Over the last few columns, I have focused primarily on the regulation side of my work in artificial intelligence (AI) risk and regulation. That focus has reflected, in part, my concern about the current regulatory patchwork surrounding generative AI in Canada and the very real dangers of unregulated implementation of AI into our daily lives. That discussion will continue at a later date, but for the next few articles I plan to shift the focus to the research and perspectives on the risk management side of the equation.

The risks associated with AI implementation are not hypothetical. Many readers will . . . [more]

I recently challenged myself to explore various Gen AI tools to improve my plain language skills and efficiency. As noted in my previous post, Exploring Gen AI Opportunities for Plain-Language Writing, the impetus for this challenge was in part from the encouragement in the Law Society of Saskatchewan, my home jurisdiction, for lawyers to engage in continuous learning about AI and its implications for legal practice.

My usual process for creating public legal content is as follows:

1. Research: Research is conducted on the topic to create a draft framework. If a legal process is being described, the steps

The way governments appoint judges and tribunal members is mostly mysterious – we know the general framework but not the inner workings of the process. It is only when the appointment process fails that we learn of some of the weaknesses in the system. In this column, I want to focus on recent examples of a particularly serious gap in appointment processes – the lack of a robust screening mechanism.

My purpose in highlighting these recent examples is not to suggest that the people appointed did not deserve to be appointed but rather that the government was surprised by information . . . [more]

It has happened again; once more, v-Lex has changed hands, this time from Oakley Capital to the Canadian software company, Clio (Themis Solutions Inc.), for around US$1bn. Clio/Themis sits within the portfolio of New Enterprise Associates (NEA) venture capital firm, which previously shared in the funding of Ravel Law. Ravel, in 2017, was sold to RELX, which might indicate the future directional path of Clio/v-Lex. Harvey AI had been linked to rumours that it considered acquiring the much more established competitor, v-Lex, the alleged purpose being for the former to exploit the latter, to assist growth. That notion . . . [more]

It’s tempting, isn’t it? To imagine AI as a panacea.

Lawyers type their questions into an AI tool and confidently finalize a factum before getting home in time for dinner.

Self-represented litigants, overwhelmed by process and precedents, find solid answers from an AI app and breathe a sigh of relief.

Access to justice, served up on a platter of bits and bytes.

But we’re not there yet. And it’s risky to assume we are. (Ko v. Li, 2025 ONSC 2766 anyone?)

AI tools are powerful allies in advancing access to justice when used wisely. They streamline research and save . . . [more]

Artificial intelligence is impacting how lawyers market themselves and grow their practice. However, it’s wise to first consider if and how AI tactics can fulfill business development strategies that convert to achieving a measurable growth objective.

The hype around artificial intelligence is stimulating a fear factor bordering almost on hysteria for many lawyers and their law firms who are fixating on it more than any other concern in the modern global legal services market. While fear can be understandable, mostly because for many the benefits of AI remain somewhat murky, we need to grasp the reality that AI is a . . . [more]

In June 2025, Yuval Hoah Harari (Note 1) was interviewed by Poppy Harlow at the ‪@WSJNews Leadership Institute on AI and Human Evolution. It is a fascinating discussion and well worth 25 minutes to watch it.

While Harari acknowledges that AI has enormous positive potential he also warns of some dangerous issues affecting many areas of human life.

Highlights of Harari’s insights:

• AI is not just another tool. It is an agent capable of making decisions independently, generating new ideas, and learning without human input. A tool like the printing press cannot write a book by itself and decide

In July, I was counsel in a voir dire in BC Supreme Court, where four police officers testified over three days. While the officers gave evidence, I took over 30-pages of handwritten notes. I could capture verbatim maybe 30 percent of what was said. The rest of the time — when answers went on for too long or counsel and the witness talked over one another — I got only the gist of it. Yet, precision was key.

At one point, we stood down for over an hour for the court clerk to go through the recording to find a . . . [more]

Lawyers develop and grow through the experiences they gain in practice. That’s why lawyers who have been practicing longer charge a higher hourly rate. More senior lawyers have more experiences to draw when helping clients solve problems. And it’s that experience that junior lawyers wish they could somehow bottle and consume to bypass the uncertainty and doubt that plagues them in their initial years of practice.

But what if we could jump start aspiring lawyers by helping them build a toolbox of experiences to draw on in their early years of practice? That’s where experiential learning comes in.

Learning by

I recently watched a series on Netflix, called Truth Be Told.

In one of the episodes, the main character tells a story about a time when she physically lost her voice due to trauma she experienced in foster care.

Losing one’s voice is something that is not new to those going through the system whether judicial or otherwise.

I have heard so many self represented litigants say that they don’t have a voice; that they are not being heard; that no matter how hard they prepare they are drowned out by the complicated and bureaucratic machine of the legal system. . . . [more]

Welcome to my 100th and final column for Slaw. It all started innocently enough at the outset of 2008 when the late Simon Fodden, innovative founder of this venue, invited me to contribute a column on scholarly publishing issues. I first wrote of how the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) was now requiring those it funded to make the resulting research freely available, if after a 12-month delay (to appease publisher pushback). I called it at the time a “tipping point” in the growing efforts to secure public or open access to all research worldwide.

Now, some seventeen . . . [more]

The 2022 release of ChatGPT led to many breathless headlines about how generative AI would be an A2J boon. The mood is now more muted: while AI has driven some change in the legal context over the last three years, much has stayed the same. Given the time that has passed, some reckoning with where we are at seems appropriate. In this column, I focus on one piece of the A2J and AI puzzle: generative AI and self-represented litigants (SRLs) in Canadian courts and tribunals.

How has generative AI impacted the experiences of SRLs in Canada?

To answer this question, . . . [more]