AI Tools in an Immigration Practice

This past CBA National Immigration conference in Ottawa marked the 20th year I have attended this rendezvous. Every year, the conference is packed with updates from IRCC and brainstorming with colleagues from across Canada. After each conference, I meet with my team to review new programs and innovations from other law firms.

AI issues started to creep into the conference in 2023. A friend and colleague, Will Tao, did excellent work at that time reporting on the use of Chinook at IRCC and he published the article, AI statecraft heating-up: the automation of governance through Canada’s Chinook case study.  Back in 2023, I think it is fair to say that most immigration lawyers were against the use of AI tools (whether Chinook is/was an AI tool is, by itself, a subject of debate) and the conference was a chance for lawyers to question the government’s use of such tools.

From my perspective, the CBA National Immigration conferences in 2024 & 2025 continued to focus on the potential negative side of AI. I published my thoughts on the AI Tools from 2025 here. In addition, each year, it seems, more and more of the sessions either focused on AI or it became part of the presentation indirectly.

[By the way, just for the record, I did not use AI to generate or edit this post. It has been drafted by a carbon-based life form, with all its flaws.]

The recent 2026 conference seemed to mark a shift. The sessions and topics seemed to focus less on how AI may violate principles of procedural fairness and how to prepare applications to actually get a human decision-maker to, instead, the sessions focused more on what AI tools to incorporate within our practice. Quite the shift.

It’s funny how these technologies slowly bleed into normalcy. It’s like a slow burn. At first, we’re cautious about how the benefits of the old system may be eroded by the new. Then, as the new becomes the new normal, we tend to just forget about how we used to do things and, instead, focus on being the most efficient with the new tools. And that basically sums up the 2026 conference.

The Horse Has Left The Barn

During Mario’s speech on this topic, he noted that the proverbial AI horse has left the barn. That is to say, the issues which were raised in 2024 and 2025 seem to be out of date and there is no going back to the old system. To be honest, I’m not sure if we are at that point yet, but we are certainly close.

Jordan Furlong gave an excellent keynote. One of his key points is that, apparently, immigration lawyers may be difficult to be replaced by AI. IP lawyers, not so much. There was audible relief from the audience at that statement.

I can understand my colleagues’ enthusiasm for streamlining their workflow by implementing these shiny tools. Work smarter, not harder is a sound approach to most situations. Increasing efficiency sounds very nice. My concerns, which have not changed since 2023, is we still need to think about what we may sacrifice when we embrace these tools.

Who Sacrifices From Adopting These Tools?

To an extent, the immigration bar is a bit different from other areas of practice as many of us run a small business. At my firm, for example, I have a team of 9 staff, including 2 lawyers, 2 immigration consultants and 5 support staff. At the conference, one of the key “selling points” to adopting these AI tools is that these firms may need less support staff – or possibly no support staff at all!

It goes without saying that small business owners loathe HR issues. Sure. Who wants to deal with training new staff or supervising their time? Or juggling files when a worker takes a vacation? The firms that fully embrace AI tools envision a world free of HR issues. Sure, who doesn’t want that?

I spoke with a lawyer in the GTA who is fully on board. She has an AI agent book her meetings, fill out forms, organize her time and draft replies to clients. She recently laid off 3 support staff and she couldn’t be happier. Her clients are mostly corporate executives and HR Managers who have a high level of tech skills. So for her business, I can see how these tools make sense.

Who is Your Client?

I remember during my time at Queen’s Law, our professors would hammer the point that we need to constantly think about the best interests of our clients. Absolutely. In my practice, the vast majority of our clients are individuals and most have limited computer skills. I love working with international students, families trying to be reunited, workers who want to use their skills, and refugee claimants who are trying to build a safe home. We deal with messy situations and litigate, when necessary. These are my clients. I love meeting face to face. Clients bring their kids and their pets to the office. We hand out Canadian flag pins and sweets. That’s our vibe.

Our firm has glass walls, a fully stocked kitchen, a conference room which is almost always booked and we have most of our conversations face to face. We even have extra laptops for clients to use because many of our clients don’t have their own computers. Our firm could be the set of a legal sitcom from the 90s and it suits us just fine. For our firm and for our clients, the AI tools don’t make sense. But

The Next Sacrifice?

I can see how the world is moving towards these new systems. I can understand my colleagues’ enthusiasm for streamlining their workflow by implementing these shiny tools. I can certainly understand the appeal of not having to deal with HR issues.

But what is the next sacrifice? If lawyers can easily replace support staff with AI agents to streamline their systems, maybe the next step is to just cut the lawyers from the system altogether. Jordan seems to think that the business of immigration law may last longer than other areas of law; however, it seems to be just a matter of time until we are all replaced. I may start to take classes in plumbing, just in case…