Justice Jamal and the Supreme Court deserve passing marks for their transparency in addressing the request by the Quebec Government that the judge recuse himself in Quebec Secularism Law (Bill 21) case. This is in sharp contrast to the “F” that almost every commentator would give the high court for its dealings with the complaint against Justice Russell Brown in 2023 (see for example this scathing critique from Professor Geoff Sigalet).

Just to remind readers, the Supreme Court’s strategy in that instance was to say nothing and hope no one noticed that Justice Brown did not sit on any cases . . . [more]

For decades, the ideas of equality, justice, and human rights have been the core pillars of Canada’s national identity. However, the reality embedded within our criminal justice system creates a significant obstacle to the actualization of those ideas. Overrepresentation of Indigenous and Black individuals in Canadian jails and prisons, and systemic racism in the criminal justice system, have been well documented in numerous studies and inquiries.[1] The Ontario Court of Appeal acknowledged this systemic issue over thirty years ago in R v Parks, 1993 CanLII 3383. This necessitates a pressing reconsideration of the “public interest” test used . . . [more]

Following ChatGPT’s public release in November 2022, there has been growing discussion about how generative AI intersects with lawyers’ professional obligations as found in codes of conduct. I published some early thoughts on this topic in Slaw.ca (see here and here). Several Canadian law societies have now also published guidance. Providing this sort of information is essential, in my view, for building needed tech literacy in the profession, particularly as AI becomes increasingly integrated into common tools that lawyers already use on a daily basis. Unfortunately, we have already seen that appropriate AI use by lawyers is not inevitable . . . [more]

Singapore’s courts were a mess in the late 1980s. There was a five year backlog of cases, and the average commercial matter took between five and six years to resolve. Hearing dates were being set as much as two years in the future.

These timelines may sound familiar, if you’re involved with Canada’s civil courts. The numbers are eerily similar here right now.

And yet what happened in Singapore in the 1990s should encourage Canadians who want to see speedier access to justice in our country. A dramatic improvement was delivered, in only ten years. By the end of the . . . [more]

Earlier this month, the government of British Columbia introduced Bill 21, the Legal Professions Act. This bill amalgamates the Law Society of British Columbia and the Society of Notaries Public of British Columbia into a new corporation, Legal Professions British Columbia (LPBC), while also creating a licensing and regulation structure for paralegals. It could be the most consequential development in Canadian legal regulation in more than 100 years.

The British Columbia legal profession’s leading organizations (the Law Society, the Canadian Bar Association’s BC branch, and the Trial Lawyers’ Association of BC) strongly oppose Bill 21, with the . . . [more]

Case Commented On: KMN v SZM, 2024 BCCA 70 (CanLII), overturning 2023 BCSC 940 (CanLII)

We have both written previously on myths and stereotypes about intimate partner violence (IPV), one of the most common of which is that women make false or exaggerated claims of violence to gain an advantage in family law disputes (see here and here). In KMN v SZM, 2024 BCCA 70 (CanLII), the British Columbia Court of Appeal (BCCA) recognized the existence of this myth and the need for courts to avoid making assumptions that perpetuate it, holding that it is . . . [more]

The Hon. Roy McMurtry had a stellar career, serving as Chief Justice of Ontario, Canadian High Commissioner to the United Kingdom, Commissioner of the Canadian Football League, and Attorney General of Ontario. When he passed away in March, many of the tributes rightly focussed on the critical role he played in reaching “the kitchen accord” which led to the patriation of the Constitution with the enactment of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 35 and the notwithstanding clause. Other tributes noted his participation in the landmark case of Halpern v. Canada (2003), which legalized same-sex marriage.

Because McMurtry . . . [more]

The recent appeal decision AA v Law Society of Ontario upheld the Law Society Tribunal’s 2023 decision to licence to applicant “AA” after finding him to be of “good character”—even though AA had admitted to have sexually abused three young children in 2009 (and to hiding this information from the Law Society in an earlier licensing application, which he withdrew in 2017 following an anonymous tip disclosing the abuse).

The AA case and other good character hearings stemming from sexual misconduct involving minors have generated considerable discussion both inside and outside the legal profession about how law societies should assess . . . [more]

A Bill recently introduced to Ontario’s Legislature can tangibly relieve the crisis of access to justice and politicization in the province’s tribunals, and blaze a path to better appointments for adjudicators and judges across the country. The Fewer Backlogs and Less Partisan Tribunals Act was introduced by Liberal MPP Ted Hsu, and will be debated in the Ontario Legislature on April 18th.

Ontario’s high-volume tribunals — especially the Landlord & Tenant Board, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, and the Automobile Accident Benefits Service — have been afflicted by dire access to justice problems in recent years. The root cause . . . [more]

Imagine suing the federal government without a lawyer, making your case before a neutral adjudicator, and then getting an enforceable decision, on the merits, less than four months later. This may sound like a far-fetched fantasy if you’re familiar with civil litigation in Canada. In our courts, civil lawsuits routinely take 4-5 years to get to adjudication. Legal fees average about $40k per party to get through a 5-day trial. Self-representation is a frustrating and overwhelming ordeal for most people who try it.

And yet the four month path to adjudication is not just an idle fantasy to ponder while . . . [more]

In December, three intelligent, accomplished, and articulate University leaders embarrassed themselves and their institutions in their testimony before Congress. Each of them stumbled in responding to questions whether calls for genocide against Jewish persons would violate their school’s policies. The questions weren’t unexpected or one-offs. Yet, every time each of these Presidents was asked, they stumbled in their responses. Within a few weeks, the Presidents of mighty Penn and Harvard had publicly acknowledged their failures and resigned in the wake of the scandal. Only the President of MIT remains in the top job.

How could this happen? It certainly wasn’t . . . [more]

More than a year after the public release of ChatGPT, excitement continues to build about the use of generative AI in the delivery of legal services. Notes of caution persist, too, as examples of lawyers using AI badly continue to trickle out (see, e.g. here and here). Although the full impacts of generative AI on the work of lawyers are yet to be seen, there is clearly an immediate need to discuss the responsible and ethical use of AI by legal professionals.

Canadian lawyers have a general duty of technological competence. In previous Slaw columns, I’ve discussed two ways . . . [more]