The Hon. Leonard Marchand is Chief Justice of British Columbia, and a member of the Sylix Okanagan Nation. Justice Marchand was the guest on a recent episode of the excellent Canadian Lawyer Magazine podcast. He suggested that we think about the access to justice problem in terms of three groups of people.

The Strugglers

First are people who try to use the justice system, but fail to get justice because of barriers such as cost, time, and the system’s complexity. I think of these people as the strugglers, and their plight has been extensively studied. It is widely understood . . . [more]

Generally, if an act does not have any explicitly stated coming in force provisions, it comes into force on the date of Royal Assent. There are, however, exceptions.

For the period after December 31, 1918 and before July 25, 2007, any Ontario act that did not have explicitly stated coming in force provisions did not come into force on Royal Assent. Instead, depending on the date that they received Royal Assent, the coming into force provisions were as follows:

• Acts that received Royal Assent between January 1, 1919 and April 13, 1925 came into force 60 days after Royal Assent.

“If I was having a conversation with someone I disagreed with, in good faith, I would probably start that conversation with what we do agree with.” – Ronny Chieng

The very notion of mandatory mediation is inherently flawed.

A process based foundationally on collaborative self-determination cannot really be forced upon people. There must be buy-in, some desire amongst those experiencing a dispute to work together to sort it out.

While contracts and laws can force mediation on paper, the reality is that the process can practically only come together with willing participants. They can be skeptical – it is not . . . [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) : L’accusé a agi illégitimement en attendant quelque 13 mois avant de présenter sa requête de type Jordan (R. c. Jordan (C.S. Can., 2016-07-08), 2016 CSC 27, SOQUIJ AZ-51302609, 2016EXP-2173, J.E. 2016-1212, [2016] 1 R.C.S. 631), sapant ainsi toute possibilité de répondre au problème des délais; par . . . [more]

As a supplement to our Sunday Summary each month, Supreme Advocacy LLP in Ottawa presents Supreme One-Liners, a super-short descriptive guide to the most recent decisions at the Supreme Court of Canada. Supreme Advocacy LLP offers its more comprehensive weekly electronic newsletter, Supreme Advocacy Letter, summarizing all Appeals, Oral Judgments and Leaves to Appeal granted.

Appeal Judgments

Criminal Law: Material Benefit & Procuring
R. v. Kloubakov, 2025 SCC 25(41017)

Material benefit & procuring offences constitutional.

Criminal Law: Fitness to Stand Trial
R. v. Bharwani., 2025 SCC 26 (40781)

Accused fit to stand trial when he understands reality of . . . [more]

A revised first edition of the Canadian Open Access Legal (COAL) Citation Guide/Guide canadien de la référence juridique en accès libre (RJAL) is now available: https://canlii.ca/t/7nc6q

The guide’s editors have incorporated reader feedback and corrections into a revised edition. Some of the changes include moving the general rules to their own section and revising rules on citing regularly updated books, regulations, administrative decisions, and generative AI for greater clarity and increased consistency across the guide. Additions to the guide include guidance on creating a bibliography/table of authorities and on citing reports, dissertations, municipal by-laws, court materials, First Nations, Métis, and . . . [more]

The Canadian Patent Office has a procedure for the “re-examination” of a granted patent. However, this procedure is rarely used in Canada for several reasons. Less than half a dozen re-examinations are filed each year.

Anyone, including the owner of the patent may request re-examination on the basis of prior art, namely patents, patent applications and printed publications (see s. 48.1 of the Patent Act). The patent office forms a panel that determines whether the request raises “a substantial new question of patentability”.

If so, the patentee is notified and the patentee can respond to the request, including providing . . . [more]

Sometimes life requires us to take a break from work. Whether due to pregnancy, caring for family, one’s own medical needs, or a desire to take some time to regroup, many lawyers will need or want to take a leave from practice at some point in their careers.

While you can step away from practice, you cannot step away from your professional obligations. Fortunately, with some thought and planning, you can ensure you comply with your duties even when you’re out of office and not checking your work email.

This column outlines some (non-exhaustive) practical tips for lawyers on how . . . [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) : Dans une affaire d’enlèvement et de séquestration d’une adolescente, le juge de première instance a erré dans l’évaluation du caractère volontaire des déclarations obtenues de l’accusé durant un interrogatoire de plus de 15 heures et dont la portion la plus cruciale n’a pas été enregistrée par les . . . [more]

As a supplement to our Sunday Summary each month, Supreme Advocacy LLP in Ottawa presents Supreme One-Liners, a super-short descriptive guide to the most recent decisions at the Supreme Court of Canada. Supreme Advocacy LLP offers its more comprehensive weekly electronic newsletter, Supreme Advocacy Letter, summarizing all Appeals, Oral Judgments and Leaves to Appeal granted.

Appeal Judgment

Criminal Law: Youths Sentenced As Adults
R. v. I.M., 2025 SCC 23 (40868), and R. v. S.B., 2025 SCC 24 (40873)

Courts to consider “developmental age” in youth sentencing not just actual age.

Leaves to Appeal Granted

Contracts: Breach; Contributory . . . [more]

In previous columns, I have examined the evolving trajectory of AI regulation and warned of the precarious path ahead. Regrettably, I must now report that the regulation of artificial intelligence in North America has become a project stalled by political circumstance. In both Canada and the United States, efforts to establish comprehensive governance frameworks for AI have encountered untimely political disruption, legislative dissolution in Canada and executive reversals in the United States.

This confluence of events has left two of the world’s most influential jurisdictions without durable regulatory mechanisms to manage the profound legal, ethical, and societal risks posed by . . . [more]