Annual conferences

Date

October 16-18,  2019

Program accredited in provinces where CLE requirements for lawyers are mandatory. / Formation dont l’admissibilité a été confirmée par le Barreau du Québec aux fins de la formation continue obligatoire.

Theme

The 2019 annual conference on the impact of artificial intelligence and social media on legal institutions is taking a hard, critical look at the challenges that courts and the legal profession must face in order to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice.

Our relationship with information is being disrupted by technology: our means of communication are evolving, information is flowing in a network of complicated channels, and language is changing with the plethora of acronyms and emoticons that arise every day.

Artificial intelligence designers are proposing inventions that assist with human decision-making. Documentary evidence today includes screen shots, the traceability of which is questionable. The legal guarantees for reputation and privacy protection are colliding with information dissemination and the use of it for often questionable purposes.

How can courts and the legal profession evolve and adapt to new technologies to ensure that they remain consistent in their mission to promote and protect the administration of justice?

Co-Chairs

• Mr. Patrick A. Molinari, Ad. E., FRSC, Lavery Lawyers; President, CIAJ
• The Honourable Justice James O’Reilly, Federal Court; First Vice-President, CIAJ

Planning Committee

• Professor Benjamin Alarie
• The Honourable Justice Frances Kiteley
• Mr. Eric Lavallée
• Ms. Christine O’Doherty
• The Honourable Justice P. Colleen Suche
• Professor Pierre Trudel
• Professor Martine Valois, Ad. E.
• Professor Nicolas Vermeys

List of webinars and language (scroll down to access the videos)

• Panel 1 (1:22:10): The Risks and Rewards of Emerging Technologies
  With Derek Ruths (in English), Jennifer Stairs (in English) and Lorne Sossin (in English)
• Panel 2 (1:11:34): The Influence of Social Media on the Work of Decision-Makers
  With Pierre Trudel (in French), Peter D. Lauwers (in English) and Frances Kiteley (in English)
• Panel 3 (1:16:14): How Will Technology Alter the Truth-Seeking Process and Its Legitimacy?
  With Mark J. Sandler (in English), Sophie Bourque (in French) and Yves Boisvert (in French)
• Panel 4 (1:-09:58): Value Extraction from Data Collection: Will We Be Needing Lawyers in the Digital Era?
  With Alain Lavoie (in French), Eric Lavallée (in French) and Benjamin Alarie (in English)
• Panel 5 (1:28:05): Protection in the Internet Era: Privacy, Defamation and Online Reputation
  With Pierre-Luc Déziel (in French), Sue Gratton (in English) and Frédéric Letendre (in French)
• Panel 8 (1:31:18): Student Panel: Vulnerability and Control: Deepfakes, Image-Based Abuse and Online Harm
  With Yuan Stevens (in English), Nareg Froundijian (in English) and Suzie Dunn (in English), after Xavier Dionne's opening presentation in French)
• Panel 9 (1:29:18): Increasing Sources of Information and Integrity of the Law
  With Laurence Bich-Carrière (in French) and Nicolas Vermeys (in French)
• Panel 10 (1:24:43): Do Modern Communication Techniques and Public Opinion Affect Judicial Decision-Making?
  With Charles Moumouni (in English), Lucie Rondeau in French) and Michele H. Hollins (in English)

Related PowerPoint presentations and papers are available in the library under "documentation."

Note: Panels 6 and 7 are not available.

Date

Wednesday, October 17, 2018
Thursday, October 18, 2018
Friday, October 19, 2018

Theme

The theme of Justice and Mental Health will be discussed by panellists who will attempt to bridge the gap between the Justice and Healthcare systems; what is the interrelation between vulnerable groups and mental illness as it plays out in the courts (civil and criminal) and administrative tribunals?

Speakers from various disciplines, including lawyers, judges, psychologists, psychiatrists, correctional professionals and social workers, will approach issues in an inclusive manner that incorporates the diverse perspectives of the various populations and advocates concerned. Among others, we will view the two systems through the lens of a medical context, a social context, a correctional view and a rehabilitation-centred view. We will also hear stories from individuals that have passed through the criminal and healthcare spheres, and have come out the other side with a unique perspective on the systems at play. The conference will conclude with a student panel entitled Law and Happiness, where we will explore how mental health issues affect law students and lawyers. What resources are available to manage the mental health of those who operate within the legal profession

It has been said that courts are the emergency rooms for unaddressed mental health issues. This conference will assess the tools available to the justice system to manage such issues when they arise with respect to litigants, witnesses and the accused.

Honorary Chair

• Senator Kim Pate, Senate of Canada

Co-Chairs

• Mr. Patrick A. Molinari, Ad. E., FRSC, Lavery Lawyers, President, CIAJ
• The Hon. James O’Reilly, Federal Court, First Vice-President, CIAJ

Planning Committee

• Mr. Mark Benton, Q.C. CEO, Legal Services Society of British Columbia
• Deputy Commissioner Brenda Butterworth-Carr, Commanding Officer, E Division, RCMP
• Professor Jennifer Chandler, Faculty of Law - Common Law Section, University of Ottawa
• The Honourable Judge Dominique Larochelle, Court of Quebec
• Ms. Sapna Mahajan, Director, Mental Health Prevention and Promotion – Workplace Initiatives Mental Health Commission of Canada
• Mr. André A. Morin, Ad. E., Chief Federal Prosecutor, Public Prosecution Service of Canada
• The Honourable Justice Michelle O’Bonsawin, Superior Court of Justice, Ontario
• The Honourable Justice P. Colleen Suche, Manitoba Court of Queen’s Bench, CIAJ Second Vice-President
• Professor Martine Valois, Faculty of Law, Université de Montréal
• Mr. David A. Wright Chair, Law Society Tribunal

Date

Monday, October 2, 2017
Tuesday, October 3, 2017
Wednesday, October 4, 2017

Theme

What is the effect of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms on the resolution of issues of culture and religion? Are the courts getting the mix right? Is the law falling behind or is it leading?

It is commonplace to speak of Canada as a multi-cultural or multi-ethnic society and these characteristics must figure in any consideration of diversity in the administration of justice. Diversity is an encompassing term that allows for multiple forms of social groupings but also multiple themes that cross between and among social groupings. Diversity is thus an appropriate term with which to examine the manner in which public institutions serve the interests of inclusiveness and equality in the administration of justice.

An important dimension of this conference is the examination of the manner in which public institutions have and should evolve to advance values of inclusiveness and equality, including an assessment of their shortcomings. Another broad dimension focuses on substantive issues (language, religion, race, culture, etc.) concerning complementarity and contradiction between values of diversity and equality.

Albert V. Dicey, the noted British constitutional theorist, propounded a conception of the rule of law in terms of "the equal subjection of all classes to the ordinary law of the land administered by the ordinary courts". The Canadian Bill of Rights and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms endorses this conception of the rule of law. Section 15 of the Charter provides that “Every individual is equal before and under the law…". If the same law applies equally to every individual, what is the argument then concerning the importance of taking into account religious and cultural diversity in the legal system? Is it a question of acknowledging the different perceptions that these cultural or religious groups have regarding the law and the administration of justice in general, or rather that the Canadian legal system must adapt and change its substantive norms to reflect these different perceptions?

These issues play out in every aspect of the administration of justice: for the police, for civil and criminal courts and tribunals. This conference is thus relevant to all actors in the administration of justice.

Honorary Chair

• The Honourable Nicole Duval Hesler, Chief Justice of Quebec

Co-Chairs

• The Honourable Georgina R. Jackson, Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan, CIAJ President
• Mr. Patrick A. Molinari, Ad. E., FRSC, Lavery, Montreal, CIAJ Vice-President

Planning Committee

• Professor Natasha Bakht, Faculty of Law - Common Law Section, University of Ottawa
• The Honourable Danielle Côté, Associate Chief Judge - Criminal and Penal Division, Court of Québec
• Ms. Rime El Rhoul, Student, Faculty of Law, Université de Montréal
• Dean Jean-François Gaudreault-Desbiens, Faculty of Law, Université de Montréal
• The Honourable Sheilah Martin, Court of Appeal for Alberta
• The Honourable Shaun Nakatsuru, Ontario Superior Court of Justice
• The Honourable James O’Reilly, Federal Court of Canada
• Professor Marilyn Poitras, College of Law, University of Saskatchewan
• Professor Martine Valois, Faculty of Law, Université de Montréal

Date

Wednesday, October 5, 2016
Thursday, October 6, 2016
Friday, October 7, 2016

Theme

What is the value of justice? Does justice have a price tag? The question is intriguing. But justice certainly has a cost. It is part of the world where material resources and time are limited. Can we put dollar figures on justice? Certainly. Should we? Therein lies the dilemma. Since justice is financed from public funds, some would argue that governments should be able to measure its quality, performance and accessibility. Governments are required to report on court house costs, delays and other expenses; and to those numbers must be added expenses incurred by litigants and the costs associated with the lack of justice i.e., self-representation or people abandoning rights recognized by our laws. The absence of reliable data on judicial activity poses many problems. The development of reforms based on inaccurate data and the absence of a documented monitoring of the implemented reforms within the justice system attest that the legal culture is not transparent.

What information does justice need about its own activity? What do we know about its activity? How can we improve the practice of law, and the processes of the law, and, thereby, improve access to justice? How can we better understand and measure the activities of our legal institutions? What are the underlying notions of justice? Can justice be measured? What are the social returns from offering the resolution of civil justice disputes in the courts? Whose job is it to decide how much justice a citizen gets? Whose job is it to decide about proportionality in justice? Can society countenance a $200,000 cost to the litigant, and the concomitant costs to the civil justice system, of a $50,000 dispute? By asking this question and seeking a solution to it, do we risk treating justice as a commodity to be packaged, bought and sold? In the absence of data, what steps is the system taking to improve and to provide the means to fulfill the fundamentals of civil justice? What insights can an economic focus lend to an analysis of how to improve civil justice? Are we offering too much or too little access? Do the courts have the tools to curb misuse and abuse that are taking civil justice dollars without giving a perceived value? If self-represented litigants are a consequence of expensive justice costs and also a cause of delay, should we be more focussed on them, and if so, how could this be done? Do courts need to direct private justice civil processes even more than they do now?

Honorary Chair

• The Honourable Justice Thomas Cromwell, Chair, Action Committee on Access to Civil and Family Justice

Co-Chairs

• The Honourable Justice Georgina R. Jackson, Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan; CIAJ President
• Mr. Patrick A. Molinari, Ad. E., FRSC, Legal Counsel, Lavery, Montreal

Planning Committee

• Mr. Mark Benton, Chief Executive Officer, Legal Services Society, British Columbia
• Dean Natalie Des Rosiers, Faculty of Law – Common Law Section, University of Ottawa
• Ms. Virginia A. Engel, Q.C., ICD.D, Partner, Peacock Linder Halt & Mack, Calgary
• Professor Trevor Farrow, Osgoode Hall Law School, President, Canadian Forum on Civil Justice, Toronto
• Mr. Michael Gottheil, Executive Chair, Social Justice Tribunals, Ontario
• Professor Ejan Mackaay, Professor Emeritus, Faculty of Law, Université de Montréal
• Ms. Michèle Moreau, Executive Director, CIAJ
• The Honourable Justice Yves-Marie Morissette, Court of Appeal of Quebec
• Professor Pierre Noreau, Faculty of Law, Université de Montréal
• Ms. Tijana Potkonjak, Student, Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa
• Mr. John Sims, Past Deputy Minister and Deputy Attorney General, Department of Justice, Ottawa
• Professor Martine Valois, Faculty of Law, Université de Montréal
• Mr. Grant Wedge, Executive Director, Policy, Equity and Public Affairs, LSUC, Ontario

Date

Wednesday, October 14, 2015
Thursday, October 15, 2015
Friday, October 16, 2015

Theme

Following on the heels of the work of the Canadian Truth and Reconciliation Commission, this Conference presents a unique opportunity for everyone within the administration of justice to consider how best to work towards reconciliation. This Conference will be of interest to judges, lawyers, police officers, correction workers, court administrators, academics, law students, members of tribunals and community workers.

“Finally, this litigation has been both long and expensive, not only in economic but in human terms as well. By ordering a new trial, I do not necessarily encourage the parties to proceed to litigation and to settle their dispute through the courts. As was said in Sparrow, at p. 1105, s. 35(1) “provides a solid constitutional base upon which subsequent negotiations can take place.” Those negotiations should also include other aboriginal nations which have a stake in the territory claimed. Moreover, the Crown is under a moral, if not a legal, duty to enter into and conduct those negotiations in good faith. Ultimately, it is through negotiated settlements, with good faith and give and take on all sides, reinforced by the judgments of this Court, that we will achieve what I stated in Van der Peet, supra, at para. 31, to be a basic purpose of s. 35(1) -- “the reconciliation of the pre-existence of aboriginal societies with the sovereignty of the Crown.” Let us face it, we are all here to stay.” Delgamuukw v. British Columbia (Supreme Court of Canada) [1997] 3 SCR 1010, par. 186

Chair

• The Honourable Justice Georgina Jackson, Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan

Special Advisor

• The Honourable Justice Murray Sinclair, Court of Queen's Bench for Manitoba and Chair of the Canadian Truth and Reconciliation Commission

Planning Committee

• Professor Beth Bilson, Acting Dean, College of Law, University of Saskatchewan
• Ms. Omeasoo Wahpasiw, Ph. D. Student, University of Saskatchewan
• Assistant Commissioner Brenda Butterworth-Carr, Commanding Officer, RCMP, "F" Division, Saskatchewan
• Ms. Maria Campbell, Author, artist, playwright and filmmaker, Saskatchewan
• Chief Tammy Cook Searson, Lac La Ronge Indian Band, Saskatchewan
• Chief Marie-Anne Daywalker, Okanese First Nation, Saskatchewan
• The Honourable Justice Jeffery D. Kalmakoff, Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan
• Ms. Leanne LaPrise, Law Student, College of Law, University of Saskatchewan
• Mr. Mitch McAdam, Director, Aboriginal Law Branch, Ministry of Justice of Saskatchewan, Regina, SK
• The Honourable Judge Gerald M. Morin, Saskatchewan Provincial Court, Prince Albert, SK
• Professor Marilyn Poitras, College of Law, University of Saskatchewan
• The Honourable Chief Justice Martel Popescul, Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench
• Ms. Riva Farrell Racette, Lawyer, MacPherson Leslie & Tyeman LLP, Regina, SK
• Mr. Marcel G. St-Onge, Director, Child and Family Programs, Ministry of Social Services, Saskatoon, SK
• Ms. Beth Symes, C.M., LSM
• Ms. Jan Turner, Assistant Deputy Minister, Courts and Tribunals Division, Ministry of Justice of Saskatchewan, Regina, SK
• Chief Clive Weighill, Saskatoon Police Service, President of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police
• Ms. Michèle Moreau, Executive Director, CIAJ, Montreal, QC

Date

Thursday, October 16, 2014
Friday, October 17, 2014

Theme

Technology has changed the nature and amount of information available, with direct effects on personal privacy.  There is a pressing need to examine the ways in which these changes are already affecting the criminal law, civil law, the courts, and administrative tribunals, and to begin to chart a principled path forward with respect to these issues.  The changing nature of information, and the attendant effects on privacy, impose new challenges on courts, tribunals, and the administration of justice as a whole.  Greater resources and greater capacity are required to manage and work with the increased volume and more technical nature of evidence, not only in document-intensive civil cases but across the full range of civil, criminal, an administrative matters.  More importantly, courts and tribunals will be the forums in which the evolving law on information and privacy will be determined.  Judges and administrative agency decision-makers will be the actors responsible for ensuring that both the state and private individuals are held appropriately accountable for their use of information, and that privacy interests are articulated and evolve appropriately.

Chair

• The Honourable Chief Justice J. Derek Green, Newfoundland and Labrador, St. John's, NL

Planning Committee

• Mr. Remzi Cej, Chair, Human Rights Commission of Newfoundland and Labrador, St. John's, NL
• Associate Dean Michael Deturbide, Schulich School of Law, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS
• Justice Alphonsus (Fonse) E. Faour, Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador, St. John's, NL
• Judge Colin Flynn, Provincial Court of Newfoundland and Labrador, St. John's, NL
• Judge Patrick Healy, Court of Quebec, Montreal, QC
• Justice Louis Hoegg, Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal, St. John's, NL
• Professor Nicolas Lambert, Faculty of Law, University of Moncton, Moncton, NB
• Mr. Paul McDonald, Partner, Cox & Palmer, St. John's, NL
• Deputy Chief Bill Moore, Halifax Regional Police, Halifax, NS
• Ms. Beth Symes, LSM, CM, Symes Street & Millard LLP, Toronto, ON
• Ms. Mandy Woodland, Mandy Woodland Law, St. John's, NL

Date

Thursday, October 10, 2013
Friday, October 11, 2013

Theme

The recent evolution in the law of evidence is a vital topic for those interested in our legal system, whether a decision-maker, advocate, litigator, academic, teacher, student and or law-maker. In the past 25 years, the Supreme Court of Canada has ushered in a set of revolutionary changes to the rules of evidence in several areas, including witness competence, privilege, hearsay and similar act evidence. It has developed a “principled approach” designed to return evidence law to fundamental first principles while conforming to the normative commitments of the Charter. The conference will address how facts are established through rules of evidence in criminal cases and how evidence law impacts the legal system in family law mediation, administrative hearings, civil cases, public inquiries and commissions through innovative, comparative and theoretical perspectives.

Conference Co-Chairs

• The Honourable Chief Justice Annemarie Bonkalo, Ontario Court of Justice, Toronto, ON
• Professor Ronalda Murphy, Counsel, Crown Law Office – Civil Law, Ministry of the Attorney General (Ontario), Toronto, ON, and Professor, Schulich School of Law, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS
• The Honourable Justice Gladys Pardu, Superior Court of Justice (Ontario), Toronto, ON
• Mr. Paul Schabas, Partner, Blakes Toronto, ON

Planning Committee

• Professor Emma Cunliffe, Faculty of Law, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC
• Bart Danko, Osgoode Hall Law Student, Toronto, ON
• The Honourable Justice Georgina Jackson, Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, CIAJ Vice-President, Regina, SK
• The Honourable Justice David Paciocco, Ontario Court of Justice, Ottawa, ON
• Dean Lorne Sossin, Osgoode Hall Law School, York University, Toronto, ON
• Beth Symes, LSM, CM, CIAJ President, Symes Street & Millard LLP, Toronto, ON

Watch videos here

Date

Thursday, October 11, 2012
Friday, October 12, 2012

Theme

Changes in the administration of justice pose challenges for the role of the Courts as the traditional guardians and determiners of fundamental rights, CIAJ's annual conference will consider the impact of these changes as to access to and the cost of justice, the ability of the Courts to adapt and respond, adequate accountability and transparency mechanisms and the necessity of broader structural approaches or legislative steps. The conference will be of interest to members of the legal profession, the judiciary, administrative agencies, arbitrators, mediators, government policy-makers, media and the public.

Conference Co-Chairs

• Greg Harding, Q.C., Partner, Field LLP, Edmonton, AB
• The Honourable Justice Sheilah Martin, Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta, Calgary, AB
• Alastair Lucas, Q.C., Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB
• Gillian Marriott, Q.C., Executive Director, Pro Bono Law Alberta, Calgary, AB

Planning Committee

• The Honourable Judge James Ogle, Provincial Court of Alberta, Calgary, AB
• The Honourable Justice Lorne Giroux, Quebec Court of Appeal, Quebec City, QC
• The Honourable John Vertes, formerly at the Supreme Court of Northwest Territories, CIAJ Immediate Past President, Calgary, AB
• Alastair MacKinnon, JD Student at Law, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB
• Shaunna Mireau, Director of Knowledge Management and Libraries, Field LLP, Edmonton, AB
• Beth Symes, LSM, CM, CIAJ President, Symes Street & Millard LLP, Toronto, ON

Date

Thursday, October 13, 2011
Friday, October 14, 2011

Theme

The overall purpose of the conference is to explore how Canadian law has changed with the threat of terrorism in the decade since 9/11. Many of these changes have been controversial, especially in the way in which they reconcile (or not) civil liberties and human rights with enhanced state power to combat terrorism. At the same time, the last decade has been one of several public inquiries, investigating the actual practice of anti-terrorism by Canada’s security services.

Key questions arising from the 2011 conference include, at the broadest level, whether Canadian law has successfully preserved fundamental rights and values of substantive and procedural justice while at the same time contributing to anti-terrorism.

Conference Co-Chairs

• The Honourable Justice Richard Mosley, Federal Court, Ottawa, ON
• The Honourable Judge Dominique Larochelle, Cour du Québec, Laval, QC
• Mr. Bernard Grenier, Ad.E., Schurman Longo Grenier, Montreal, QC

Academic Experts

• Vice Dean Craig Forcese, Faculty of Law (Common Law Section), University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON
• Professor François Crépeau, Faculty of Law, McGill University, Montreal, QC

Organizing Committee

• Mr. Michael W. Duffy, Senior General Counsel (National Security Law), Justice Canada, Ottawa, ON
• Ms. Sylvia Mackenzie, Counsel, Federal Court, Ottawa, ON
• The Honourable Justice Anne Mactavish, Federal Court, Ottawa, ON
• Ms. Beth Symes, LSM, CM, Symes and Street, Toronto, ON

Date

Thursday, October 14, 2010
Friday, October 15, 2010

Theme

The overall purpose of the conference is to explore the issues in sentencing that need to be addressed in Canada. The focus is on the future: what aspects of sentencing (and the correctional process) should change, and what needs to be done in order to ensure that these changes are made. From the public’s perspective, sentencing appears to be evaluated largely on the basis of whether individual sentences are ‘severe’ enough.

The working assumption of this conference is that the severity of sentences is probably the least difficult question to address: sentences in Canada could, relatively easily, be made ‘twice’ or ‘half’ as severe as they are now. The more fundamental issues – what principles should guide the determination of sentences – would still be with us, even if overall severity were to change in either direction. The challenge of sentencing in the 21st century might be seen as finding the right balance between individualization and judicial discretion, on the one hand, and principled guidance on the other; and, at the same time, ensuring that sentences are, as much as possible, understandable and fair. Defining how one determines what is ‘fair’ is, of course, fundamental.

Chairs

Honorary Chair

• The Honourable Lance S. G. Finch, Chief Justice of British Columbia, and President, International Society for the Reform of Criminal Law, Vancouver, BC

Conference Co-Chairs

• The Honourable Justice Elizabeth Bennett, British Columbia Court of Appeal, Vancouver, BC
• Professor Anthony Doob, Centre of Criminology, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON
• Mr. E. David Crossin Q.C., Sugden, McFee & Roos, LLP, Vancouver, BC 

Organizing Committee

• The Honourable Judge Conni Bagnall, Provincial Court of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC
• The Honourable Judge Marion Buller Bennett, Provincial Court of British Columbia, Port Coquitlam, BC
• Commissioner Don Head, Correctional Service of Canada, Ottawa, ON
• The Honourable Judge Patrick Healy, Court of Quebec, Montreal, QC