A.I. vs. "lying" Crown Counsel, or How to be Right in Court. An SRL's White Knight? (Sources & Links)
- Stephen Morris
- May 16
- 18 min read
MEMORANDUM OF STRATEGIC PRACTICE
DATE: May 16, 2026
RE: Dismantling Erroneous Prosecution Opinions: The Human-in-the-Loop Protocol vs. Crown Skepticism
I. THE CONTEXT: THE CROWN’S AUTOMATED DEFENSE REVERSED
When a self-represented litigant (SRL) faces a stubborn Crown Counsel relying on an erroneous or outdated legal position, the default reaction of the state is institutional dismissal. If the SRL utilizes Large Language Models (LLMs) to construct their rebuttal, the Crown increasingly reaches for a ready-made shield: citing recent cautionary precedents like Ko v. Li (2025) or National Indigenous Fisheries Institute (2026) to claim the SRL’s research is fundamentally "unreliable," "non-compliant," or "fabricated."
This memorandum outlines the precise legal mechanics to flip this narrative. By understanding the distinction between generative synthesis (the engine) and manual verification (the anchor), the modern self-styled litigant can use AI to identify the fatal flaws in the Crown’s logic while remaining utterly insulated from allegations of technological misconduct.
II. THE ANATOMY OF CAUTION: WHAT THE CROWN USES AS A WEAPON
To defeat a Crown’s skeptical objection, an SRL must first master the exact boundaries of the 2024–2026 AI jurisprudence. The Crown reads these cases as a prohibition; the sovereign advocate reads them as a roadmap for execution.
[Institutional AI Risk Framework]
│
├─► Hallucination Risk (Zhang, Ko, NIFI) ──► Remedy: 100% CanLII Cross-Verification
│
├─► Admissibility Bans (Floryan, Simpson) ─► Remedy: File the Law, Not the Chat Log
│
└─► Abuse of Process (LaPointe 2025) ─────► Remedy: Human-in-the-Loop Declaration
1. The Fictional Authority Trap (Ko v. Li, 2025 ONSC 2965; National Indigenous Fisheries Institute v. Canada, 2026 FC 382) * The Risk: These decisions highlight the severe consequences of submitting "hallucinated" or non-existent citations generated by unverified LLM queries. In Ko, it triggered a personal cost exposure and a narrow escape from criminal contempt; in NIFI, the Federal Court struck entire submissions when counsel blindly relied on non-existent extension-of-time precedents.
o The Rebuttal: The self-rep must never rely on an LLM as a primary authority. The LLM is used exclusively to parse the Crown's brief for logical contradictions and suggest search parameters. Every single proposition of law must be manually verified on CanLII before it is committed to paper.
2. The "Raw Dump" Admissibility Failure (Floryan v. Luke, 2023 ONSC 5108) * The Risk: In Floryan, the Ontario Superior Court flatly declined to consider a document explicitly titled “Results of legal research carried out using artificial intelligence system ChatGPT.” Similarly, in Simpson v. Hung Long Enterprises (2025 BCCRT 525), a tribunal penalized a party whose AI-generated submissions flipped existing law entirely on its head, causing an "utter waste of time."
o The Rebuttal: Never present the court or the Crown with raw AI outputs or text labeled as "AI research." The court acts on submissions of the party, not opinions of a chatbot. Treat the AI as an invisible intern. You sign the document; you adopt the logic; you cite the verified CanLII report.
3. The Fabrication/Abuse Threshold (LaPointe v. Chief Animal Welfare Inspector, 2025 ONACRB 159) * The Risk: The board found that using ChatGPT to produce fabricated veterinary opinions and false case law was equivalent to making deliberate false statements to the tribunal, characterizing it as an abuse of process.
o The Rebuttal: Ensure that no expert assertions or factual claims are generated by the model. Keep the tool strictly confined to mapping established constitutional, statutory, and procedural frameworks.
III. THE PROTOCOL: USING AI TO DISPROVE THE CROWN
To dismantle a stubborn Crown opinion, the self-rep executes a three-stage tactical protocol that leverages the analytical strength of generative models while remaining inside the boundaries of the law:
Stage 1: The Asymmetric Dialectic (Parsing the Error)
Input the Crown’s formal opinion or factum into the secure offline model. Instruct the system:
· "Identify the hidden syllogisms, circular arguments, or assumed premises in the opposing position." "Cross-reference this position against the mandatory statutory frameworks (e.g., Ontario's Mental Health Act, Criminal Code, or relevant provincial rules) to locate omissions." Result: The AI acts as a high-speed logic auditor, highlighting the exact point where the Crown has substituted institutional habit for actual statutory authority.
Stage 2: Finding the Rebuttal Anchor
Once the logic gap is identified (e.g., the Crown is confusing a provincial "apprehension" standard with criminal "probable cause"), use the model to locate the precise counter-jurisprudence.
· The Search: Do not ask the AI to write the case law. Ask it: "What are the foundational Supreme Court of Canada or provincial appellate decisions that restrict Crown discretion or outline the minimal impairment standard regarding this specific issue?" * The Pull: Take the suggested case names (e.g., Pintea, Kanyinda, Lalande) and manually pull them directly from CanLII to verify their active status and paragraph numbers.
Stage 3: Submitting under the "Human-in-the-Loop" Shield
When presenting the written rebuttal to the Crown and the Bench, attach a formal certification. This shifts the focus away from the Crown's technological skepticism and forces them to confront their own legal errors.
==========================================================================
CERTIFICATION OF RECORD AUTHENTICITY
==========================================================================
I, Stephen J. Morris, Self-Represented Litigant, hereby certify pursuant to
the governing principles of candour and competence:
1. Every legal authority, statutory provision, and judicial citation relied
upon in this Factum/Brief has been manually cross-verified for absolute
authenticity and accuracy against official, accredited databases (CanLII).
2. No fabricated or "hallucinated" citations are contained herein.
3. Pursuant to the principle of "Substance over Form" (Breve judiciale non
cadit pro defectu formae), the arguments presented stand as independent
matters of law and logic. The Crown is required to respond to the merits
of the verified authorities cited.
==========================================================================
IV. THE TACTICAL LEVERAGE: ESTOPPING THE STATE
As outlined in academic commentary (Ogunde, 2024 CanLIIDocs 3110), AI tools represent a vital instrument for access to justice, serving as a survival mechanism for litigants who are otherwise priced out of the legal market. When the Crown attempts to shame or dismiss an SRL's argument simply because it is "too articulate" or "AI-assisted," the self-rep has the right to stand resolute.
If the Crown states, "We refuse to engage with this AI-driven submission," the SRL's response on the record is immediate and sharp:
"The Crown is a Minister of Justice, bound by an absolute duty of fairness and candour to the court. I have provided this tribunal with valid, verified, real-world judgments from the Supreme Court of Canada that directly contradict the Crown’s position. By attacking the technological tools used to locate these truths, rather than the law itself, the Crown is attempting to enforce a professional monopoly over logic. I ask this Court to rule on the substance of the verified law, not the pedigree of the library card used to find it."
MEMORANDUM ENDS
Sources
1.
Do the Canadian Practical and Legal Frameworks on AI Adequately Address the Uses of LLMs in Courts? , 2025 CanLIIDocs 1958
Céline Castets-Renard – UBC Law Review
59 pages
self-represented litigants — generative — human — risks — lawyers
Evidence and procedure Technology
[…] [I]f any counsel or party relies on artificial intelligence (such as ChatGPT or any other artificial intelligence platform) for their legal research or submissions in any matter and in any form before the Court, they must advise the Court of the tool used and for what purpose.71 […] legal research carried out using artificial intelligence system ChatGPT (Chat Generative Pre-Trained Transformer)”.102 Justice Leach decided not to admit such an AI-generated search.103 Although the judge admitted that “while there may come a time when legal research and submissions generated by artificial intelligence […]
2.
Generative AI and Access to Justice in Canada: The Case of Self-Represented Litigants [SRLs] , 2024 CanLIIDocs 3110
Fife Ogunde – Windsor Yearbook of Access to Justice
39 pages
legal — access to justice — research — technology — models
Technology
[…] and undertake legal research . 44 Other functions potentially exercised by ChatGPT in a legal services context include conducting due diligence, performing e-discovery and providing legal advice. 45 It should however be noted that ChatGPT currently lacks the ability to undertake legal research and analysis to the […] on a number of legal benchmarking tasks. 71 While there is an understanding that ChatGPT may be unable to undertake legal research and analysis to the extent of a competent lawyer, 72 its promise may be sufficient in convincing self-represented litigants to rely on such software to prepare legal documents such as pleadings, […]
3.
LaPointe c. Chief Animal Welfare Inspector , 2025 ONACRB 159 (CanLII)
Ontario Animal Care Review Board
2025-06-30 | 10 pages | cited by 1 document
artificial intelligence tools — abuse — non-compliant — process — emails
[…] 5. Mr. LaPointe's use of artificial intelligence tools has produced false or misleading information. This information includes veterinary opinions that are likely fabricated and citations to non-existent cases or cases that do not stand for the legal principles for which he relies on them. […] Use of Artificial Intelligence Tools [32] CAWI submits that Mr. LaPointe's reliance on ChatGPT and other artificial intelligence tools to produce misleading information was equivalent to Mr. LaPointe making false statements to this Board. […]
4.
Journal of Paralegal Access to Justice , 2024 CanLIIDocs 3483
Isabella Longo, Joanna Cunha Martins, Vitaliy Ostapov et al – Journal of Paralegal Access to Justice
204 pages
individuals with disabilities — mediation — barriers — technology — self-represented litigants
Constitution Intellectual property Rights and freedoms
[…] 54 Part B: Access to Justice and Artificial Intelligence ABSTRACT A technology-trusting mentality involving Artificial Intelligence (AI) websites such as ChatGPT and Open AI when there are financial constraints and a lack of accessibility can pose risks for self-represented litigants. […] if the cases are real and the information is accurate. 12 For instance, in Zhang v Chen, 13 Chen's lawyer inserted fake cases into the notice of application, which she got by conducting legal research on ChatGPT . If trained professionals can run into such problems, it would be more likely that self-representatives may run […]
5.
Legal-Technological Unemployment in the Age of Artificial Intelligence , 2025 CanLIIDocs 1937
Illia Roskoshnyi – Manitoba Law Journal
57 pages
systems — automation — lawyers — legal profession — data
Legal theory Professions and occupations Technology
[…] Since the latter half of the twentieth century, artificial intelligence (AI) researchers have been discussing ways to automate the legal field, while Westlaw, Lexis and AI-powered RAND systems have been implementing that automation. 3 Richard Susskind forecasts that legal institutions and lawyers will change radically, […] 122 Christoph Salger, “ Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Mediation — ChatGPT as Mediator 4.0” (21 June 2023), online: Mediate <mediate.com/ artificial-intelligence -ai-in-mediation- chatgpt -as-mediator-4-0> [https://perma.cc/P4UJ-RXCK]. […]
6.
Artificial Intelligence & Criminal Justice: Cases and Commentary , 2024 CanLIIDocs 3035
Benjamin Perrin – Canadian Legal Information Institute
1,095 pages
Artificial intelligence — Vehicles — judicial — evidence — algorithms
Criminal or statutory offenses Technology
[…] (the “Levidow Firm”) (collectively, “Respondents”) abandoned their responsibilities when they submitted non-existent judicial opinions with fake quotes and citations created by the artificial intelligence tool ChatGPT , then continued to stand by the fake opinions after judicial orders called their existence into question. […] As a result, if any counsel or party relies on artificial intelligence (such as ChatGPT or any other artificial intelligence platform) for their legal research or submissions in any matter and in any form before the Court, they must advise the Court of the tool used and for what purpose. […]
7.
Ko v. Li , 2025 ONSC 2965 (CanLII)
Superior Court of Justice
2025-05-20 | 14 pages | cited by 16 documents
AI-generated
A lawyer avoided contempt proceedings after citing fake AI-generated cases by admitting fault, apologizing, and committing to remedial measures, including ethics training and improved verification protocols. The Court deemed the matter resolved, emphasizing the importance of accurate legal submissions and the risks of unverified AI use in legal practice.
Criminal or statutory offenses Practice and procedure
Professional responsibility — Contempt of court — Lawyer's duties — Submission of factum containing fake case citations generated by artificial intelligence — Lawyer's responsibility to verify legal authorities before filing — Should a lawyer be held in contempt for relying on AI-generated "hallucinations"? — Contempt of court principles from R. v. Cohn — Lawyer's forthright acknowledgment and corrective actions deemed sufficient to purge contempt
Professional responsibility — Use of artificial intelligence in legal practice — Lawyer's professional obligations — Risks of AI hallucinations in legal submissions — Duty to ensure accuracy of legal authorities — Lawyer's undertaking to complete Continuing Professional Development training on AI and legal ethics — Framework for addressing professional misconduct involving AI tools
Civil procedure — Rules of Civil Procedure — Rule 4.06.1 (2.1) — Certification of authenticity of cited authorities in factums — Lawyer's failure to comply with mandatory certification rule — Does non-compliance with Rule 4.06.1 (2.1) constitute misconduct? — Rule enacted to address risks of AI hallucinations in legal submissions
Professional responsibility — Costs — Lawyer's billing practices — Prohibition on billing client for deficient factum containing false case citations — Application of Rule 57.07 of the Rules of Civil Procedure — Lawyer's agreement not to charge client for work associated with deficient factum — Court's discretion to impose cost-related remedies for professional misconduct
Show more
[…] [23] Prior to the scheduling conference, Ms. Lee delivered to the court a letter dated May 9, 2025 in which she explained that her factum had indeed been prepared by her staff in part with the use of generative artificial intelligence . They used the ChatGPT platform. The stray cases were AI hallucinations as surmised. […] These authorities were drafted using a legal research tool powered by artificial intelligence . While this tool generated legal arguments, I made the serious mistake of failing to verify the case law before filing the factum with the Court. […]
8.
Canadian Law Library Review , 2023 CanLIIDocs 2056
CJ Shaw, Susan Barker, Dominique Garingan et al – Canadian Law Library Review
112 pages
Canadian Library Service — callacbd.ca — legal writing — author — book
Legal theory
[…] On the negative side, the speakers predicted that ChatGPT could lead to more lawsuits, as it can help self-represented litigants write statements of claim. […] The speakers also stressed that public legal education organizations need to do more to help the public understand AI's influence on legal research . Further, in addition to the potential copyright issues it can create, ChatGPT can also provide information that is either incorrect or does not exist. […]
9.
Floryan v. Luke et al. , 2023 ONSC 5108 (CanLII)
Superior Court of Justice
2023-09-11 | 64 pages | cited by 15 documents
AI-generated
The Court struck a claim against a university, finding no reasonable cause of action. It ruled the university owed no duty of care for alleged medical malpractice by physicians acting in hospital settings, even if they were faculty or postgraduate students. Further amendments to the claim were denied.
Practice and procedure Wrongs
Civil procedure — Pleadings — Striking out claims — Rule 21.01(1)(b) — University sought to strike plaintiff's amended claim for failure to disclose a reasonable cause of action — Whether the amended pleading sufficiently alleged material facts to support a claim in negligence — Governing test for striking pleadings under Rule 21.01(1)(b) — “Plain and obvious” standard applied to determine sufficiency of pleadings
Health — Medical malpractice — Duty of care — Plaintiff alleged negligence by university faculty and postgraduate students in providing medical care — Whether the university owed a duty of care to the plaintiff for actions of its faculty and postgraduate students — Application of the Anns/Cooper test to novel claims of institutional liability — No sufficient proximity or policy basis to impose duty of care
Civil procedure — Amendments to pleadings — Leave to amend — Plaintiff sought further leave to amend after two prior amendments — Whether further amendments would cure deficiencies in the claim against the university — Court declined further leave to amend due to repeated failure to plead material facts and fairness to the defendant
Evidence — Admissibility on Rule 21.01(1)(b) motions — Plaintiff sought to introduce evidence to support amended claim — Rule 21.01(2)(b) prohibits evidence on motions to strike for failure to disclose a cause of action — Whether Rule 2.03 should be invoked to dispense with compliance — Court declined to admit evidence, emphasizing procedural fairness and the purpose of Rule 21
Rights and freedoms — Open court principle — Sealing orders — Plaintiff informally requested a sealing order to protect privacy — Whether privacy concerns justified limiting public access to court records — Court emphasized strong presumption of openness and lack of evidence to meet the high threshold for a sealing order
Show more
[…] d. A document entitled “Results of legal research carried out using artificial intelligence system ChatGPT (Chat Generative Pre-Trained Transformer)”. […] in Canada specific to artificial intelligence . In particular, while some regulations in specific areas such as health and finance apply to certain uses of artificial intelligence , there currently is no generally applicable approach to ensure that artificial intelligence systems, (such as ChatGPT ), address systemic risks […]
10.
Consensus ad artificialis: Contract Theory Meets the GenAI Mind , 2026 CanLIIDocs 883
Katie Szilagyi, Marina Pavlovic – Canadian Journal of Law and Technology
102 pages
massively distributed boilerplate — self-represented litigants — legal — contract takers — automation
Contracts Intellectual property Technology
[…] Unable to afford access to a lawyer, or the latest in special purpose legal chatbots, we assume this self-represented litigant is accessing one of the freely available web-based versions of a LLM, likely ChatGPT , Gemini, or Claude. […] Federal Court was attempting to address and put self-represented litigants in an even more vulnerable position . Already, self-represented litigants have an uphill […]
11.
Canadian Law Library Review , 2023 CanLIIDocs 3108
Lori O'Connor, Alexandra Kwan, Sonia Smith et al – Canadian Law Library Review
107 pages
patent — inventory — book — research — legal
Intellectual property Legal theory Technology
[…] law students should be permitted to use ChatGPT and other AI tools to assist them in their studies. In late June, the Supreme Court issued its opinion for Students for Fair Admissions, Inc v President and Fellows of Harvard College, where the 6–3 majority struck down the use of affirmative action in college admissions. […] Just like law schools have had to implement policies on the use of ChatGPT and AI tools, law firms have also had to do so as well, especially after incidents involving lawyers who filed briefs with citations to fake cases as a result of relying on ChatGPT for their legal research . […]
12.
Legal Research Online: Information Seeking in the Digital Environment , 2024 CanLIIDocs 2507
Christa Bracci, Erica Friesen – eCampus Ontario
189 pages
legal research — non-traditional secondary sources — information — citer — online environment
Legal theory Technology
[…] in legal research ? 1.2 The Availability of Information Online 1.3 Essential Background for Using Legal Databases and Services 1.4 Fundamental Search Techniques 1.5 Artificial Intelligence in Legal Research Chapter 2: Supporting the Legal Research Process Online 2.1 Introduction: Why does online legal research need […] Josh Russell, “Lawyer who cited bogus legal opinions from ChatGPT pleads AI ignorance”, Courthouse News Service (8 June 2023), online: < courthousenews.com/lawyer-who-cited-bogus-legal-opinions-from-chatgpt-pleads-ai-ignorance/ > . […]
13.
Canadian Law Library Review , 2024 CanLIIDocs 2928
Kate McCandless, Erin Clupp, David H Michels et al – Canadian Law Library Review
84 pages
participants — study — history — time — data
Intellectual property Rights and freedoms Technology
[…] ChatGPT on July 8, 2024, “the technological singularity refers to a hypothetical future event wherein artificial intelligence surpasses human intelligence, leading to unpredictable and rapid advances in technological capabilities.” Abdi Aidid and Benjamin Alarie, authors of *The Legal Singularity: How Artificial Intelligence […] Editorial opinions do not necessarily reflect the official position of the Association. […]
14.
Case Comment: Lying Chatbot Makes Airline Liable: Negligent Misrepresentation in Moffatt v Air Canada , 2025 CanLIIDocs 1963
Isabelle St-Hilaire – UBC Law Review
45 pages
chatbot — bereavement fares — website — outputs — contract
Civil liability Commerce and industry Technology
[…] For example, ChatGPT 4o's interface displays the following pithy warning under the message bar where users input a prompt: “ ChatGPT can make mistakes. […] See “ ChatGPT 4o” (2024), online: < chatgpt .com> (page consulted 30 September 2024). […]
15.
Canadian Law Library Review , 2025 CanLIIDocs 3152
Julie Lavigne, Alexandra Kwan, Lorissa Kinna et al – Canadian Law Library Review
81 pages
librarians — legal — lawyers — algorithms — vendor
Legal theory
[…] • Sarah Gibbs, Parlee McLaws LLP • Bryony Livingston, Legislative Assembly of Ontario • Anita Susac-Bilyk, Goodmans LLP This group is well -positioned to provide guidance on the topic, as they have decades of combined experience with applying electronic legal research tools in legal practice. […] The goal of this guide is to shape informed consumers who will set base standards and expectations that all vendors of AI legal research and writing (LRW) solutions should aim to achieve. As many Law Societies in Canada 1 have declared, licensees who use artificial intelligence have ethical and professional responsibilities […]
16.
National Indigenous Fisheries Institute v. Canada (Fisheries and Oceans) , 2026 FC 382 (CanLII)
Federal Court
2026-03-20 | 36 pages | cited by 1 document
AI-generated
Indigenous peoples Judicial review Practice and procedure
Injunctions
Trade unions
Construction of statutes — Official Languages Act, s. 20(1)(b)
Practice — Variation of time
[…] [7] As will be more fully detailed below, the authorities cited by NIFI's counsel in their written representations - all of which allegedly dealing with the extension of time - simply do not exist and appear to be the product of Artificial Intelligence [AI] hallucinations. Further, the applicable legal principles were […] Alternatively, they propose that “[t]he delay is minimal [and] [t]he Respondent has been aware of the Applicant's position on dispute resolution since November 10, 2025.” Finally, with respect to the reasonable explanation for the delay, NIFI posits that “the primary reason why this situation has arisen is the constructive […]
17.
Simpson v. Hung Long Enterprises Inc. , 2025 BCCRT 525 (CanLII)
Civil Resolution Tribunal of British Columbia
2025-04-25 | 8 pages | cited by 5 documents
artificial intelligence — argument — dog — blood sugar — time spent
[…] consistent with the CRT's mandate of providing informal and flexible dispute resolution, and necessary to ensure self-represented parties can participate fully in the CRT's process. Also through CRT staff, I gave Ms. Simpson the opportunity to provide submissions, including on her apparent use of artificial intelligence . […] Hung Long's owner clearly struggled to understand Ms. Simpson's submissions, and his legal research to try to understand them was an utter waste of his time. I reiterate my point above that Ms. Simpson's submissions cited a non-existent case in support of a legal position that is the precise opposite of the existing law. […]
18.
University of New Brunswick Law Journal , 2025 CanLIIDocs 3107
Julia Belanger, Sheilah L Martin, Jutta Brunnée et al – University of New Brunswick Law Journal
483 pages
kirpan — legal — religious — students — access to justice
Environment International law Rights and freedoms
[…] ” (1 August 2023), online: AP News <apnews.com/article/ artificial-intelligence -hallucination-chatbots- chatgpt -falsehoods-ac4672c5b06e6f91050aa46ee731bcf4>. […] For example, in Floryan v Luke et al., the Ontario Superior Court of Justice declined to consider a document submitted by a self-represented litigant titled “Results of legal research carried out using artificial intelligence system ChatGPT .” 114 […]
19.
Putting Numbers to Words: Measuring the Readability of Court and Administrative Tribunal Decisions in Canada , 2025 CanLIIDocs 1993
Michael Madden – CanLII Authors Program
534 pages
readability levels — variables — adjudicative — linguistic — study
Evidence and procedure Legal theory Technology
[…] However, I immediately (and expectedly) realized that my full text search for the term “ self-represented ” was yielding a large number of false positive results – that is, results that contained the phrase “ self-represented ” within the decision even though all parties were actually represented by lawyers. 20 consequently, I […] Other false positives periodically arose because a party in the authoring judge's case had, at some earlier point in the legal process, been self-represented – even though they were represented by counsel when the judge heard and decided the case that was the subject of the decision. 21 To the contrary, the exclusions […]
20.
A Different Technology of Production Is Necessary to Make Lawyers' Services Affordable , 2023 CanLIIDocs 663
Ken Chasse – [Source not specified]
109 pages
problem — middle-and lower-income people — cost-efficiency — firms — legal profession
Professions and occupations Technology
[…] of law.” That is why the majority of lawyers are short of clients. 18 I learned the above simple economic principles of production by creating and operating a highly specialized, high volume legal research support service producing more than 5,000 legal opinions per year for hundreds of lawyers in private practice [ ... ]
21.
Law Society Policy For Access to Justice Failure , 2020 CanLIIDocs 3782
Ken Chasse – [Source not specified]
189 pages
societies — lawyers — problem — bencher — legal profession
Legal theory Professions and occupations Technology
[…] But it is a technology developed and used since Tuesday, July 3, 1979, that could be used by CanLII to provide a national legal opinion service, available to every lawyer in Canada, which opinions would serve in the completion of the necessary legal research for each client's fact-pattern submitted by their lawyers. […] true support services, eg, highly specialized, high production volume services such as, centralized legal research services, standard contracts in complex areas, electronic discovery review of records, legal opinions , and prediction as to the probability of success of cases; (2) arranging law offices in coordinated […]
22.
A School for Self-Represented Litigants: A People-Centred Approach to Access to Justice in Family Law , 2024 CanLIIDocs 3327
Jennifer Ann Leitch, Dayna Cornwall – Canadian Journal of Law and Society
39 pages
people-centered approach to access — participants — individuals — lecturers — lawyers
Evidence and procedure Family Legal theory
[…] A School for Self-Represented Litigants 563 education in substantive law, procedural law, or even legal research methods, SRLs may be liked to someone who is drowning: any and all means of staying afloat are used. […] interestingly, the introduction of Artificial intelligence (AI) in forms such as ChatGPT has introduced the possibility of assimilating legal information for SRLs as well as a corresponding risk regarding the accuracy of such information. 6 One consequence is that SRLs will secure fragments of legal information that do not […]
23.
Canadian Law Library Review , 2018 CanLIIDocs 234
Hannah Steeves, Paul R Sawa, Sara Klein et al – Canadian Law Library Review
107 pages
self-represented litigants — tweets — legal professionals
Administrative remedies Contracts Professions and occupations
[…] accounts remain silent on personal opinions on polarizing topics such as politics. 35 However, the geographic and political separation of Canada and the United States combined with the dramatic nature of the US election at this time in 2016 may create a setting where Canadians respond positively to these results. […] The 153 survey respondents were from academic and government law libraries, 99 per cent of which reported providing services to self-represented litigants. The services these libraries provide include legal research help, online legal research assistance, program referrals, telephone reference service, and print materials […]
24.
The Case for AI-Powered Legal Aid , 2021 CanLIIDocs 13978
Samuel Dahan, David Liang – Queen's Law Journal
24 pages
pandemic — access to justice — technology — analytics — transformation
Legal theory Technology
[…] See Brandon Fragomeni, Kaila Scarrow & Julie Macfarlane, “Tracking the Trends of the Self-Represented Litigant Phenomenon: Data from the National Self-Represented Litigants Project 2018/2019” (January 2020), online (pdf): National Self-Represented Litigants Project […] and Information Gaps” (2017) 15:2 CJLT 231–34; Julie Macfarlane, “The National Self-Represented Litigants Project: Identifying and Meeting the Needs of Self-Represented Litigants—Final Report” (May 2013), online (pdf): National Self-Represented Litigants Project […]
25.
Journal of Paralegal Access to Justice , 2023 CanLIIDocs 3561
Asha Ali, Benjiman Carey, Bill Chung et al – Journal of Paralegal Access to Justice
394 pages
legal — migrants — women — immigration — people
[…] In Part C, the impact that the rise of artificial intelligence (AI) has had on access to justice, both positive and negative, is examined, ranging from the use of AI to streamline legal processes and make more objective decisions to the perpetuation of racial bias. […] 210 Part C: Access to Justice and the Rise of Artificial Intelligence Black faces relative to white faces. 64 In particular, the study determined that false positive rates for Black faces were up to 100 times higher than for white faces, while false positive rates for Asian faces were up to 45 times higher than for white […]
Comments