Family law has always had a reputation for being soft law, the area that lady lawyers practice, and a pink ghetto. Family law is not easy. There are upwards of 70 pieces of family law related legislation across Canada, to say nothing of the rules of court and process related legislation and skills, financial complexities, and family violence concerns. When no-fault divorce was introduced in 1968[1], lawyers did not specialize in family law. According to Constance Backhouse “most male lawyers eschewed divorce as odious, describing it as more ‘social work’ than ‘real law,’ and expressing reluctance to . . . [more]

According to the meta description on its website, “[t]he Law Society’s Rules of Professional Conduct (“Rules”) express the high ethical ideals of lawyers, and specify the bases on which they may be disciplined.” To date, and unlike in other jurisdictions[1], this has not included any requirements for basic technological competence. Thus, the current Rules are entirely devoid of the terms ‘computer,’ ‘technology’ or ‘data.’ While the internet is mentioned, it appears only twice, and then, only in relation to advertising. Could this omission, or the failure of the Law Society to test new licensees on technological . . . [more]

In the summer of 2019, the BC Family Justice Innovation Lab received an invitation to work with a group from Ulster University in Northern Ireland to improve access to justice for litigants in person (we call them “SRLs”). Led by Professor Gráinne McKeever, the group was eager to use a human-centred design process as part of their research project. Jane Morley Q.C. and I arrived in Belfast in early November 2019 and supported the team to design and implement the first of a series of HCD workshops with diverse participants including, of course, users. It was a wonderful experience, . . . [more]

During my time with a strategic consultancy several years ago, one of our group retreats turned to the subject of marketing. Ideas were floated and plans were drawn up for a series of articles, speaking appearances, and other means by which we could raise our individual and collective profiles and drive more business through the door.

Eventually, I put my hand up to make what I felt was a salient point: Before the meeting began, we had all been chatting about how busy we were and how crammed our schedules had become. Before we engage in a business development campaign, . . . [more]

The topic of lawyer confidentiality often yields lively discussions when teaching legal ethics to law students. Some of this engagement flows from high-profile, attention-grabbing case studies like wrongful murder convictions, buried bodies, and concealed videotapes depicting horrific crimes. Even the more routine aspects of lawyer confidentiality, however, spark good conversation. For example, most students are curious about how common behaviours, like working outside the office, sending emails or using social media, may give rise to inadvertent confidentiality breaches.

Another topic that often interests students is whether lawyers can talk about client matters with spouses or significant others. . . . [more]

“When did it become illegal to ask questions? Especially in the courtroom?” This is the opening line to Justice A. Pazaratz’s decision in J.N. v. C.G., (2022). [1] This provocative line sets the tone for a decision delivered almost entirely through frank obiter. When reduced to its ratio, J.N. v. C.G. is a case about whether the court can require a parent to vaccinate their children, and whether a judge should rule on the appropriateness of these beliefs and decisions. What makes the decision notable is how Justice Pazaratz uses wide-sweeping comments to engage numerous societal issues, including free . . . [more]

Janet is preparing for the review she’s having in the afternoon. She knows she’s going to get some positive feedback, but she’s also going to hear about some things that did not go so well, and some of it may surprise her.

To get ready for this meeting, she says to herself, “I’m going to use this as an opportunity to learn about where I can focus on getting better in my legal practice.”

Maryann is stuck on a tough assignment. The partner she reports to is busy and trusts Maryann to take a run at drafting something quite complex . . . [more]

Case management Judge Trent Horne of the Federal Court recently said “The Copyright Act is, at the risk of understatement, complex.”^[1]

His case serves to illuminate several key points of that complexity. Generally, copyright owners need to be added as parties to a lawsuit or their not being added has to be justified. Secondly, the pleadings must satisfy the Court that a licensee has the right to sue.

The starting point is that a copyright owner can sue a defendant for copyright infringement and the owner would generally be a party to that lawsuit.

The status of a licensee . . . [more]

Preventing a mediator-arbitrator from expressing a tentative view of the strength of a party’s position during mediation would have a “chilling effect” on the effectiveness of the mediation-arbitration process.

So says the Federal Court of Appeal in a recent labour relations case. It is one of a growing number of cases where courts have recognized the value of mediation-arbitration and expressed reluctance to tie the hands of the mediator-arbitrator too much.

In Fono v. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, 2021 FCA 125, an employee sought judicial review of the decision of an adjudicator under the Canada Labour Code. The . . . [more]

Lexum focus has always been on using the latest technology to automate legal publishing with the goal of improving the cost/benefit ratio of accessing legal information. For this reason, we historically favoured full text search engines over classification systems based on a thesaurus. The manual labelling of judicial and administrative decisions is a labour-intensive process that has traditionally contributed to the high costs of legal publishing. Where large volumes of decisions are rendered, it also makes exhaustive publishing difficult to achieve, justifying the selection of a limited number of “reported decisions.” Lexum has always headed straight in the opposite direction. . . . [more]

Suppose that “JM” is a Canadian person, who believes that their legal rights have been infringed. The problem might have arisen at work, at home, with a corporation, or with some part of the government. JM has tried to resolve the matter privately with the other side, but got nowhere. Next, JM did some online research and perhaps spoke to a lawyer. It turns out there is a public body that’s supposed to make decisions, and uphold rights, in disputes like JM’s.

JM brings their dispute to that body. JM wants to be heard, by someone who is competent and . . . [more]

In my role at the Sir James Dunn Law Library, I help facilitate both the creation and dissemination of scholarly knowledge through law journals. As a result, I have developed many questions and curiosities surrounding scholarly publishing practices. While the larger ones require empirical research, a handful seemed easy to answer based on readily available data. Using the information available on the websites of each peer-reviewed law journal affiliated with and published by a Canadian law school, I answered the following questions:

1. How many peer-reviewed law journals are affiliated with Canadian law schools and published in-house?*
2. How many of these