News

• Canadian Bar Association: Federal Courts Bench & Bar Liaison Committee are asking CBA members who appear before the Federal Courts to provide us with their concerns, comments and feedback on issues of importance to their practice by November 14. Replies can be sent to Julie Terrien or you can contact any of the Committee members directly to raise your concerns.
• The Law Society of Manitoba and Law Societies across Canada launch the Ours to Protect campaign.
  
• Slaw. Error or AI hallucination? Does This Case Really Exist?
• CBC. Appropriate Lawyer fees in large settlements. Court finds legal fees for Robinson Huron Treaty annuities case should be reduced by $487M
• CBC Doctors say involuntary detention not the answer, as Manitoba passes bill allowing 3 days of protective care ” On Wednesday, the Manitoba Legislature passed the NDP government’s Bill 48, the Protective Detention and Care of Intoxicated Persons Act, which will allow […] highly intoxicated people to be detained there for up to 72 hours, up from the previous maximum of 24 hours. “

Question of the Month

This feature presents some of the interesting queries we receive, and highlights how we can direct you towards the appropriate resources.

Q: Are chatbots and AI research privileged information?

Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly used in Canadian litigation for document review, e-discovery, and case analysis. While it improves efficiency, its use raises questions about whether litigation privilege can be maintained when client data is processed or generated through AI systems.

Litigation privilege protects communications and documents created for the main purpose of existing or anticipated litigation, regardless of whether they involve a lawyer and client. It creates a “zone of privacy” to prepare one’s case (Blank v Canada (Minister of Justice), 2006 SCC 39 at para 34).

Uploading client data to third-party or cloud-based AI platforms may amount to disclosure to a third party, risking loss of privilege. Lawyers should ensure vendors are bound by confidentiality and data security obligations. AI systems also often reuse data for training, creating risks of inadvertent waiver if privileged information becomes accessible.

To preserve litigation privilege when using AI, practitioners should:

1. 1. Use confidentiality agreements with AI vendors;
   2. Keep privileged data in Canada and under firm control;
   3. Ensure AI tools operate under lawyer supervision; and
   4. Document the dominant purpose of all AI-generated work.

While AI introduces efficiency and innovation, it also requires renewed diligence to protect confidentiality and purpose.

For more information on privilege see:

• • Texts in our collection
    • • Law of Privilege in Canada
      • Civil Litigation (Essentials of Canadian law)
  • Guides
    • • CBA – FAQs about Privilege and Confidentiality for Lawyers in Private
      • Continuing Legal Education Society of British Columbia – Privilege in Document Discovery
      • CanLII – Rule 30 (Documentary Discovery)
  • Articles
    • • Forbes Artificial Intelligence Communications Are Not Protected By Any Privilege
      • Bloomburg – OpenAI Case Amplifies Legal Tension Between Discovery, Privacy
      • Reuters – Generative AI and the challenge of preserving privilege in discovery
      • UBC LawReview – Do the Canadian Practical and Legal Frameworks on AI Adequately Address the Uses of LLMs in Courts?
  • Privacy Concerns
    • • Stanford Report – Study exposes privacy risks of AI chatbot conversations
      • The Conversation – AI without limits threatens public trust — here are some guidelines for preserving communications integrity
      • The Safest AI Chat for Privacy: A 2025 Comparison

Latest Current Awareness

Journals

Manitoba Law Library subscribes to a number of legal journals in print and digital. See below for the latest issues of popular titles. Members can request copies of articles under fair dealing guidelines by emailing library@lawsociety.mb.ca

Court Notices & Practice Directions

Court of Appeal

• Notices
  • October 24, 2025 – Judges’ Books of Authorities

Court of King’s Bench

• Practice Direction
  • October 2, 2025 – Practice Direction – Length and Formatting of Application and Motion Briefs
• Notices
  • October 28, 2025 – Change to Teleconference Numbers for Associate Judges Uncontested Lists

New Library Resources

New Digital Titles (available through vLex in the Member’s Portal)

Book Reviews

Review taken from the Canadian Law Library Review, Vol.50, Issue 2

The Right to Oblivion: Privacy and the Good Life. By Lowry Pressly. Cambridge, M.A.: Harvard University Press, 2024. ix, 228 p. Includes illustrations, notes, and index. ISBN 9780674260528 (hardcover) $47.00; ISBN 9780674298262 (eBook) $44.65

 Reviewed By
Laura Reid
Student Learning & Engagement Librarian
University of Calgar

“Many of us are currently grappling with our technologically enmeshed culture and the seemingly impossible tightrope walk of meaningful self-expression, knowledge sharing, and community building, alongside threats to safety, autonomy, and privacy. On the bright side, there are relationships maintained through digital communication, increased information sharing, and the magical promise of AI. On the dark side, there are the impacts of social media on mental health, the environmental toll wrought by digital infrastructure, questions of ethics and law pertaining to data mining, and claims of copyright infringement. Pulling a thread on just one of these knots results in considerable debate and confusion.

Lowry Pressly’s The Right to Oblivion: Privacy and the Good Life balances these wide-ranging aspects of privacy with a focus on articulating the deep value of privacy as oblivion and the need for cherishing spaces of untethered exploration. The book offers a reframing of the meaning of privacy through a unique lens that combines philosophical, legal, and historical considerations. By presenting these interconnected perspectives, Pressly offers options for broader thinking on human experience that can create a framework for informing personal choices and collective protections”

Events

Upcoming Events

Substantive Law

Administrative Law

R v. Morgan, 2025 MBPC 66: Applicant sought judicial review the reasons given in a Notice of Refusal to Issue a Firearms License, pursuant to s. 74(1)(a) of the Firearms Act, S.C. 1995, c. 39. The Chief Firearms Officer (CFO) referred to several occasions during which the police had occasion to interact with the Applicant, including an incident of self-harm. The CFO was found to have acted reasonably and within the powers grant by the Act, application dismissed.

Civil Litigation

Blaze v Rooke, 2025 MBCA 90: Plaintiffs appeal order dismissing their action for delay under rule 24.02(1) of the MB, King’s Bench Rules and, alternatively, also under rule 24.01(1). It was found that, “the motion judge made a readily extricable error of law by applying an incorrect legal standard that was not prescribed by rule 24.02(1)(a) or the authorities he relied upon—or the subsequent decision of this Court in WRE that addressed whether an agreement pursuant to rule 24.02(1)(a) had been made.”

Mansaray v. Kashin et al., 2025 MBKB 126: Claim relating to unpaid fees for contracted work determined by Summary Judgement. Defendants’ counterclaim to proceed to trial. Issue in dispute is whether any amounts were also payable in favour of the Defendants and whether those amounts should be set-off against what is owing to the Plaintiff.

Allard v. New Democratic Party of Manitoba et al., 2025 MBKB 124: Defamation claim. Grant v. Torstar Corp., 2009 SCC 61 referenced for elements of defamation and the defences of justification and qualified privilege. Difficulty in defining the term “racist” at para. 33-34. As in, Ward v. Clark, 2001 BCCA 724, it was found that the defendant had qualified privilege when the defamatory statements were made. Action dismissed.

Corporate and Commercial Law

Re Masters Estate; Masters v. Masters Development Company Limited et al., 2025 MBKB 129: Applicant, the executrix of the estate, seeks relief pursuant to s. 234 of The Corporations Act, C.C.S.M. c. C225. In BCE Inc. v. 1976 Debentureholders, 2008 SCC 69, the court explained the basis for the oppression remedy and provides a framework for assessing the right of a claimant to a remedy. An equitable set-off claim was made by the respondents (leading case, Holt v. Telford, 1987 SCC 18) another. Applicant failed to establish conduct oppressive, unfairly prejudicial, or in unfair disregard of the deceased’s or his estate’s interest.

Criminal Law

Envelope #37916, 2025 MBPC 65: Written Decision on the structure and approach to search warrants that seek forensic analysis of computer systems. Issue of whether to treat computer systems as a “place” or a “thing” within the search warrant framework. Keeping with the jurisprudence found in R v. Vu, 2013 SCC 60, R v. Marakah, 2017 SCC 59, and R v. Reeves, 2018 SCC 58 (among others), it was decided that computer systems should be treated as “places” to be searched.

R v. Nygard, 2025 MBPC 64: Discussion of “unacceptable negligence” with regard to the duties of police to preserve and disclose evidence, resulting in a breach of the accused’s s. 7 rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. R. v. La, 1997 CanLII 309 (SCC) is cited as the leading authority on lost or destroyed evidence. Harvie, P.J. noted the test with respect to the application of Charter s. 24(1), was refined in R. v. Babos, 2014 SCC 16(at para 32). A stay of proceedings was granted by the Court. In para. 2, Harvie, P.J. writes,

“A few observations are warranted at the outset. It is with increasing frequency that courts are called upon to hear cases involving “historical” sexual assault allegations. The fact that these allegations are sometimes very dated does not make them any less serious. At times, the opposite is true. It is now recognized that the violent nature of these types of offences can significantly impact a victim’s ability to discuss the offending behaviour, and many victims of sexual violence require years to process the trauma before they are able to come forward and disclose the assault to the police and the courts.”

R v. Butler, 2025 MBPC 59: Accused charged with 17 separate counts relating to historic sexual assaults and other related offences against two children. This case turned on the credibility and reliability of the evidence given by the witnesses. The test is set out in R. v. W.(D.), 1991 CanLII 93 (SCC), [1991] 1 SCR 742. Accused was found guilty of 15 charges.

Family Law

HDT v TRWF, 2025 MBCA 89: At issue is the ability of a family court judge, as the trier of fact, to depart from an expert’s opinion as to what parenting arrangement is in the best interests of a child. It is noted that the best interests of a child is a “factorial legal standard,” as explained in B.J.T. v. J.D., 2022 SCC 24. R v J-LJ, 2000 SCC 51 is cited to explain the role of expert witnesses. “The trial judge was alive to the complexities of the circumstances and he provided thoughtful and balanced reasons. At the end of the day, what was in the best interests of E.F. was a question the trial judge alone had to answer, which he did with the requisite critical attention to the record.”

Wills, Trusts, and Estates

Re Vincent Estate; Vincent v. Vincent et al., 2025 MBKB 134: Decision regarding the novel question of whether challenges to the validity of a will in Manitoba are governed by a statutory limitation period.

Legislation

Federal

Recent Votes

See here for the latest activity.

Provincial

Current Bills    |    Bill Status

New Regulations