they graduate. Thus students at most law schools will have taken a more comprehensive program, even those schools that consider themselves “career ready”, compared to those graduating from Lincoln Alexander or Boris Laskin, who must fit this otherwise “next step” into their law school program. How does one assess the degree of competence in “soft skills” students achieve through experiential learning? If Weingarten is correct about universities and if law schools are only as successful as the broader university, the quality of the assessment is not particularly good (Nothing Less than Great, p.59). I think it fair to say that law schools do not know how to assess soft skills. One of the things I learned as dean is that different kinds of law firms responded differently to the desire of many law students to take as many experiential opportunities as possible. For example, lawyers at smaller firms welcomed these programs because the students they hired were likely, as they saw it, to be ready to go when they started, while lawyers at large firms preferred that they train students in their own approaches, unsullied by habits the students learned at law school. TECHNOLOGY As Weingarten was completing his book, the Covid-19 pandemic, as it did so much else, brought to the fore a topic minimally addressed otherwise: in this case, it required him to consider how well universities can function online and the extent to which this compelled resort to online might turn out to prompt thoughtful and more long-lasting digital initiatives. Law schools have been part of this turn to online teaching and learning, along with other components of the university. And similarly to many of the jobs for which university students are training, the work that many law students expect to do — legal practice — may also take place more online than it has. The legal profession and legal practice has been slowly groping their way towards a more technology enhanced approach, whether video conferencing begun years ago to facilitate the participation of people in remote areas to apps and online systems today that promote their use by unrepresented litigants. Lawyers, of course, need to be familiar with these, especially in certain areas of law. However, during the pandemic, courts and arbitrators have held virtual hearings. Similarly, law schools, as have the broader universities, have operated virtually. Now they may be operating in a hybrid model, relying on vaccination policies. Regardless, this has upped the ante in connecting law students with technology. The Lincoln Alexander School is tackling this head-on, requiring students to take an upper year course on Access to Justice and Technology with the objective of learning ways “to make legal services more affordable for individuals and organizations of limited means”. CONCLUSION As Weingarten writes, one needs to know what the purpose of a university is before it is possible to determine its “quality”:

Any attempt to assess the quality of a university or a university system will necessarily reflect a set of values and attitudes about universities and their purpose. If all that matters to someone is whether a university prepares one adequately for jobs, then their assessments of quality will revolve around post-graduation labour market successes and earnings. If to someone else the essence of a university is to prepare moral, engaged citizens, then their assessment of a university’s quality will centre on indicators that measure these attributes. If to others the central accomplishment of a university is to increase their prestige or international competitiveness, then the measures they select will index these purposes. (Nothing Less than Great, p.158)

The same is true of law schools. Producing more lawyers may seem the main objective, but for some schools exposing students to inequalities in the justice system and to provide the background necessary to assist in contributing to lessening them is also a significant goal. We might even say, they are trying to prepare “moral, engaged citizens” who have a facility to employ the legal system. And now two law schools offer a more restricted — carefully defined? — understanding about what “law” is. Whether they offer few optional courses, as does the Bora Laskin Faculty, or purport to offer almost as wide a range as do bigger schools, as does the Lincoln Alexander School, these two schools provide a clear choice for students who are less interested in the conceptual understanding of law than in being ready to practice on graduation. For the latter especially, the nature of law is transparently a business (as, indeed, it is). To the extent that law schools have the capacity to be “nothing less than great”, shrinking the meaning of law and its appreciation as a fundamental force in society, will leave legal education lacking for many students, albeit not for all. Struggling with the challenges of the hybrid nature of legal education holds out a more encouraging future for law’s capacity to bring about change and for those students who see their contribution as more than (or as defining) their legal practice. In that sense, law schools may at least somewhat satisfy the one type of university Weingarten envisages.

The post Nothing Less Than Great: Reforming Canada’s Universities (How Do Law Schools Fare?) appeared first on Slaw.

The post Nominate Your Favourite New Read appeared first on Slaw.

The post Using Inclusive Language appeared first on Slaw.

The post Announcing the National Family Law Arbitration Course appeared first on Slaw.

Virtual Law Via the Internet 2020 The 2020 Virtual Law Via the Internet Conference offers 24 hours of programming on free access to the law in a changing landscape. The conference takes place on September 22 and 23, 2020, and we are pleased to draw on the expertise of more than 40 speakers from 10 countries. Sessions will be streamed live and available to re-watch during this multi-time zone event. Please note there are 10 minute breaks between sessions. We look forward to having you join us for the first Virtual LVI! Tuesday, September 22, 2020 (EDT) 9:30 am Welcome to LVI 2020 10:00 am Keynote Speech: Cory Doctorow 11:10 am The Potential of LIIs in Data Bias Mitigation 12:30 pm Developing and Maintaining Open Casebooks 1:00 pm #LVI2020 Twitter Break 1:40 pm Exploration of User Attributes and Behaviour in Online Legal Research 2:10 pm Legal information and ICE surveillance: The Dangerous Intersection of Legal Information Access and Human Rights Abuses 3:30 pm Show Don’t Tell: Introducing Legal Concepts on YouTube 4:00 pm Virtual Chat / #LVI2020 Break 4:30 pm Communicating for Impact: Access to Justice and the Public 5:50 pm Is There Notice Without Understanding: The Importance of Plain Language in Legal Writing 6:20 pm Access to Legal Responses to COVID-19 in Latin America and the Caribbean 7:40 pm Mapping Asian Legal Response to COVID-19 8:00 pm Virtual Chat / #LVI2020 Break 8:30 pm Highlighting Legal Access One Podcast at a Time 9:10 pm Copyright and Legal Texts: An Update From America 9:40 pm Free Access to Japanese Law and Beyond: Work on the e-Legislative Activity and Work Support System (e-LAWS) 10:50 pm Closing Remarks for Day 1 Wednesday, September 23, 2020 (EDT) 7:30 am Welcome to LVI 2020 Day 2 8:00 am Keynote Speech: Willy Mutunga 9:10 am Enabling Rapid, Free Access to African COVID-19 Laws 10:30 am Building a Methodology to Extract Data from Court Decisions through Machine Learning 11:00 am Virtual Chat / #LVI2020 Break 11:30 am The Gambia: Realizing the Right to Information 12:50 pm Re-imagining the Government Printer in a Digital World 1:20 pm A Glance to Free Legal Information in the COVID-19 Pandemic 1:40 pm Virtual Chat / #LVI2020 Break 2:50 pm AI for Law-Making 3:20 pm Decolonizing (Access to) Knowledge: Digitizing African Law and Legal Scholarship 4:00 pm Shifting Online: Perspectives from Pandemic Private Practice 4:30 pm Implementing ‘Rules as Code’: Modern Slavery Legislation 5:00 pm Virtual Chat / #LVI2020 Break 5:30 pm A New Model for Legal Publishing: Empowering Legal Professionals through Shared Content Creation 6:10 pm Law, Access, and the Open Casebook 6:50 pm Ethical Use of Symbolic AI in Legal Decision Support Systems 7:30 pm Imagining Sustainable, Global, Open Published Legal Scholarship 8:50 pm Closing remarks Day 2

The post Law via the Internet 2020 appeared first on Slaw.

1. Plan. Before you start writing, think about the purpose of the exercise, your reader, and what you are trying to say. Test out arguments and ideas on friends and colleagues, if possible. Then develop a clear plan – a point form outline – for how you are going to make your argument. The headings in your outline will typically become the headings and sections in your paper. You should be able to have a pretty good idea of what you are trying to say, and how, by simply reading your point form outline. Time spent on an outline will usually be time well spent.
2. Introduction. Include an introduction with a clear thesis statement. Your thesis statement should state what you intend to argue: “This paper is about X. In particular, I will argue …”. It is sometimes helpful also to say something about: why your argument is of interest; why it matters; why it addresses a gap; why it is relevant; the context in which it is situated; the debate you are addressing; and/or the literature you are engaging with, etc. (all of which addresses the “why should the reader care?” question). How much of this “situating” discussion to include will depend on the purpose, context and length of what you’re writing.
3. Roadmap. Provide a roadmap. Explain how you’re going to make your argument. Use sentences like: “First, I will…”; “The second part provides…”; “Part 3 explores…”; etc. Make your reader’s job easy, not hard. Don’t make reading your work a difficult orienteering exercise; rather, paint a clear path to your conclusion.
4. Organization. Organization matters. In line with your roadmap (which should follow your plan), organize the paper with purpose, including within each paragraph/section. Headings help to guide the reader. Each section and paragraph should typically help to make or advance your argument, to set up or refute a counter-argument, or to help conclude the paper.
5. Point first writing. Legal writing often involves the use of point first writing. Point first writing means that the first sentence of every paragraph should clearly state the point of the paragraph. The body of the paragraph should discuss and elaborate what you said in your first sentence.
6. Argumentation. Include arguments to develop your thesis. Make your case. Further, do not forget to address counter-arguments. It’s often more persuasive to take up the case against you, as opposed to ignoring it (your reader will typically be wondering about it). Fairly weigh the argument(s) on the other side, and where possible, explain why your argument is more persuasive, preferable, or at least equally plausible.
7. Language. Spelling and grammar matter. Typos, run-on sentences, sloppy grammar, and too much “legalease” are all distracting. Plain, clear, inclusive and civil language is typically the most persuasive. People have different writing styles but no style properly includes incivility or sloppiness. When you’ve finished writing, put your work down for a few days if you can, then come back to it; you may have a new perspective and find something you previously overlooked. Proofread your work, and if appropriate, have someone else read it as well.
8. Materials. Use materials, including primary and secondary sources – facts, cases, expert opinions, social science research, personal experiences (where relevant), etc. – to support, counter or shape your arguments. However, do not typically summarize the literature you rely on in depth, or write a book report. When summarizing is necessary, do so succinctly. In the context of a law school assignment, you can often assume your reader has read the sources you are referring to, unless they are obscure.
9. Predictability. You do not need to surprise your reader. Predictability is good. By the time a reader gets to the last paragraph, they should be able to anticipate what you are going to say. Your reader should be with you from beginning to end.
10. Instructions. Whatever the context – an essay, memo, factum, etc. – make sure you know what you are being asked to write, and then read and follow all instructions: word limits; citation formats; deadlines; source requirements and limitations; rules of academic honesty, etc.

We know there are other things that matter for some forms of legal writing, particularly depending on the context, including for example: methodology; literature reviews; ethics approval; case summaries; etc. We know we have not covered it all. We know, as we said at the outset, that different people approach it differently. We also know that legal writing is not easy. Reading the work of others is a good way to think about what you find persuasive about legal writing. “Good” legal writing takes practice. We hope these tips may be of use as you develop your legal writing skills.

The post 10 Legal Writing Tips for Law Students appeared first on Slaw.

If you’re reading this blog and are a litigator in Toronto, there’s a fair chance that you’ve been involved either as a participant or an instructor in Osgoode’s Intensive Trial Advocacy Workshop (ITAW). ITAW is a multi-day program that has run every summer for the last 40 years and has had thousands of participants from Toronto, from across Canada, and from other parts of the world. It’s a rigorous program, characterized by advocacy performance in a supportive environment, personalized feedback from experienced instructors from the Bench and Bar trained in ITAW’s teaching methods, and a culminating mock jury trial presided over by volunteer judges, who also provide individual feedback. However, for those readers who couldn’t arrange to take that much time away from work or home, who live outside of Toronto, or who could not otherwise justify the expense, you likely have not participated in ITAW (even if you had wanted to). After a successful fully online pilot of the program this past July, however, it may be that access to this kind of intensive, personalized training provided by experienced litigators and judges can be increased in future. Why was it a big deal to put ITAW online? Plenty of law school courses and CPD offerings are being delivered online because of COVID-19. ITAW does not, however, consist of lectures or group discussions, which are relatively easy to deliver live or recorded on Zoom. ITAW is all about active learning through simulation, performance and individualized feedback, and reflection. Delivering ITAW online was a daunting prospect even for Osgoode Professional Development, an organization with a lot of experience in online delivery. Even though we had a solid plan and a great team, given the number of moving parts, there was a decent risk of failure. Many who had been involved in ITAW said there was no way it could be done successfully online: there are some things that just cannot be done virtually, and ITAW was thought to be one of them. Well, it was done online (including the final trials) and it was more successful than anyone had hoped. There were participants from across and outside of Canada who had always wanted to attend ITAW but couldn’t. Skeptical instructors who nevertheless agreed to jump into the experiment were, by the end, converts who were imagining new possibilities not only for online advocacy training but for advocacy itself. For those who may be contemplating taking a similar leap, here are some reasons we think our pilot worked so well in the short time (about 2 months) we had to make it happen:

• Successful online teaching is not just about technology. It’s about learning design that makes the learning experience – the participants – the priority. The in-person ITAW has always been primarily a student-centered program, so no dramatic shift in pedagogical orientation was needed from that perspective.
• We knew there were skeptics. We knew there were risks. We reduced the consequences of risk by significantly reducing the size of the program and by positioning it as a ‘pilot’ that would be a learning experience. The participants who signed up for the program were aware of the change and eagerly (or at least with cautious optimism) came along for the ride.
• ITAW was already a great combination of legal education, legal practice, project management, and administrative support, requiring collaboration and trust across a team of contributors who are equally valued and respected.
• For the pilot, we selected experienced instructors, who are great teachers, who were willing to be part of the experiment. These experienced trial lawyers and judges were willing to listen and learn about how to be effective online instructors. Their openness and humility were key ingredients for success.
• We started by looking at ITAW’s core values and goals, focussing on what was important to maintain and how we could accomplish those things in a virtual environment. It was essential to enable intimacy between instructor and learner: human connection is key.
• Committed IT support was necessary, although not sufficient for success. In our case, the IT team was not only committed, it was creative. It was also an integral part of the overall program team – being part of ITAW’s design at all stages of the program.
• We did a lot of planning and preparation, including trial runs of more tricky aspects of the online course, such as organizing video-taping of live advocacy performances, working through mock individual feedback sessions, annotating demonstration videos, and working through one-on-one review sessions by instructors in individual online break-out rooms.
• Finally, we were willing to take a risk – not recklessly, but consciously and with eyes wide open.

Although some of us had been thinking about digital possibilities for ITAW for some time, we likely wouldn’t have taken this step but for the pandemic. ITAW had always worked so well (sold out for 40 years!) that it seemed like a formula that we shouldn’t mess with. In light of the pandemic, we could have decided to cancel ITAW this year. But we were driven by the potential of making ITAW more accessible in the future using digital tools and the chance to bring people along with us who might not otherwise have agreed to an online program. We also saw the barriers created by the pandemic as opportunities to experiment with different forms of professional legal education. What we were not prepared for was that putting ITAW online made something that worked well in person work equally well and perhaps even better in some respects online. To the extent that full plenary discussions and demonstrations formed part of the program, those were easily moved to online annotated videos and asynchronous (pre-recorded) lecture sessions. In-person performance and critique sessions, although done remotely (on Zoom), maintained much of their effectiveness through small group environments with highly engaged and committed instructors and participants. Many trial skills – cross examination, direct examination, openings, closings, etc. – can be worked on in a virtual environment (as we learned). There is no doubt that the virtual ITAW lacked the personal element of ‘being in the room’ together. That was not replaced (although Zoom worked remarkably well). Further, some of the skills around how to present in a large courtroom before a live jury were also missing. However, what was gained was the ability to perform, critique and reflect on the skills of remote advocacy, which includes a somewhat different skill set. Certainly, in the time of COVID-19, being able to argue a case online has become important for all litigators. Given the changes that are rapidly occurring across the justice system, including an increasing number of online hearings at all levels of courts and tribunals, it is likely these new skills will stay relevant for a long time to come. Our successful experiment with a training program that many assumed couldn’t possibly be done except ‘in person’ raises possibilities in other domains in legal education, law practice and in the justice system. By the time we held the pilot, many of the ITAW instructors and participants had started to engage in online mediations and hearings. Through the ITAW experience, they were further energized by the potential for conducting ‘high touch’ legal transactions online. In some ways, the ITAW trials provided early examples of how full trials can be successfully done online. It’s hard to imagine what the next 40 years will bring for ITAW, and trial advocacy for that matter, but there’s no doubt that online delivery – at least in part – will figure prominently. The pilot this summer gave us some insight into that future and made us excited for what’s to come. — Trevor C.W. Farrow, Professor, Osgoode Hall Law School, and Victoria Watkins, Executive Director, Osgoode Professional Development

The post Trial Advocacy Training Online? Successful Pilot Creates New Possibilities appeared first on Slaw.

1. A licence for licensed paralegals and others with appropriate training to offer some family law legal services. Recognizing the urgency of the need, this [new family legal services] licence will support training in process navigation, form completion, investigating forms such as financial, motions to change, and uncontested divorces, and possibly other areas outside the courtroom context. 2. At the same time, assess what additional family legal services by providers other than lawyers, and including advocacy, are in the public interest, and consider how to develop a further expanded licence, following resource-related discussions with government. (FLSPL Paper, p.3)

Subsequently, the Family Law Working Group (FLWG), a subgroup of the LSO’s Access to Justice Committee, composed of lawyers practising family law and paralegals with litigation experience, considered the development of a specific licence to allow paralegals to provide family legal services by focusing on

1. Scope of permissible activities. 2. Competencies (the knowledge, skills, and abilities required to carry out the permissible activities). 3. Education, training, and assessment based on the identified competencies. (FLSPL Paper, p.3)

The principles underlying the future licence were access to justice (that it meets unmet needs in family law), protection of the public and viability of practice, including “that the training requirements are attainable”). Also justifying this new licence is the assumption that paralegals’ billing practices differ from those of lawyers (particularly lawyers’ hourly billing and higher rates), making them more affordable for people who otherwise would be unrepresented. During the two years spent in developing the proposed licence, the FLWG met with various experts and practitioners and took into account the initiatives in family law since 2016, including the LSO’s “Family Law Limited Scope Services” project, designed to increase “limited scope retainers, legal coaching, and summary legal counsel” and the changes to come into effect in March 2021 in areas under federal jurisdiction, as well as developments in other jurisdictions (FLSPL Paper, pp.5-6). Those holding the new licence (called “family services providers”) would not be able to provide services in all areas (that is, they would not easily be able to substitute for family law lawyers); rather, the scope of permitted activities was based on the following factors: “area of need, frequency, level of risk, level of conflict/complexity and teachable in the proposed training program” (FLSPL Paper, pp.6-7). I will not replicate the details of the FLSP services, areas of practice (and those “out of scope”), circumstances under which the holder of the licence would not be allowed to act under any circumstances or the competencies the licence holders must meet. Both services and areas of practice are broadly identified; the areas excluded are if income determination is involved; third-party experts (with some exceptions) or valuators; relocation/mobility; and cohabitation agreements and marriage contracts. (A detailed table of permissible and out of scope areas is found in the FLSPL Paper, Appendix B, Tab 5.2.) The family services provider cannot deal with more than one home or where a claim is for unequal division of property. Of course, the exclusions mean the list of permitted areas is not as broad as they may seem. For example, while “parenting orders and decision-making [custody and access]” are permitted areas, they are not permitted if a third-party expert, such as a child psychologist, or relocation is involved): this is reinforced by the areas in which the licence holder is not permitted to act under any circumstances, which include “matters overlapping with an area that is out of scope for the FLSP licence”. The list of competencies builds on those already required of paralegals “with an emphasis on specific skills required to provide family legal services”; there are 209 competencies in 8 areas: ethics and professional responsibility; knowledge of the law; substantive family law; problem, issue identification, analysis, and assessment; alternative dispute resolution; litigation process; practice management issues; and prohibitions. (FLSPL Paper, p.8) (A detailed table is available in the FLSPL Paper, Appendix C, Tab 5.3.) I refer to more specific competencies in relation to my discussion below of courses to be included in the training program. As for preparation of the licence holders, the program as developed to this point will take 6 to 8 months full-time (20 hours a week of instruction) or one year on a part-time basis of 10 hours a week. It “is informed by the Law Society’s paralegal education framework and has been supported by an environmental scan of family law education programs for law students, law clerks, family lawyers, and others” (FLSP Paper, p.8). (Current paralegal education programs are largely prescribed by the Law Society of Ontario.) The program may also include a requirement of prior paralegal experience and/or a placement, a licensing examination and Continuing Professional Development. Many, if not most or all, of the potential entrants to the program will have already pursued a paralegal education. For example, Humber College offers a four-year Bachelor of Paralegal Studies program, as well as other paralegal programs (disclosure: I served on a review panel for renewal of this program’s accreditation and therefore am using it to consider the relationship between training for paralegals for all other areas of law and their training to offer family law services). (There are many other paralegal programs at colleges in Ontario, such as Seneca, Durham and Centennial, among others, although they are all shorter than the four year applied degree at Humber.) The Humber Paralegal Studies degree does not offer family law because paralegals cannot provide family law services, but it does offer a wide range of courses analogous to those offered at law schools. Nevertheless, the proposed family legal services provider program is far more detailed, except perhaps in the generic competencies, than any area under the Humber program. It is understandable that current paralegals require additional training in family law. In the normal course, students studying to be paralegals would expect to learn family law as they now do criminal law or law practised before tribunals, for example. Having created the family legal services provider licence, with its more extensive requirements than any area under current programs, it is difficult to imagine that the LSO would subsequently allow the incorporation of a very detailed family law program into the existing course requirements for future paralegal students. If that’s the case, even future paralegals who have already spent time and money gaining their paralegal accreditation would have to then go through another program, expending time and money in order to offer limited services in family law. The use of the specific label, “family legal services provider” (FLSP) suggests this is meant to be a distinct speciality, perhaps more carefully aligned with the practice of family lawyers than other areas of paralegal practice. The proposed mandatory courses listed in the FLSPL Paper at Appendix D, Tab 5.4 have been provided in the context of a Request for Information “for the purpose of gathering information from accredited teaching facilities about the delivery of an educational training program for the Family Legal Service Provider (“FLSP”) Licence, in the context of a broad consultation on the licensing framework”. Obviously, the required courses must reflect the expected competencies. It is not my intention to discuss the identified competencies, except in passing, but rather to indicate where I believe the courses listed fail to align with at least some of them. Although “declin[ing] to act when a matter is outside the permitted scope of practice” is an “entry-level competence” for paralegals, the distinction between permitted and non-permitted activity and areas of practice for paralegals has been more clearly established up to now. However, the distinction between activities “within scope” and those “out of scope” is more complicated under the proposed FLSP licence. And, of course, acquisition of an FLSP licence does not extend the FLSP’s scope of practice beyond the permitted activities for a P1 licence under Bylaw 4. (See, for example, the injunction that a paralegal “does not act where there are issues outside of the current scope for paralegals as articulated in By-law 4 [Prohibitions (Practice Restrictions), 8.1.208]. The curriculum for the FLSPL program must satisfy the following criteria: allow the acquisition of required competencies and must reflect the permitted services and areas of practice specific to the provision of family legal services contemplated by the FLSPL. I use an example of a course that is included, a course that may only partially satisfy these criteria and suggest two courses that would more fully prepare FLSPs for the current conditions of practice. The included course is “Intimate Partner Violence” (“IPV”). (IPV is not listed independently as a permitted service, but presumably is included because it might be a crucial element of familial relationships.) The list of courses does not include details about content and therefore there are certainly matters that do not appear in the information provided that might well be included in an IPV course. However, some idea of what is expected and the relationship to family legal services practice can be discerned from the list of competencies. Thus one competency is as follows:

identifies power imbalances, domestic abuse, or intimate partner violence. (Substantive Family Law [Victims of Domestic Abuse and Intimate Partner Violence], 3.12.126)

Although intimate partner violence (IPV) is a matter of substantive law, signals indicating IPV need to be identified where it exists, even if not raised explicitly. The ability to identify these signals should be considered as a competence, indicating that it should be included in course content. There are two additional issues here, however. The first is what to do if a FLSP is concerned about whether a client is experiencing IPV. The question is, “what to do about it?” Another competency appears to answer this question in the appropriate case:

recognizes urgency and takes emergency steps where necessary (e.g., refraining orders, restraining orders, and preservation orders). (Problem, Issue Identification, Analysis, & Assessment [Information Gathering, Case Analysis, and Planning], 4.1.145)

(The entry-level competencies include the more general “Recognizes urgency and takes emergency steps where necessary” under Information Gathering, Case Analysis and Planning, 139.) Yet if the FLSP has also recognized that the actual issue the potential client has raised is outside the scope of the FLSP licence, they must cease acting. A competency is that the FLSP

understands and identifies, initially and on an ongoing basis, when domestic abuse and intimate partner violence issues are out of FLSP scope and declines to act or continue to act. (Substantive Family Law [Victims of Domestic Abuse and Intimate Partner Violence], 3.12.125)

The second issue, then, is that the competencies do not appear to address what the family legal services provider should do once declining to act, except in the general sense: when matters are outside the scope of the paralegal’s licence under Bylaw 4 or under the FLSP licence, the family legal services provider must

“decline[] to continue to act and refer[] the matter to a lawyer where issues arise during the course of the retainer that are outside of the scope of permissible practice” (Prohibitions [Practice Restrictions], 8.1.208].

It would be more appropriate if prior to ceasing to act, the competent FLSP were expected to advise the individual about resources to access to address the issue (that is, it be included in the competencies, with some information about sources included in the course). My example of a course that partially satisfies the criteria is “Indigenous Family Legal Services”, recognizing that this is an area with distinctive characteristics and legal requirements. There are no other courses reflecting the range of clients with whom a FLSP may deal. Paralegals may have been exposed to the relevant Indigenous issues during their earlier education, but they won’t have been exposed to how they play out in family law. At the same time, the course highlights that family issues may take different forms in different cultural or other communities, even if not the subject of legal requirements. Taking both the specific Indigenous course and the more general recognition of cultural (and other) differences, there are a number of entry-level paralegal competencies relating to cultural issues under Ethics and Professionalism (the numbers are the numbers under the entry-level competencies):

47. Recognizes how cultural differences may impact interactions between lawyers, paralegals, clients and others from diverse cultural groups. 48. Analyzes how cultural differences may impact interactions between lawyers, paralegals, clients and others from diverse cultural groups. 49. Adjusts perceptions and behaviours to respond to lawyers, paralegals, clients and others from diverse cultural groups. 50. Implements appropriate policies and practices that support the integration of cultural diversity, equality, and inclusion in the provision of legal services.

It needs to be clear that cultural, religious and similar factors play out in particular ways in family disputes and the competencies expected under the FLSP licence reflect this:

recognizes, and is sensitive to, the client’s circumstances, special needs, and intellectual capacity (e.g., diversity, language, levels of literacy, socioeconomic status, disability, health). (Ethics and Professional Responsibility, Ethics and Professionalism, 1.1.2)

understands the impact of involving third-party authorities, such as police or a Children’s Aid Society, and the duty to report. (Ethics and Professional Responsibility, Ethics and Professionalism, 1.1.5)

understands diversity (e.g., culture, religion, nationality) and its potential impact in family law matters (e.g., religious barriers, advice on barriers to remarriage, parenting). (Ethics and Professional Responsibility, Ethics and Professionalism, 1.1.13)

applies the principle of “best interests of the child” based on legislation and case law (e.g., contact issues, child’s wellbeing, parental conduct, bonding, stages of child development, special needs, religious and ethical upbringing, financial needs, sibling separation, special considerations for First Nations, Inuit, and Métis children). (Substantive Family Law [Parenting Orders and Decision Making, including Motions to Change], 3.1.37)

demonstrates awareness of the impact of self-governance and customary laws on Indigenous communities, including inherent jurisdiction, self-government agreements, and law/by-law making authority (e.g., customary marriages). (Substantive Family Law) [Indigenous Issues in Family Law], 3.14.138)

addresses potential power imbalances in alternate dispute resolution. (Alternative Dispute Resolution) [Alternative Dispute Resolution], 5.1.155

Although FLSPs are expected to show competence in relation to cultural and other issues that might arise, there is no course, other than in relation to Indigenous Family Legal Services, that addresses how to identify or learn about these issues. And there is not a course in the education for paralegals more generally that concentrates on these issues. These concerns loom large today, as the LSO’s own policies reflect, and deserve explicit consideration; it is not possible to identify all the relevant issues, practices or experiences, but it is possible to provide guidelines to assist paralegals in how to identify them or how to raise them with clients. My last two examples, courses that are not but might usefully be included, relate to the use of technology and helping clients benefit from the assistance of other workers in the legal system (other than lawyers). The use of technology involves not only the FLSP’s own technological competence, which is minimally referred to under Practice Management Issues (7.1.196), but also the client’s relationship to technology, which may influence how the FLSP communicates with the client, the extent to which a client may be able to undertake certain tasks or other matters. (This is not addressed in the competency about |appropriate communication strategies for the client” [Ethics and Professional Responsibility, 1.1.3].) Technological accessibility is also relevant to other factors FLSPs are meant to take into account, whether particular forms of disability, access to computers or broadband and other matters. The FLSP also needs to know how to communicate with clients who may be experiencing IPV. Whether these issues are addressed in a separate course or throughout the program, knowledge in this regard should be identified as a competency. FLSPs should be aware that there may be other legal actors who may be of assistance to their client in the appropriate circumstances, such as “trusted intermediaries” or “community justice help” (for a recent consideration of the latter, see Community Justice Help: Advancing Community-Based Access to Justice). This is different from “engaging experts” or “advising about available resources” (see Problem, Issue Identification, Analysis, & Assessment [Information Gathering, Case Analysis, and Planning], 4.1.147 and 4.1.148) or acknowledging that the matter may be beyond the FLSP’s abilities (see Practice Management Issues [Practice Management], 7.1.199), but refers to being able to connect clients to others in the system who may be able to relate more effectively. Knowing how to do this should be a competence, with a course that, again, is more about providing guidance on how to do so rather than substantive information about various intermediaries or community justice workers. A significant number of members of the family bar have been opposed to allowing paralegals to practice family law, even under supervision. The introduction of the family legal services provider licence would both separate the FLSP from the “ordinary” paralegal and from a family lawyer: the first because it requires existing paralegals and probably future paralegals to undertake subsequent training after their initial education if they want to offer family legal services and the second because the scope of family legal services is limited to the extent that even inside scope services or areas are off limits if issues identified as out of scope arise initially or during representation by a FLSP. The competencies required must address both the substance of family law, as well as all the ancillary issues that arise in practice, and to some extent duplicate the paralegal education already in existence. The same is true of the training for the FLSP licence. For the most part, the proposal satisfies these requirements; however, there are possible improvements that would allow the the FLSP to develop a more effective relationship with the client and provide a more comprehensive degree of assistance, even in cases in which they cannot act.

The post Comments on the LSO’s Education Plan for a Family Legal Services Provider Licence appeared first on Slaw.

My CALL-eagues and I hope that you are not suffering from Zoomsaustion and can join in. Thank you to all our sponsors for this virtual conference series: LexisNexis, Thomson Reuters, CiteRight, Elsevier, Emond Publishing, HeinOnline, LLMC Digital, Lucidea, and vLex Justis.

The post CALL/ACBD 2020 Virtual Conference Series appeared first on Slaw.

The post Add Some Education to Your Week appeared first on Slaw.

• The Mockingbird Network was started by University of Ottawa law student James Alexander. Practitioners and Faculty can register their smaller projects for students, which may range from basic document drafting and legal research tasks, to help with drafting marketing materials. Rates for law students range from $20-40/hr (more for connecting with graduate students); and they encourage smaller budgets, helping firms avoid the necessity of committing to a full-time summer hire.
• LawLinks is another network recently started by two sisters: Davina Shivratan, a recent graduate from UofT Law; and Nadia Shivratan, just finishing up 1L at Windsor Law. LawLinks seek to connect students who want to volunteer their time with specific projects that organizations need help with. Launched only a few weeks ago, LawLinks already have over 200 law student volunteers registered & countless projects matched.

Now, wouldn’t it be nice for law firms to step up here? In a down economy, this kind of smaller micro-project level commitment makes a lot of sense. Not only is the financial aspect customizable to each firm’s budget, but one might use these networks as an opportunity to ‘graze’ the field of available students. Rather that hiring a couple FTEs over the course of a single summer, firms can sample the work of a lot more candidates. Of course, here’s the crux: Students need the help right now. The month of June is only days away, so many students have already lost their first month of potential summer experience (and income). Does your firm need help? Do they the have capacity to create these types of micro-tasks? If you wanted to act on this, now would be the time. Finally, my entrepreneurial hat is off to the three students involved in these networks: James, Davina & Nadia — Well done!

The post Lawyers Helping Law Students (In Smaller Bites) appeared first on Slaw.

You may consider yourself a law librarian, knowledge manager, legal researcher, legal information provider, legal technology developer, legal information specialist or user, or not – it doesn’t matter to us – you are welcome to join in. You may be a member of CALL or a member of a law library sister association, or not – regardless of whether you paid your modest CALL/ACBD membership fee for 2020 – you are welcome to our virtual conference series.

Visit the Canadian Association of Law Libraries virtual conference site: https://www.callacbd.ca/2020-Virtual-Conference to see the program offerings and register for the conference. Our 2020 educational conference is being offered for no fee whatsoever.

Our virtual conference kicks off next week with some amazing speakers and carry’s on through to June 12. There will be opportunities to connect with legal information partners and to share some social time together as well.

First up are these amazing speakers:

• May 25, 2020 12pm ET Daniel Dale Putting Facts First: A Conversation with CNN’s Daniel Dale
• May 26, 2020 12pm ET Dianne Saxe Climate Crisis and Liability – Will Carbon Majors Have to Pay for Climate Damage?
• May 27, 2020 12pm ET Joshua Sealy-Harrington Putting Speech and Equality in Conversation, not Opposition: A Legal And Policy Discussion of Recent Controversies Surrounding the Platforming of Trans-Exclusionary Speakers

Recordings of select sessions within the conference series will be made available to CALL/ACBD Members.

We welcome everyone to our membership, so here is a link if you wish to join. Members are invited to attend our Annual General Meeting on May 26 at 1 PM Eastern time – a virtual meeting of course!

The post Virtual Conference Series for Legal Information Specialists appeared first on Slaw.

• provides the authority to create a Fair Registration Practices Office
• reduces the red tape associated with the assessment of foreign credentials
• works with regulators to ensure registration practices are transparent, objective, impartial and fair
• maintains Alberta’s high professional standards

The organizations that are subject to the legislation include all colleges governed under the Health Professions Act, the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists, Alberta Institute of Agrologists, Law Society of Alberta, Chartered Professional Accountants of Alberta, Real Estate Council of Alberta and many other professional regulatory bodies. The legislation also applies to certain ministries that are responsible for assessing the credentials of professionals and workers in some industries. Effective March 1, Regulatory bodies are required to:

• assess applications and communicate assessment decisions within specific timeframes for interim registration decisions and within
• reasonable timeframes for final registration decisions
• submit reports regarding fair registration practices to the Minister of the act

The fair registration practices office will work with trade and professional licensing bodies to streamline, simplify and accelerate foreign credential recognition, with the goal of giving applicants for licensure an interim decision within six months or less of their application. The UCP government also promised a $2.5 million budget for the fair registration practices office in the 2019 budget. Professional regulatory bodies have an obligation to cooperate with reviews and audits, and failure to cooperate constitutes an offence. The new law establishes a number of other offences, including the failure to submit a report to the Minister when requested to do so, providing false or misleading information in a report or failing to comply with a compliance order. Individuals convicted of an offence may be subject to a maximum fine of $25,000 and corporations may be fined up to $50,000. Some of the key elements of the legislation will be set out in the Regulation, including the maximum time period for issuing a Registration Decision, the training that decision-makers must receive before assessing qualifications of applicants and audit standards and scope of audits. Regulation and the fair registration practices office will be in place before March 1.

Why the need for the Fair Registration Practices Act?

The government has stated that they “heard from many newcomers who are underemployed and unable to contribute to our economy at their skill level. All too often this is because they are waiting for months, even years for their credentials to be recognized. This delay not only impacts newcomers to our province; it also hurts our economy. We are inviting skilled immigrants to Alberta because their skills are in demand, and then due to unnecessary delays, these skilled newcomers are not able to get to work in their profession. By introducing this legislation, we will create a win-win situation for newcomers as well as Alberta as their skills help to grow and diversify our economy.” The government hopes that this new law will speed up the process where possible, maintain high professional standards, and increase fairness and transparency. This is a key part of the fairness for newcomers plan to reduce red tape, reignite the economy and return Albertans back to work. This new law is similar to legislation enacted in Ontario, Manitoba and Nova Scotia that requires professional regulatory organizations to ensure their registration practices are transparent, objective, impartial and fair.

Impact on Regulatory bodies

Many professional regulatory bodies see that their actions will be under increased scrutiny with the enactment of this legislation. Regulators can no longer simply state that their registration practices are transparent, objective, impartial and procedurally fair. They will have to prove it. Meeting these standards will present challenges for all professional regulatory bodies, which will need to deploy appropriate resources to review their registration practices and determine where their practices may be falling short and what changes may be required. In addition, once the legislation is proclaimed, professional regulatory bodies will be required to participate in reviews and audits, implement changes depending on the outcome of the review or audit, and comply with additional reporting requirements. As a result of these changes, professional regulatory bodies may need to shift their priorities and re-deploy existing resources in order to meet their obligations.

The post Alberta Fair Registration Practices of Regulatory Bodies Proclaimed in Force appeared first on Slaw.