Canadalegal & regulatory news

California Courts: Clear Guidance on Managing Generative AI Workload in Legal Teams

The Canadian Bar Association has reported that a legal team is facing an overwhelming workload due to constant questions about generative AI tools, data governance, and associated risks. This development matters for practitioners as it highlights the challenges of managing the increasing demand for expertise on emerging technologies. The legal team's workload is not only affected by the novelty of these topics but also by the need to balance their responsibilities with the organization's eagerness to integrate AI tools. This situation underscores the importance of effective time management, prioritization, and communication in a rapidly changing technological landscape. The relevant statutes and regulations are not explicitly mentioned in the excerpt, but it is likely that the legal team is navigating issues related to data protection, intellectual property, and contract law. The Canadian Bar Association's guidance on AI and the law may also be relevant in this context. The key parties involved include the legal team, the organization's leadership, and potentially external vendors or suppliers of AI tools. Practitioners should take note that this situation is not unique to the organization mentioned and may be a common challenge for many legal teams. They should prioritize effective communication with their clients and stakeholders about the limitations of their workload and the need for realistic expectations. Additionally, they should stay up-to-date with relevant developments in AI law and consider seeking external expertise or resources to support their work.

Supreme Court of Canada: No Leniency for Spoliation in Bank of New York Mellon Damages Case

The Supreme Court of Canada has introduced a new approach for determining spoliation in modern litigation. The high court's decision emphasizes the need to consider the scope and impact of destroyed evidence when determining damages.

Ontario Court of Appeal: Anti-Antisemitism Group Allowed to Intervene in Public Incitement Hatred Acquittal

The Ontario Court of Appeal has allowed the Alliance of Canadians Combatting Antisemitism (ALCCA) to intervene in the Crown's appeal against a man's acquittal for public incitement of hatred relating to inflammatory and derogatory statements made in videos posted online. This development is significant because it highlights the complexities surrounding hate speech laws in Canada. The case, R. v. Bory, 2026 ONCA 542, raises questions about what constitutes a 'public place' for the purpose of inciting hatred. The trial judge's decision to acquit the respondent on this charge has been appealed by the Crown, and the ALCCA's intervention will likely shed more light on this issue. The relevant statutes and regulations involved in this case include the Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46, which prohibits public incitement of hatred. The Ontario Court of Appeal's decision to grant leave for the ALCCA to intervene is also guided by rule 30(1) of the Criminal Appeal Rules, which allows for intervention in appeals where a party has an interest in the outcome. The key parties involved in this case are the Crown, represented by the Attorney General of Ontario, and the respondent, who was acquitted of public incitement of hatred. The ALCCA is also a significant player, as its intervention will provide an additional perspective on the issue at hand. Practitioners should monitor this case closely, as it has implications for hate speech laws in Canada and may set a precedent for future cases involving online hate speech. Practitioner takeaway: Attorneys representing clients accused of hate crimes or incitement to hatred should be aware of the evolving landscape surrounding these charges in Canada. The outcome of this matter is not yet reported, but it is likely that the Ontario Court of Appeal's decision will have significant implications for future cases involving online hate speech.

Ontario Superior Court Reduces Contingent Fee from $73K to $65K in Trip-and-Fall Injury Settlement

The Ontario Superior Court has adjusted the contingent fee in a trip-and-fall injury settlement from $73,885.27 to $65,000. This adjustment is significant for practitioners as it highlights the court's discretion in approving contingent fee agreements and the importance of careful calculation of fees. The court's decision also underscores the need for counsel to be mindful of the potential impact on their clients' recoveries when negotiating fees. In this case, the plaintiff's counsel had requested a 33% contingency fee, which was reduced by $8,885.27. The relevant statutes and regulations governing contingent fees in Ontario are found in the Solicitors Act, RSO 1990, c S.13, and the Rules of Civil Procedure, O Reg 114/99. The court's decision is also informed by the principles set out in the case law, including the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Harrison v. Carscallen (2007), 1 SCR 231. The key parties involved in this matter are the plaintiff, Sharifzadeh, represented by his Litigation Guardian, Nejad, et al., and the defendant, The Corporation of the City of Toronto. The court's decision is also relevant to counsel who represent clients with disabilities, as it highlights the importance of careful consideration of their clients' needs and circumstances when negotiating fees. Practitioners should take note of this decision and ensure that they carefully calculate contingent fees in light of the court's discretion and the potential impact on their clients' recoveries. They should also be mindful of the need to provide clear and transparent disclosure of fees to their clients.

UK High Court Praises Leigh Day for Enforcing Court Embargo

The UK High Court has praised claimant firm Leigh Day for its reinforcement of court embargoes following a client incident, where the Badger Trust issued a media release to 85 members of the press four minutes before the scheduled hand-down of a JR decision regarding badger cull licences. This development is significant for practitioners as it highlights the importance of adhering to court embargoes and the potential consequences of breaching them. The incident serves as a reminder that even with the best intentions, miscommunications can occur, and it is essential to take all reasonable steps to preserve confidentiality and avoid contempt of court. The praise from Justice Michael Fordham underscores the significance of Leigh Day's actions in reinforcing the importance of court embargoes. The relevant statutes and regulations involved in this matter are not explicitly stated in the excerpt, but it is likely that the court's judgment was guided by the Contempt of Court Act 1981. The UK High Court's emphasis on maintaining confidentiality and adhering to court embargoes reflects the principles enshrined in this legislation. The key parties involved in this matter are Leigh Day, the claimant firm, and the Badger Trust, their client. Justice Michael Fordham is also a significant figure, as he delivered the judgment praising Leigh Day's actions. The incident highlights the importance of clear communication between clients and their legal representatives to avoid breaching court embargoes. Practitioners should take note of this development and ensure that they reinforce the importance of court embargoes with their clients. This includes cautioning against releasing press statements or taking any action in response to a draft judgment before it has been formally pronounced in open court.

Manitoba Law Society Touts Access to Justice Wellbeing Initiatives

The Law Society of Manitoba has highlighted its work in access to justice and wellbeing initiatives in its 2026 annual report, outlining the advancement of several priorities as it closed out the first year of its 2025-2025 strategic plan. The body pointed to a youth outreach project and its health recovery program, among other initiatives, as key areas of focus. The legal significance of this development lies in the Law Society's commitment to addressing access to justice and wellbeing issues in Manitoba. By highlighting these initiatives, the Law Society is demonstrating its dedication to improving the lives of Manitobans and promoting a fair and equitable justice system. This is particularly important given the ongoing challenges facing the province, including the need for increased access to pro bono services. The relevant statutes and regulations involved in this development are not explicitly stated in the excerpt, but it is likely that the Law Society's initiatives are guided by the Legal Profession Act of Manitoba and other relevant legislation. The report also mentions the Ours to Protect campaign, which aims to raise awareness of the rule of law and its role in democracy. This campaign is a key aspect of the Law Society's efforts to promote access to justice and wellbeing. The key parties involved in this development are the Law Society of Manitoba, led by CEO Leah Kosokowsky, as well as various community organizations and service providers who have contributed to the initiatives highlighted in the report. Practitioners should take note of the Law Society's commitment to addressing access to justice and wellbeing issues, particularly in light of the ongoing challenges facing the province. Practitioner takeaway: Attorneys and businesses operating in Manitoba should be aware of the Law Society's initiatives aimed at improving access to justice and wellbeing. This includes the Ours to Protect campaign and the multi-year initiative focused on access to pro bono services for Manitobans. By staying informed about these developments, practitioners can better serve their clients and contribute to a more just and equitable society.

SCC Rules Privative Clauses Unconstitutional in Canada

Ortiz Saavedra v Canada PRRA incompetence test fails immigration case

In a recent decision, the Federal Court ruled against Ortiz Saavedra's challenge to a pre-removal risk assessment (PRRA) decision, highlighting the high bar for establishing counsel incompetence in im

Ontario pediatrician suspended for accessing patient data to offer circumcision services