r/LawCanada

Every week there's a new headline swinging between "AI is coming for your job" and "AI is useless, it just makes things up." Both get repeated so often they've basically become the only two positions allowed in the conversation.

Curious where people here land on this — anyone actually using AI day-to-day in their practice, or is it still mostly noise where you are?

Hi everyone,

I am a junior lawyer (2025 call) who has worked exclusively in family law since leaving law school. I like it sometimes, but the more I get into the work, dealing with unreasonable clients, chasing people for financial disclosure, and especially dealing with OC who will straight up send letters demanding things from my clients that aren't even aligned with the law or enforceable in a court. I even find the whole system broken and unreasonable most of the time, super inefficient and senseless in so many of the family law rules and processes.

I keep getting this nagging feeling that I don't want to spend my entire time as a lawyer only knowing what one area of law is like as a practice. I yearn for some exposure in other areas. I know dabbling is not a good idea, but if I wanted to get a sense of other areas of practice, how could I go about this? Coffee chats? Shadowing?

I keep thinking about employment law and especially human rights cases, even tribunal work. I have no idea what this area is truly like day to day. Heck, it could be even worse than family law for all I know. I totally submit to the fact that I am junior and naive and just trying to figure things out. I want to see what else is out there but I have no idea how to get a sense of that.

Has anyone in family law changed their area of practice? How did you make the change and why? If you were a solo family lawyer and made the switch to solo practice in another area, which one did you switch to and how did you learn and become competent in this area?

I do eventually want to go solo and do my own thing. I am wondering if employment law is an option for that. I think I enjoy less litigation overall, but I don't mind mediation and arbitration. I know I could go into those fields in family law, but I don't know if I like this area in general enough to stay.

Thanks in advance for any advice for this lost junior lawyer lol

i’m an articling student at a smaller firm with not that many opportunities to connect with peers or senior lawyers

i want to meet other lawyers in and out of my field of interest and also just build a community

are there any groups i should seek out or try to join or any Canadian legal conferences to plan to attend

i’m an osgoode alumni and also a woman if there are any Women in Law groups to keep an eye out for

i want to meet all kinds of professionals including people from larger and bay street firms as well to build a proper network, but i always end up only hearing about things after they already happened

For people who deal with clients by phone in Canada, how do you usually handle call recording?

I understand Canada is generally one-party consent, but does that change when the call is for business, legal, financial, or professional services?

Also, is it better to just record from a regular phone, or should businesses be using a proper phone system that gives disclosures and keeps recordings organized?

Interested in how others handle this in practice.

I was wondering if anyone here has experience working as a lawyer in a legal aid clinic in Ontario.

I'm a licensed paralegal, and I have primarily worked on LTB cases. I'm interested in working at a legal aid clinic, but paralegal jobs don't seem to come up very often. I'm considering law school as a mature student. The reason I'm looking at law school is because I enjoy tribunal advocacy and in particular, arguing reviews. I would like the ability to appeal cases and work on more complex matters and in different areas of law. (I know most LTB work is done by paralegals.)

I'm not interested in corporate law and the vast majority of legal careers. I know the advice about law school is often 'don't', but I'm still researching it.

Wondering if anyone who has worked in the legal aid clinic system can share their experience and views on the career?

Hi everyone,

I’m looking for recommendations for law firms in the Vancouver/Burnaby area that handle administrative law, procedural fairness challenges against universities/public bodies, and judicial review in BC Supreme Court.

Brief background (happy to share more privately):
I am a former SFU student. In mid-2024 a service indicator/hold was placed on my goSFU account on instructions from the then-VPSI, blocking course registration. I never received a formal written decision, reasons, or appeal route (Senate/President). A Student Conduct complaint followed shortly after; SSRR indicated an investigation would happen but it never did.

After I followed up with the new VPSI, I received a Trespass Notice + strict No-Contact Order from Campus Public Safety/SRS citing safety concerns. This prohibits enrolment and campus access. I live in UniverCity (on-campus condo) and own property there. Supporting docs include FIPPA releases, the Trespass Notice, policy excerpts (University Act s. 61, SFU S10.05, GP25), and org charts showing safety-services reporting lines.

I’m cautious about firms with close SFU ties (e.g., lawyers who teach there) due to potential conflicts. I’m seeking firms experienced in education/administrative law that can advise on lifting the hold and trespass so I can apply to a Master’s program starting September 2026.

Any suggestions for independent firms or lawyers who do this kind of work in BC? More documentation and detail available on request.

Thanks in advance.

I am a first year Law & Science student at the University of Hong Kong. In the long term, I plan to complete a MSEE/MSCS in Canada and then pursue Patent Law there.

While I personally prefer Litigation, I'm a bit concerned about feasibility for both Prosecution and Litigation:

• For Patent Prosecution, there could be export controls, and I am not Canadian.
• For Patent Litigation, I do not possess a Canadian law degree. I'm worried my foreign legal education could be frowned upon even if I ultimately manage to qualify as an attorney in a Canadian province.

I've thought of a few things I can do, but I'm not sure whether they will really be helpful:

• A semester/year on exchange in a decent Canadian law school (Osgoode/Western/McGill)
• Pursuing an LLM in Canada (perhaps in IP law) instead of an MSEE/MSCS
• Learning French?

I also have a few questions about patent law in Canada:

• Where are most patent law-related jobs concentrated in?
• I'm fluent in Chinese -- could that be helpful?
• In the long term, will relocating to the US be realistic?

Thank you very much in advance.

Other than the com lit team, seems legitimately a step or even two below Blakes.

Hi, I’m an incoming law student and is quite interested in work related to urban planning and things. I wonder what’s the income and work load is like for planning lawyers in Toronto/Vancouver compared with typical big law sort of roles, either in private practice or government jobs. Also, how difficult would it be to start practising in Toronto and then move to Vancouver later?

How many coffee/phone chats did it take to get your first job?

Hello
Does anyone has the summer 2026 PLTC indices?

Hi there Reddit community, it's me again.
With more choices and paths to complicate your mind with as you give me your unsolicited opinion.
So as the title mentions, I've been accepted into Law clerk program at Seneca, Bach degree of Paralegal studies at humber and unfortunately waitlisted for Paralegal at Seneca. (PLE)

I want to work in law and build my way up to own a business OR attorney in the LONG run. I'm not in a rush and like a little taste of everything. I may or may not be jumping around in my career every 5-6 year or so. But at the moment I love law, justice, debating, organization, etc. I don't have generational wealth but I do have 5-6k from my family and 7k of my own from working 2 jobs.
My original plan was to study PLE and find a job asap then bridge my way to Political Science for Brock but it only offers 2nd year admission OR Paralegal studies degree and it offers the 3rd or 4th year I believe. However I have heard it's harder to find work as a paralegal in Ontario VS Law clerk since they are more in demand (? Do correct me if I'm wrong) I guess my goal is to make a lot of money for 5 years. In 2 years I'd like to move out, live my life in a sprinkle of luxury if possible, and have a cat! Anyway, hopefully you guys can give me something good to feed my indecisive brain. Thanks!

Hello,

I was reading Emma Joyce Jansen et al v. J.T et al, 2026 ONSC 1304
https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2026/2026onsc1304/2026onsc1304.html

and it seems that the defendant was giving every leeway possible for the this civil case to be dismissed. For each case of malicious prosecution of a false allegation of sexual assault, it seems judges are making it more and more difficult for the falsely accused to be granted relief of the suffered tort.
Am I reading this wrong?

>[43]           The police did not charge Ms. Jansen promptly after J.T. provided their video-recorded statement on August 26, 2022. Rather, the case was assigned to Detective Rabishaw “for further investigation,” according to Detective Rabishaw’s supplementary report. Detective Rabishaw’s reports form part of the plaintiff’s record on this application. These reports demonstrate that the police did more than merely accept J.T.’s allegation at face value. Detective Rabishaw was aware that when J.T. was 12 years old, they got into a lot of trouble at school, and that their behaviours were very problematic, such that they could not be trusted to be with anyone. She knew this because J.T. told her about their behavioural issues. At the conclusion of the interview, Detective Rabishaw told J.T. and their father that “usually we consult with the victim as to what they would like; however, given the role that Ms. Jansen plays in the community I will make decisions as to what is best for the community.” Detective Rabishaw continued her investigation after the charges were laid. She obtained several production orders and interviewed potential witnesses.

>[45]           The plaintiff has not provided any evidence that J.T. had an improper motive and acted with malice when they made their complaint to the police. Rather, the plaintiff relies on evidence led at the plaintiff’s criminal trial about J.T.’s general character and reputation for dishonesty as a 12-year-old child from witnesses who had no contact with J.T. since they were 12 years old. The plaintiff asks me to infer from that evidence that J.T. had an improper motive and acted with malice and thereby compromised the police investigation four years later. I am unable, and decline, to make that inference.

It seems the witnesses that were interviewed were not really witnesses but more hearsay sources? Further, this might be the part that is somewhat most convincing in terms of dismissing this lawsuit but I doubt one will find a police officer that will honestly state that they conducted no investigation whatsoever.

Also, as per https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2025/2025onsc5760/2025onsc5760.html?#par186

>[186]      The limits on the police’s discretion to lay charges may also be a relevant factor in determining whether a private person initiated a prosecution.  In D’Addario (ONSC), at paras. 26-33, the court listed domestic assault, sexual assault on a minor, and sexual assault when there are no other witnesses, as examples of complaints where the police can be said to have no independent discretion in laying a charge because of their mandatory nature.  The argument that police officers have no discretion in laying charges for domestic violence in Ontario was raised by the plaintiff to establish the initiation requirement in Bobel v. Humecka, Patten, 2021 ONSC 852, at para. 124. [...]

As above, according to D'Addario, which the judge referenced, "sexual assault on a minor" are examples of complaints where police can be said to have no discretion in laying a charge because of their mandatory nature. So even if the police conducted some investigation, does it overrule the mandatory nature of the allegation?
Even if the police found nothing, which seemed to be the case here, they would still proceed with the charge.

Back to https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2026/2026onsc1304/2026onsc1304.html

>[55]           "First, while J.T.’s expression initiated the police investigation, J.T. did not initiate the prosecution. My reasons for that conclusion have been previously explained. The intervening involvement of various state actors that controlled whether charges would be laid and would proceed eroded the causal link between J.T.’s complaint and the harm suffered".

This doesn't make sense to me. Isn't initiating the police investigation the same as initiation the prosecution as the police investigation is the first step in a prosecution? D'Addario, Sethi v Kaur, and malicious prosecution case law seem to say so.

As per https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2025/2025onsc5760/2025onsc5760.html?#par179

>[179]      The Court of Appeal for Ontario held in Konstan v. Berkovits 2024 ONCA 510, 172 O.R. (3d) 524, at para. 32, as a general rule, the Court will view the police officer who laid the charge as having initiated the prosecution.  However, there are a narrow set of “exceptional circumstances” where private citizens will be taken to have initiated a prosecution even though they did not lay the charges that commenced the prosecution.

>[180]      A non-exhaustive list of the exceptional circumstances was set out in Kefeli v. Centennial College of Applied Arts and Technology, 2002 CanLII 45008 (Ont. C.A.), at para. 24, including the following:

>a.      the complainant desired and intended the plaintiff to be prosecuted;

>b.      the facts were so peculiarly within the complainant’s knowledge that it was virtually impossible for the professional prosecutor or police officer to exercise any independent discretion or judgment in determining whether or not to lay the charge (the “virtually impossible standard”); and

>c.      the complainant procured the institution of proceedings by the professional prosecutor or the police officer, either by furnishing information relevant to the determination of whether or not the charge should be laid that he knew to be false, or by withholding information that he knew to be true, or both.

This seems to be the case with Emma Joyce Jansen et al v. J.T et al, 2026 ONSC 1304, where JT was shown to have met these 3 requirements, and yet the judge states that JT did not initiate the prosecution. Is this not an error?

As per https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2025/2025onsc5760/2025onsc5760.html?#par61

>[61] "[...]Permitting the plaintiffs’ action to proceed against J.T. would have a chilling effect on victims of sexual assault and would fly in the face of changes in the law relating to the investigation and prosecution of sexually based offences."

This just seems like a cop-out. Basically, if you falsely accuse someone of sexual assault, regardless of how strong the case against you, in the interest of avoiding a "chilling effect", the lawsuit ends up simply dismissed.

Thoughts? I find this quite interesting. It's as if slowly but surely, the already onerous malicious prosecution tort is becoming impossible to action if it has anything to do with sexual assault.

I am a healthcare worker and have always been interested in law / the corporate lifestyle. It seems very glamorous from the outside- the fancy events, the nice lunches, the outfits, the coffee breaks, the downtown lifestyle, etc.
Being unionized and working in a hospital, we get hardly any perks and the work is far from glamorous.

I don’t know if I would like the actual work of law from what I have heard- I wouldn’t like reading large documents on a computer for most of the day, but I do like working with people and problem solving.

I would like to know from this community what is it really like? Are the perks worth the long hours? Is it really all that glamorous? Would you recommend someone making a career switch into it? I know there are varying areas of law but I guess I meant this more generally / geared toward corporate.

I got rejected after a government counsel interview which I thought I did really well and was my best chance. Now I feel crushed and think I will never land something. How do you handle rejection?

Looking for input from some other lawyers on managing anxiety. I’ve noticed that I’m starting to not “turn off” when I leave the office. I’m constantly thinking about what needs to get done next, what mistakes I could have made over the last while, etc. It’s starting to make it very difficult to enjoy my life or my work.

If anyone else has dealt with this, what techniques have you used to manage this kind of anxiety?

And for those of you who decided to leave practice as a result of anxiety, what was the tipping point?

I am currently doing accelerated CPLED. I summered at a large law firm. During my 1L &2L summers the only thing I ever did was research and write memos. In CPLED there is also a decent amount or researching and memo writing. I am realizing I don’t actually like researching the law for 8 hours a day 5 days a week. How much researching and memo writing is involved once you are actually practicing?

I understand there might be a lot in the litigation practice areas. But more specifically, how much is there in corporate M&A, banking and Finance, securities, real estate, bankruptcy and tax.

I think id be more interested in the transactional practice areas, but don’t really understand what their work produce even looks like as I was not exposed to it during my summers. I assume lots of these practice areas people are just drafting contracts? (with the exception of bankruptcy)

Curious if anyone is willing to share their retirement financial goal and how much you are saving a month? Asking in this group since lawyers tend to have similar salaries. Transparently I’m the wife of a lawyer and we are a family of 4 with 2 kids under 6. We are trying to take our financial planning seriously now that we are in mid 30s. I find convos like this are pretty taboo with friends so I thought redditors might be more willing to share!

Please no judgement just being transparent!
Our situation - we spend about 17k a month (all in), bring it about 38k after tax. Trying to put rest in savings (husband became partner only a few months ago).

Not a lawyer hoping to read R.v. Sequeira, 2025 ONSC 1380