Tasked with proposing reforms to the Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure, the Civil Rules Working Group (“Working Group”) misfired rather badly. For example, the Working Group proposed adding a prelitigation protocol that would in effect require plaintiffs to serve their Affidavit of Documents before commencing litigation and accordingly disclose sensitive information (think medical records, bank and credit card statements, tax returns and proprietary business information) directly to opposing parties, often before such parties had retained counsel. Ignoring privacy issues and resultant risks of such information being posted online, because why not, this would add significant up front cost to . . . [more]

Many legal ethics issues are interesting to lawyers and non-lawyers alike. There’s the “buried bodies case”, where two lawyers’ commitment to maintaining client confidentiality (in horrifying circumstances) destroyed their practices, sparked harassment and death threats, and caused them to be criminally charged. There’s the lawyer who gossiped with his spouse about his clients’ affairs, only for the spouse to report the lawyer to the Law Society for breaching confidentiality when their marriage broke down. My students are always engaged when we have in-class debates about the good character requirement, or the (lack of) regulation of lawyer-client sex . . . [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.

Emond’s Basics of Tort Law. By Alex Colangelo. Toronto: Emond, 2024. viii, 157 p. Includes table of cases, glossary, and index. ISBN 9781774626702 (softcover) $79.00; ISBN 9781774626719 (digital) $59.00.

Reviewed by Melanie Bueckert
Legal Research Counsel
Manitoba Court of Appeal

Emond’s Basics of Tort Law is a very short book—each . . . [more]

When a senior associate left the firm, the busy practice group leader moved swiftly. Files had to be reassigned, and quickly. The next morning, John, an associate in the group, opened his inbox to find seven new matters had been dropped onto his desk without warning.

At first, he froze. Then came a wave of anxiety: the tightening in his stomach, and the mental calculation of how to stretch his already packed schedule.

What unsettled him most wasn’t the extra work; it was how it was handled. The partner didn’t reach out to give him a heads-up or to ask . . . [more]

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]

Every week we present the summary of a decision handed down by a Québec court provided to us by SOQUIJ and considered to be of interest to our readers throughout Canada. SOQUIJ is attached to the Québec Department of Justice and collects, analyzes, enriches, and disseminates legal information in Québec.

PÉNAL (DROIT) : La juge de première instance n’a pas erré en concluant que les 3 facteurs énoncés dans R. c. Grant (C.S. Can., 2009-07-17), 2009 CSC 32, SOQUIJ AZ-50566222, J.E. 2009-1379, [2009] 2 R.C.S. 353, militaient en faveur de la recevabilité de la preuve des stupéfiants; notamment, elle n’a . . . [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]

Every week we present the summary of a decision handed down by a Québec court provided to us by SOQUIJ and considered to be of interest to our readers throughout Canada. SOQUIJ is attached to the Québec Department of Justice and collects, analyzes, enriches, and disseminates legal information in Québec.

PÉNAL (DROIT) : La preuve de l’attirance physique que l’appelant éprouvait pour la plaignante n’était pas une preuve de propension; en exprimant à la plaignante le désir d’avoir des relations sexuelles avec elle, l’appelant n’a commis aucun crime, n’a violé aucune loi et n’a pas eu une conduite indigne ou . . . [more]