Navigating the legal system is challenging for any self-represented litigant (SRL), but for victim-survivors of intimate partner violence (IPV) or family violence, it can also be deeply retraumatizing. Without a lawyer, SRLs are directly exposed to the adversarial nature of the court process, where abusers can continue harassing victim-survivors through aggressive and oppositional tactics. At least 40% of family law litigants self-represent, often because they earn too much to qualify for legal aid but not enough to sustain representation. Abusers exploit this financial vulnerability, hoping that financial hardship will force their victims to give in—particularly in custody and support disputes. . . . [more]

As humans, we tend to navigate the world through emotion: quietly, instinctively, and sometimes unconsciously. What are emotions, if not the very fabric of how we live in the world? They’re how we feel, of course, but are also how we communicate, often without even realizing it. They drive our decisions: in relationships, in politics and in marketplaces. They connect us to each other and shape how we understand ourselves. But emotions are also deeply personal. While our faces might betray a flicker of joy or sadness, only we know the full story; the nuanced reasons why we feel what . . . [more]

A considerable amount of Canadian legal scholarship exists within the boundaries of either civil or criminal law. Each camp generally invites separate consideration of gaps, standards, trends, shifts, and other issues. Rarely do these two domains of scholarship meet. A similar divide is apparent in legal practice, with the civil and criminal legal systems commonly viewed as separate arms within our broader legal machinery. There are certainly valid reasons for the siloing of these bodies of law. For those trained in law, the divide between civil and criminal law and the reasons for it will be clear, logical, and in . . . [more]

This week, the BC government rammed through two controversial bills aimed at fast-tracking project approvals: Bill 14, Renewable Energy Projects (Streamlined Permitting) Act, and Bill 15, Infrastructure Projects Act. They appear to be intended as a response to US tariffs, economic uncertainty and affordability concerns: Adrian Dix, Minister of Energy and Climate Solutions, cited “this period of global market uncertainty” in a statement accompanying Bill 14, while Premier David Eby referred to this “time of uncertainty caused by Donald Trump’s tariffs” in the public announcement of Bill 15.

But instead of providing greater certainty and improving . . . [more]

Across Canada, the promise of accessible justice too often ends at the courthouse door. While our legal frameworks—from the Charter to provincial human rights codes—declare that people with disabilities deserve equal treatment in court, the reality on the ground tells another story. Inconsistent practices, unclear processes, and invisible barriers routinely frustrate the ability of litigants with disabilities—especially those who are self-represented—to participate fully in legal proceedings.

In my research on disability and access to justice, one conclusion became unavoidable: without dedicated institutional roles to oversee and facilitate accessibility in courts, equity will remain aspirational. It’s time for Canada to appoint . . . [more]

After I wrote this column but before it went to press, my colleague Brandon Trask of UManitoba posted a similar column to the RobsonCrim blog. To the extent that I repeat some points he’s made, that repetition is valuable and worthwhile. I encourage readers to check it out.

What should and must a lawyer do when their client, or the representative of their client, attacks judges and large unidentified swaths of the entire bench? What if the lawyer is standing next to them when they do so? What if the lawyer is the Attorney General and the speaker is the . . . [more]

Authoritarian attacks on foundational principles of the rule of law have escalated in the United States since President Trump’s inauguration. This column expands on my previous column and looks at the role of Christian religious nationalists who have joined politicians and billionaires in the Trump administration’s mission to dominate every branch of the US government and civil society, and to invert the rule of law in North America and globally.

Religious nationalism in a global context

Historical records are strewn with tragic results of entanglements among religious, economic, and imperial powers. Those whose lands, resources, and cultures have been overtaken . . . [more]

Renowned for its dysfunction, the leadership of the Ontario Superior Court deserves some credit for belatedly admitting the court to be in crisis. Acknowledging the need for bold, fundamental reforms it tasked the Civil Rules Working (Working Group) with identifying ways to reduce complexity, costs and delays and stated that “minor amendments (to the Rules) would be insufficient.” Despite that mandate, the Working Group in their Phase 2 Consultation Paper has proposed implementing further rules and procedures, changing a handful of existing Rules and rearranging the balance. One step forward, two steps back.

Handicapping the Working Group

Initially, the Working . . . [more]

As the April federal election approaches, an issue that has receded from the public consciousness is the significant loss of social legislation upon the prorogation of Parliament that preceded the Liberal Leadership Convention. Such pauses are commonplace, but in this instance, it drew widespread criticism across strata of society due to the threat of unprovoked economic warfare from the Trump administration and the number of government bills that died on the order paper.

The Public Service Alliance of Canada, for example, criticized the government for failing to pass the pension fairness measures and tax breaks promised in the 2024 . . . [more]

A recent CBC article from British Columbia indicated that a self-represented party used Microsoft Copilot to assist with legal research: the artificial intelligence (AI) program generated 10 cases, nine of which were hallucinated. The hallucinated cases were ‘caught’ during a proceeding at the Civil Resolution Tribunal, but this incident and the possibility of others like it raises challenging questions for access to justice. It can be assumed that public-facing AI will continue to gain ground as a means of providing legal information and assistance, and as that happens, there will be more examples of hallucinated cases making their way into . . . [more]

A few weeks ago, I went to the dentist for the first time in years—thanks to finally having work benefits. I expected a routine cleaning, some X-rays, and maybe a reminder to floss more. Instead, the appointment took an unexpected turn when the dentist launched into a sales pitch for Invisalign.

At 29, with relatively straight teeth, I’d never been told I needed any kind of teeth straightening. Yet, almost immediately, I was shown an AI-generated “after” image that looked nearly identical to my current teeth. The dentist admitted the difference was minimal but claimed it might help protect my . . . [more]

At first glance, access to justice (A2J) might seem more relevant to areas like family, criminal, or poverty law. But through my unique position as both an Osgoode Hall Law School JD/MBA student and a research assistant for the Canadian Forum on Civil Justice (CFCJ), I’ve come to recognize a crucial and sometimes overlooked intersection between A2J and business law. That is: the challenges people face in accessing justice are not confined to traditionally “personal” legal matters. Everyday legal problems—ranging from contract disputes to consumer rights challenges—are deeply intertwined with business law, shaping both individual experiences and the broader economy. . . . [more]