On March 6th, a prominent group of publishers including the 5 biggest global book publishers (Hachette, Penguin Random House, HarperCollins, Macmillan and Simon and Schuster) filed a lawsuit in NY federal court to try and shut down the shadow library “Anna’s Archive”. A decade ago, John Willinsky described scholarly publishing as having its “Napster moment” with the emergence of pirate sites like LibGen and Sci-Hub. The race to train large language models using sites like Anna’s Archive (which is the successor site of Libgen/Sci-Hub) feels like a second act, where these sites are not just channels for . . . [more]

In recent posts, I have been skeptical about using AI to generate certain kinds of legal writing. I’ve drawn a distinction between using AI to edit or revise a document and using it to create one from scratch.

I take the view that even if you can avoid hallucinations, using AI to create a court brief is likely to raise issues of competence. And I’m not convinced it is well suited to drafting opinion or demand letters, because it leads to writing that comes across as flat and robotic, verbose, and overly formalistic.

But there’s another view out there . . . [more]

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is a bold experiment being conducted on our institutions, with very few guardrails. When we do experiments with chemicals and biological materials to develop new drugs, pesticides, or even cleaning products, we set up controlled environments with protections for the humans involved in the testing. AI is mostly being developed without external controls, other than basic guidelines implemented by the developers themselves.

We are living through an experiment and finding out in real time the impact of AI on institutions and society. Sometimes AI is a benefit, sometimes it is benign, and sometimes it can have a . . . [more]

Across Canada and beyond, organizations are waking up to a hard truth:
It’s no longer enough to say you value inclusion—your boardroom needs to show it.

For young lawyers and law students just beginning their careers, this call for inclusion is not theoretical, it’s foundational. They’re entering a world where law, leadership, and lived experience increasingly intersect to shape what fair, ethical, and effective governance looks like.

Too often, conversations about equity and diversity stay stuck at the surface, fixating on demographics and checking boxes. But when we look closer, a deeper issue emerges: individuals with different lived experiences often . . . [more]

I recently watched a documentary called Sensitive. The topic of this article was inspired by its content.

Introduction

Have you ever been told that you are too sensitive? Or that you need to have tough skin in this world and especially in the legal profession?

Or, how about the time when you are feeling sad or may start to cry, someone looks at you in a judgmental way and says, “what’s your problem? No one wants a sensitive person to be their lawyer.”

It seems that many of us have shut down our emotions and decided to hide who we . . . [more]

Canadian courts and judges are using AI in their work. Not all of them, but some of them. A small number of courts have publicly announced formal pilots or adoption of AI tools (see, e.g., here and here); other courts have authorized judges to use certain AI tools but haven’t (to my knowledge) made any public announcements about these authorizations; and, finally, individual judges are experimenting with using AI tools in their work on ad hoc, generally undisclosed (at least to the public) bases. I am not aware of any judicial decision in Canada in which a judge has . . . [more]

On March 26, 2026, Bill C-12, the Strengthening Canada’s Immigration System and Borders Act, received Royal Assent. Framed as a response to system pressures and “asylum shopping,” the law marks one of the most significant shifts in Canada’s refugee regime since 2002. Its core effect is simple but profound: it narrows who gets access to a full refugee hearing, and how.

Three changes deserve particular attention.

A One-Year Deadline for Refugee Claims

Canada has replaced a flexible standard requiring claims to be made “without delay” with a strict one-year filing deadline. Claims submitted after that period . . . [more]

In the midst of the ongoing concerns about hallucinations, particularly related to citations in documents filed with courts, I wonder if the particular focus on AI generated errors, and the penalties that have been imposed in response, are at least partly due to perceptions of these tools as cheating or aesthetic ideas about how “real” legal writing should happen. And I query the rationales for recent instances of judges issuing sanctions against people who have inadvertently included them. It seems that mistakes in AI generated documents are treated differently from mistakes that can and do appear in any piece of . . . [more]

Several times each month, we are pleased to republish a recent book review from the Canadian Law Library Review (CLLR). CLLR is the official journal of the Canadian Association of Law Libraries (CALL/ACBD), and its reviews cover both practice-oriented and academic publications related to the law.

Quiet Rebels: A History of Ontario Women Lawyers. By Mary Jane Mossman. Waterloo, ON: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 2024. xi, 528 p. Includes bibliographic references and index. ISBN 9781771125925 (hardcover) $95.00; ISBN 9781771125932 (ePUB); ISBN 9781771125949 (PDF).

Reviewed by Melanie R. Bueckert
Legal Research Counsel
Manitoba Court of Appeal

As . . . [more]

In my last two articles, I introduced the RECLAIM model as a cultural operating system for law firms, and then explored the first element of the model: Respect.

This month, I turn to the next two elements: Equity and Clarity.

To begin, let me introduce you to Sam.

Sam runs a busy practice. She has a legal assistant whose performance has been inconsistent for years. There are regular typos, misspelled client names, and a lack of attention to detail that means Sam must review everything herself. The opportunities for Sam to delegate are limited, even for simple tasks.

The . . . [more]

“Progressions can’t be made if we’re separate forever.” – Q-Tip (A Tribe Called Quest)

Whether your path to addressing a dispute is collaborative or adversarial, some degree of interaction with others engaged in the conflict is typically required. The frequency of such interactions can heighten their strain, particularly in circumstances where disputing parties co-exist in close proximity, such as if they share a workplace or are neighbours.

Establishing shared understanding can go a long way in mitigating anxiety and offer comfort through what is often an uncomfortable process – particularly if the dispute resolution path needed is an adversarial one. . . . [more]

A quote I always use when I’m teaching statutory research is, “Statutes are not cuddly, and no one reads them for fun.”[1] The legal profession relies primarily on the written word, and those words typically aren’t light bedtime reading. Legal research, when compared to other mandatory text-dense courses, can offer a reprieve. As a practical course it is often rooted in processes that benefit from visual aids.

This post will provide an overview of some visual aids for teaching legal research that I’ve developed over the past few years. I share these based on positive student feedback and with . . . [more]