Dalhousie University
Schulich Scholars (Schulich School of Law, Dalhousie University)Not a member yet
16818 research outputs found
Sort by
The Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Access to Justice: Predictive Analytics and the Legal Services Market
Full text linkThis paper examines how developers of predictive analytics—a technology using artificial intelligence (AI) to predict the outcomes of legal disputes—position their product vis-à-vis access to justice. In particular, it examines how two companies market their software to better understand how this technology is being integrated into the legal services market and to comment on the software’s potential impact on access to justice. The first part of this paper reviews the access to justice landscape and examines existing critiques of AI supported technology from an access to justice perspective. The second part briefly outlines the scope and design of the study, while the third section reports and comments on the findings. Here, I note that these companies make several claims about their technology that, if true, could have a positive impact on access to justice. Specifically, both companies claim that their software will result in time savings, improved access to the law, improved legal clarity, and increased legal certainty. While these claims have some merit, their actual potential to improve access to justice is limited by the economic reality of the legal services market.
Le présent article examine comment les développeurs de logiciels d’analyse prédictive—une technologie utilisant l’intelligence artificielle (IA) pour prédire l’issue de litiges juridiques—positionnent leur produit par rapport à l’accès à la justice. Il examine en particulier comment deux entreprises commercialisent leurs logiciels en vue d’une meilleure compréhension de l’intégration de cette technologie dans le marché des services juridiques et d’une analyse de l’impact potentiel des logiciels sur l’accès à la justice. La première partie de cet article étudie le paysage de l’accès à la justice et passe en revue les critiques actuelles des technologies reposant sur l’IA du point de vue de l’accès à la justice. La deuxième partie décrit brièvement la conception et la portée de l’étude, tandis que la troisième présente les conclusions et des commentaires. Je tiens à souligner ici que les entreprises en question avancent plusieurs arguments selon lesquels, s’ils s’avèrent exacts, leur technologie pourrait avoir un impact positif sur l’accès à la justice. Plus précisément, les deux entreprises affirment que leurs logiciels mèneront à des gains de temps, à une amélioration de l’accès au droit, à une clarté juridique accrue et à une certitude juridique renforcée. Bien que ces affirmations aient un certain bien-fondé, leur potentiel réel d’améliorer l’accès à la justice est limité par la réalité économique du marché des services juridiques
Canada\u27s Foreign Fighter Problem: How Should the Federal Government Manage Suspected ISIS Members Held in Syria?
Full text linkSince the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) fell in 2019, the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria (AANES) has arbitrarily detained tens of thousands of accused ISIS fighters and their families in Northern Syria. Among those detained are Canadian citizens. Although Canada has repatriated Canadian women and children from AANES custody, its policy approach to date has been inadequate.
Canada must take action to develop a cohesive policy for the approximately 17 Canadians remaining in AANES custody. In this paper, I will evaluate four potential policy options available to the Canadian government. First, that Canada could take no action and maintain the status quo. Second, that Canada could support AANES in bringing ISIS fighters to justice directly in Northern Syria. Third, that Canada could support the International Criminal Court (ICC) in prosecuting ISIS fighters. Fourth, that Canada could repatriate the Canadians held by AANES and, where applicable, prosecute them directly in Canada.
Considering the global security and human rights concerns presented by the status quo; as well as the inherent challenges with prosecuting low-level ISIS members at the ICC and AANES’s standing as a non-State entity, I will argue that the best policy option for Canada is to repatriate its detained citizens and prosecute them domestically where possible. I will contend that, while repatriating Canadians held by AANES is not without considerable evidentiary concern, this approach advances human rights and global security objectives. Additionally, it allows Canadians involved with ISIS to be held accountable for their actions
Annual Review of Criminal Law 2024
No full textThe Annual Review of Criminal Law 2024 presents the most significant criminal law decisions in five areas: Substantive Criminal law (Chapter 1) Policing and the Charter (Chapter 2) Evidence (Chapter 3) Criminal procedure (Chapter 4) Sentencing (Chapter 5)
Steve Coughlan wrote chapters 2 and 4, Adelina Iftene wrote chapters 1 and 5, and Rob Currie wrote chapter 3. All three are faculty members at the Schulich School of Law, Dalhousie University.https://digitalcommons.schulichlaw.dal.ca/faculty_books/1126/thumbnail.jp
Source Code: A Trade-Related Barrier to the Right to Repair
No full textIn recent years, conflicts between software access restrictions and Right to Repair (R2R) legislation have become a growing concern for policymakers and repair advocates around the world. Consumers have come to increasingly depend on electronic devices that integrate sophisticated hardware and embedded software. When those devices break or require maintenance, owners often lack the software or software-based tools required to fix them. In some cases where replacement parts and information may be readily available, device software and software-integrated tools present a barrier to independent repair. In response, legislators in both the United States and the European Union have been enacting R2R laws designed to empower consumers and professional repairers with access to these resources to foster a circular economy and reduce electronics waste.
At the same time, trade negotiators on both sides of the Atlantic have been concluding free trade agreements (FTAs) that include digital trade provisions that protect software source code and algorithms from inspection and disclosure by governments or access by third parties. These provisions, such as those found in the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) and subsequent EU-led agreements, bar governments from requiring device manufacturers to transfer or disclose source code or algorithms as a condition for market access.
Though to date these parallel policy developments have (for the most part) occurred in isolation from one another, this report examines their potential for interaction and future conflict as contemporary FTAs and R2R mandates with software disclosure obligations come into effect. These seemingly distinct legal and policy developments may come into conflict where, for example, R2R mandates explicitly or implicitly require manufacturers to transfer or provide access to source code or algorithms for the benefit of third-party repairers or consumers.
Drawing from statutory texts, recent trade agreements, policy briefs, and media reports, the study assesses the importance of access to software tools for repair, analyses domestic R2R legislation in the United States and Europe, surveys source-code provisions in major agreements, evaluates potential conflicts, and offers recommendations for policy makers
Tax Treaty Arbitration: An Unacceptable Surrender of National Sovereignty or an Expression of Sovereign Power?
No full textThe release in 2016 by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development of a draft multilateral treaty to modify thousands of global bilateral tax treaties was met with surprisingly strong support by the international community, with many states signing, ratifying, and implementing the treaty. One of the treaty’s most contentious elements is the addition to the dispute resolution measures in bilateral treaties, a process known as mutual agreement procedure, of a mandatory arbitration procedure that is to be available where agreement cannot be reached under the conventional process. In contrast to the mutual agreement procedure, which includes no requirement that a final agreement be reached, the mandatory arbitration procedure can provide a guaranteed resolution of a treaty dispute. Although the arbitration article has been ratified by most developed countries, many developing nations have noted reservations to it, indicating that they will not incorporate it into their bilateral treaties. Central to the many arguments that have been put forward by opponents of mandatory arbitration in bilateral tax treaties is the argument that agreeing to mandatory arbitration would amount to an unacceptable surrender of sovereignty. However, when viewed critically in the context of tax treaties, this and many other concerns fall away or are revealed to be red herring arguments. A better view, this article suggests, is that entering into a tax treaty is an exercise of fiscal sovereignty, and any agreement to reduce taxing or other rights in the treaty should be seen as an element of that exercise of sovereignty to gain the benefits or advantages the parties seek through a treaty that grants mutual rights to and imposes mutual obligations on sovereign signatories.
La publication en 2016 par l’Organisation de coopération et de développement économiques d’un projet de convention multilatérale visant à modifier des milliers de conventions fiscales bilatérales mondiales a été étonnamment bien reçue par la communauté internationale. De nombreux États ont en effet signé, ratifié et mis en œuvre la convention. L’un des éléments les plus controversés de la convention est l’ajout aux mesures de règlement des différends prévues dans les conventions bilatérales — un processus connu sous le nom de procédure amiable —, d’une procédure d’arbitrage obligatoire quand le processus conventionnel ne permet pas d’arriver à un accord. Contrairement à la procédure amiable, qui n’impose pas de parvenir à un accord final, la procédure d’arbitrage obligatoire peut garantir le règlement d’un différend lié à une convention. Bien que l’article sur l’arbitrage ait été ratifié par la plupart des pays développés, de nombreux pays en développement ont émis des réserves à son sujet, indiquant qu’ils ne l’intégreraient pas dans leurs conventions bilatérales. Au centre des nombreux arguments avancés par les opposants à l’arbitrage obligatoire dans les conventions fiscales bilatérales figure l’idée qu’accepter l’arbitrage obligatoire revient à un abandon inacceptable de leur souveraineté. Cependant, lorsqu’on l’examine d’un œil critique dans le contexte des conventions fiscales, cet argument et tant d’autres perdent de leur pertinence ou s’avèrent fallacieux. Cet article propose qu’une meilleure approche consiste à considérer la conclusion d’une convention fiscale comme un exercice de souveraineté fiscale. Ainsi, tout accord visant à réduire les droits d’imposition ou d’autres droits dans la convention devrait être vu comme un élément de cet exercice de souveraineté pour obtenir les avantages ou les bénéfices que les parties recherchent dans le cadre d’une convention accordant des droits mutuels et imposant des obligations mutuelles aux signataires souverains
Vincent Wong: Racial Capitalism and International Student Policy
No full textJoin student editor Cameron Capello as he sits down with Assistant Professor and PhD Candidate Vincent Wong to discuss his recent paper in the Dalhousie Law Journal titled Racial Capitalism, Neocolonial Wealth Transfer, and Canadian International Student Policy. Professor Wong is an Assistant Professor at the University of Windsor Faculty of Law and a PhD Candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School. His dissertation focuses on racial capitalism and the structures that produce unfree, status-excluded labour in Canada. This conversation explores the concept of racial capitalism and its impact on Canada’s international student policies
Curricular Choices: Misconceptions Regarding Law School Courses
No full textCanadian law schools offer their upper-year students a wealth of optional curricular choices. Yet many students choose narrowly and poorly. This article addresses the misconceptions that many hold as they select their second- and third-year courses. Often students believe they need certain courses to get a job, to prepare for articling, to pass the bar exams, or to prepare for future legal careers. In most cases, these concerns are erroneous. This article urges students to choose based on factual evidence rather than imagined anxieties and on personal interest rather than the “group think” rigidity that infects much of the curricular decision-making today. Curricular choices free of misconceptions could reduce what has been termed “zombification,” and result in Juris Doctor degrees that are more fulfilling and legal careers that better befit the extraordinary and diverse talents of Canadian law students.
Les facultés de droit du Canada offrent à leurs étudiants de cycle supérieur un large choix de cours optionnels. Pourtant, de nombreux étudiants font des choix trop restrictifs et peu judicieux. Le présent article porte sur les idées erronées que beaucoup ont lorsqu’ils choisissent leurs cours de deuxième et de troisième année. Souvent, les étudiants pensent qu’ils ont besoin de certains cours pour trouver un emploi, pour se préparer au stage, pour réussir les examens du barreau ou pour se préparer à leur future carrière juridique. Dans la plupart des cas, leurs préoccupations sont sans fondement. Cet article incite les étudiants à faire leurs choix en se basant sur des faits plutôt que sur des inquiétudes imaginaires, et en fonction de leurs intérêts personnels plutôt que de la rigidité de la « pensée collective » qui influence aujourd’hui la plupart des décisions en matière de programmes d’études. Des choix de cours effectués sans idées fausses pourraient réduire ce que l’on appelle la « zombification » et aboutir à l’obtention de doctorats en droit plus enrichissants et à des carrières juridiques qui conviennent mieux aux talents extraordinaires et diversifiés des étudiants en droit du Canada
Crown Prosecutors and Government Lawyers: A Legal Ethics Analysis of Under-Funding
Full text linkCrown prosecutors and government lawyers are reliant on governments for their funding but exert no meaningful influence or control over such funding decisions. Nonetheless, this article demonstrates that as a question of law, under-funded Crown prosecutors and government lawyers risk violating their professional duties. If so, they must promptly inform the government, refuse new matters and, if necessary, withdraw from existing matters. If the government purports to block such refusal or withdrawal and does not provide adequate funding, resignation will become necessary. While law societies will likely not prioritize disciplinary action against such lawyers, the policy reasons to forego such proceedings do not mean that the legal answer is wrong and should or will change. This discordance with practical reality demonstrates that legal ethics generally – and the rules of professional conduct more specifically – do not adequately appreciate the practice settings of government lawyers and Crown prosecutors. Nonetheless, any changes to the legal framework governing all lawyers should be considered carefully as they would have major implications for the regulation of the legal profession
Crown Attorneys, the Attorney General, and Judicial Discipline: A Comment on \u3ci\u3eLauzon v Ontario (Justices of the Peace Review Council)\u3c/i\u3e
Full text linkShould the consequences for judicial misconduct be different depending solely on the identity of the person who makes a complaint? In a surprising decision, the Ontario Court of Appeal in Lauzon v Ontario (Justices of the Peace Review Council) holds that dispositions downstream from complaints by Crown attorneys (or any other member of the executive branch of government) should be lower than other dispositions because the vindication of such complaints is inherently dangerous to judicial independence and the separation of powers. In this comment, I look closely at the reasoning in Lauzon and respectfully suggest that that reasoning is problematic. In particular, I note that judicial councils operate independently and that Crown attorneys are subject to high standards as identified both by courts and by law societies as their professional regulators. I also suggest that the identification of this novel proposition was unnecessary to decide the appeal
Copyright in the Age of Artificial Intelligence: Navigating Access to Algorithmic Training Materials and the Three‐step Test for Text and Data Mining in Nigeria
Full text linkOver the past decade, the Nigerian government has sought to leverage Artificial Intelligence (AI) to drive socioeconomic transformation and improve the welfare of its citizenry. Recent initiatives, such as the establishment of the National Centre for AI and Robotics (NCAIR) and the development of several strategic AI policies, highlight the country\u27s commitment to this objective. This article explores the often‐overlooked issue of how the Nigeria\u27s copyright regime hinders these initiatives, revealing that the regime permits only fair dealing and the transient or incidental reproductions of copyrighted materials for limited technological purposes. This study argues that this regime is unduly restrictive for algorithmic training and risks stifling AI innovation and the development of machine‐learning models in Nigeria. It recommends adopting a bespoke text and data mining (TDM) exception tailored to Nigeria\u27s needs, allowing the use of copyrighted works for training AI models and machine learning activities within defined limits. Drawing on comparative analyses of copyright frameworks in jurisdictions such as Singapore, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the European Union, this study demonstrates that the proposed TDM exception aligns with the three‐step test under international copyright conventions. For instance, the exception is limited to specific users and types of reproductions, applies only to internalized and transformative reproductions, and avoids traditional methods of exploiting copyrighted works that prejudice the legitimate interests of rightsholders. The ultimate goal of this exception is to recalibrate Nigeria\u27s copyright system to justly balance AI innovation with authors\u27 rights, aligning it with foundational principles of the international copyright system in an era of rapid technological advancements