Forum shopping, that taboo practice in which a litigant chooses the most favourable jurisdiction to try a case, is generally looked down upon. Indeed, courts frown upon the practice even if the sole reason is to stem delay; that is, that a case can be tried faster in one jurisdiction than another. From a system-wide lens, this challenges common-sense. We need only look in the medical field, where patients can shop for medical services like MRIs, specialists, family physicians, anywhere they like. Yet the courts prefer to treat themselves as islands.

What do we look for in a justice system? . . . [more]

Artificial intelligence is making its way into courtrooms around the world, and not always for the better. Judges have been caught embedding AI-generated fictitious case references in judicial decisions, in Canada and internationally; and there are no doubt other, more subtle, machine delusions slipping into case law undetected. Judicial misuse of AI tools has profound consequences for the administration of justice and for public confidence in the courts. But a less obvious threat also deserves our attention: a growing body of research indicates that large language models (LLMs) have a homogenizing effect on writing and analysis, meaning that judges’ . . . [more]

Artificial intelligence has become, in one way or another, a part of many dispute resolution practices. Counsel use AI to prepare mediation briefs, assess litigation risk, test settlement ranges, or draft suggested terms. Parties use it to understand the process or evaluate options. Some mediators may use it to organize information, draft correspondence, test language, or reflect on process choices.

The discussion about AI in mediation has also become more urgent and comprehensive. Much of it properly focuses on confidentiality, neutrality, party autonomy, disclosure, competence, and human judgment. For working mediators, however, the next step is practical: distinguishing between lower-risk . . . [more]

In previous articles, I introduced the RECLAIM model as a cultural operating system for law firms and explored the first four elements: Respect, Equity, Clarity, and Learning. This month, I turn to A: Autonomy.

Let me introduce you to Priya.

Priya is a fifth-year associate with a busy corporate practice at a mid-sized firm. She is capable, hardworking, and well-liked by clients. She has recently found her work coming from one partner, and the working relationship follows a pattern. He hands her a file and tells her it is hers to run. Then he rewrites her drafts, . . . [more]

The Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Ahluwalia v. Ahluwalia was released on May 15^th to much press and discussion. For many, it was a relief that a significant and precedent-setting case sought to tackle a pervasive and insidious social problem: intimate partner violence. There will no doubt be much commentary on the substantive content of the case, the scope of the tort of intimate partner violence, the manner of its proof in family law cases, and the implications for individual litigants going forward.

However, there is another thread weaving through the fabric of this case in its journey . . . [more]

Take a moment to thank Eric Appleby, founder of Maritime Law Book, because the Canadian legal AI future announced today by Clio is only possible because Eric was sufficiently frustrated by the lack of access to New Brunswick case law in the 1960s that he decided to start a legal publishing company. No Eric, no MLB. No MLB, no Canadian case law in Clio and no next wave of Canadian legal AI.

You know the saying attributed to Nelson Mandela that begins “the best time to plant a tree is 20 years ago?” Well, the tree now bearing fruit is . . . [more]

Recently, I was invited to be a guest speaker at a Law and Literature Course here at my workplace, University of Arizona College of Law. As part of our Law Library Team and Professor of Legal Research, the invitation to speak came to my desk almost naturally. Perceptions on the voracious reading habits of librarians permeate even in the hallways of academia. Given my close connections with our Faculty colleagues as well as law students, I was not surprised at all at the speaking request. I have indeed shared with students and colleagues alike my lifelong obsession with reading world . . . [more]

In late 2025, facing public criticism and scrutiny from a scandal involving its Registrar and a registered real estate brokerage, iPro Realty Ltd. (“iPro”), the Government of Ontario exercised its statutory powers to appoint an Administrator over the Real Estate Council of Ontario (“RECO”). The province’s intervention was dramatic throughout the fall of 2025, but it has since faded from daily headlines. Despite its absence from our daily news feeds, the iPro matter warrants analysis and should serve as a cautionary tale for the hundreds of professional bodies across Canada that operate under delegated administrative authority. If your organization has . . . [more]

As of May 2026, millions of Canadians are navigating a significant legal deadline. They have until June 25 to file claims in the finalized 23andMe Canadian Data Breach Settlement—a multimillion-dollar resolution to one of the most consequential privacy failures in recent history. But as the legal files are closed, a more fundamental question remains: Can a single person’s consent ever truly be ethical when the data being signed away belongs to an entire family tree?

We are taught early on in law school that the individual is the ultimate unit of the law. We draft retainer agreements for individuals, . . . [more]

Ten or fifteen years ago, the professional who sent a newsletter, mailed a holiday card, and maintained an updated LinkedIn profile was considered ahead of the curve.

The bar was low. Showing up, in almost any form, was enough.

Today, that communication strategy blends into the background. This is not because newsletters stopped working, direct mail disappeared, or LinkedIn became oversaturated. It was because client expectations changed, attentions changed, the way we build trust changed. The shift was gradual, then sudden, and now permanent.

Where We Were Five to Ten Years Ago

In the mid 2010s, most mass communication followed . . . [more]

The Alberta legislature passed two bills in December 2025 that are particularly important to the regulation of the legal profession. The many separate ramifications of the Justice Statutes Amendment Act, 2025, some of which I have previously written about,[1] are important though perhaps not immediately obvious. The Regulated Professions Neutrality Act, in contrast, has a clearly unifying purpose that is readily apparent – but its nuances and details deserve more attention.[2]

My view has long been that the regulation of the extra-professional conduct of lawyers, including their expression, is an important aspect of the role of . . . [more]

Back in the day, when I was starting my mediation practice, I received the worst advice ever. It came from someone who, I believe, meant well. The advice was that I should let the world know I was a mediator by modelling neutrality. In everything I did.

Why was this bad advice? Because that is impossible! No human being can be neutral about everything, nor should they pretend that they can be.

Also, how can someone expect to successfully market themselves absent any personality? The individual who gave me the advice may have meant well but failed to grasp what . . . [more]