A recent decision of the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, in the judge’s words “highlights the perils of not having a dispute resolution mechanism built into a contract.”

Madam Justice Loparco described the lawsuit in North Pacific Properties Ltd v Bethel United Churches of Jesus Christ Apostolic of Edmonton as a “Jenga tower.”

The case involved a very complicated real estate deal (119 paragraphs summarizing the evidence). The saga started in 2006, with an agreement to sell property to a developer and transfer of part of it back to the Bethell church. The original buyer assigned the purchase agreement to . . . [more]

Observers of the justice system and the legal profession, as well as writers of myriad reports by the Canadian Bar Association and others seeking to improve access to justice, all come to the same conclusion: to be successful, the system must be human-centred – arranged around and for the people it serves.

This should be a given – to be successful any enterprise has to think about what the people using its services need. Successful enterprises remove as many obstacles for users as possible, in order to provide a friction-free experience.

One of the frequent complaints from those who need . . . [more]

By Daniel Standing LL.B., Editor, First Reference Inc.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice issued a ruling in Sager v. TFI International Inc., 2020 ONSC 6608 which considered an interesting contract interpretation issue that arose in the underlying wrongful dismissal claim. The termination clause appeared to be generous to the employee but was ultimately found invalid for violating the Canada Labour Code. As a result, the employee was entitled to more notice than he received under the contract. . . . [more]

Legal institutions demonstrate both a reliance on and a resistance to evidence-based decision-making. Across all areas of the law, cases are built, argued and decided on evidence that is meticulously gathered and assessed. Rigorous fact-seeking is the standard that gives credibility to law’s oft-cited assurances of impartiality and due process. Yet, the very legal mechanisms for which this standard informs and justifies decisions are often themselves without the data necessary to evaluate the frameworks within which they operate. The result is that there is a lack of data in the legal field in Canada (and elsewhere) on the processes used . . . [more]

In an article by Slate.com, Pilar Escontrias proclaims “It’s time to see the bar exam for what it truly is: the relic of a racist club.” The bar exam in the United States has a “sordid history as one of the many racialized gatekeeping mechanisms into the practice of law. The legal profession was a virtually unregulated, open field of practice for generations until immigrants, Black, and Jewish people started applying for bar admission in the late 19th century”. Suddenly the bar exam emerged. One reason for the bar exam was to act as a gatekeeper against minorities.

In . . . [more]

[The Full-text of the following summary can be downloaded from the SSRN (Feb. 1, 2021).]

The riotous insurrection at the Washington Capitol building on January 6th is a good example of this truth: “The strength of a nation’s rights, freedoms and rule of law lies not in its Constitution but in its politics.” On January 27, 2021, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security issued a “National Terrorism Advisory System (NTAS) Bulletin,” warning of, “a heightened threat environment across the United States,” and, “violent riots have continued in recent days,” and, “ideologically-motivated actors” could incite further violence. But President . . . [more]

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

For this last week:

1. Kaushal v. Vasudeva et al., 2021 ONSC 440 (CanLII)

[54] The risk of mischief on a virtual examination is an area which has yet to be fully explored, although the possibility has been adverted to. Myers, J. in Arconti et al. v. Smith et al, 2020 ONSC 2782, did not disallow the use of a virtual examination just because of . . . [more]

The forthcoming travel requirements issued by Transport Canada have raised some ire in certain quarters, primarily among those who desire to travel for vacations or to spend time at winter homes during the pandemic and now must face an increased cost. The travel requirements do not prohibit international travel; rather, they make it difficult and come with additional cost. What are the constitutional implications of these regulations? . . . [more]

Over the years, I’ve had the honour of being invited into many law firms to examine and make recommendations on their strategy, structure, practice areas, compensation, management, leadership, and marketing.

My initial advice is always the same: start with a strategic plan so you understand your long-term goals before you attempt any short-term implementation. But aside from this, my advice tends to move quickly to ensuring the right people are doing the right things. This might require some process or structural re-organization within the firm but the end of the day it all boils down to one thing: establish and . . . [more]

Here are excerpts from the most recent tips on SlawTips, the site that each week offers up useful advice, short and to the point, on practice, research, writing and technology.

Research & Writing

Unnecessary Lawyerisms
Neil Guthrie

These aren’t always confined to lawyers; they permeate the e-mail and speech of law clerks, legal assistants and students. Advised: The phrase Please be advised that … has to be one of the most leaden openings of all time. Cut to the chase and just convey the actual information, without the pointless preamble. … . . . [more]

The fear of being replaced by “robots” is not unique to our profession. Automation is predicted to impact even highly skilled workers. But the legal profession is well placed to ride the waves of artificially intelligent systems with confidence rather than panic.[1] We should not be concerned about being replaced—it should be our A.I. assistants that should concern us, particularly those marketed as case or litigation prediction tools.

The legal profession should embrace AI tools that improve efficiencies, access to justice and results for our clients. However, we must set thoughtful norms about how new and old lawyers alike . . . [more]