News

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.

How can I use AI in my research?

AI can be a great tool, but its results should always be used as a supplement, not a replacement for your own legal research. There are already a number of cases, such as Ko v. Li, 2025 ONSC 2965, involving the use of fake cases in factums and arguments. These cases are ‘hallucinated’ by AI; either being irrelevant, inapplicable, or simply don’t exist. At the bare minimum for using AI in you research, be sure to double check the cases and note them up before accepting them at point blank.

For a deeper analysis:

• LAW360 – Is generative AI a threat to the integrity of the justice system? “The court further cautioned that based on a study by researchers at Stanford University, which measured more than 200,000 legal questions on Open AI’s ChatGPT 3.5, Google’s PaLM 2 and Meta’s Llama 2, these large-language models hallucinated at least 75 per cent of the time when answering questions about a court’s ruling.”
• Hallucinating Law: Legal Mistakes with Large Language Models are Pervasive [Stanford, January 2024] – A new study finds disturbing and pervasive errors among three popular models on a wide range of legal tasks.
• Tu, S. Sean, et al. “Artificial Intelligence: Legal Reasoning, Legal Research and Legal Writing.” Minnesota Journal of Law, Science and Technology, 25, no. Symposium Issue, 2024, pp. 105-126. HeinOnline, (available in the Members Portal) “Beyond Al hallucinations, generative Al models may be overly broad, make mistakes in citation, not understand the distinction between precedential and binding authority, and not be deployed in a way that allows lawyers to safeguard client confidentiality.”

This isn’t to say that AI isn’t useful, in fact the ability to summarize and find relevant points can be very useful. “Microsoft has found in a study of more than 6,317 employees with access to Copilot that they spent 31% less time reading emails, a time savings of 50 minutes a week per user. At a telecommunications company, employees spent 23% less time, saving 40 minutes per week.” – AI Data Drop: 3 Key Insights from Real-World Research on AI Usage

How AI works

So how exactly does all this work? Well,” for all its runaway success, nobody knows exactly how—or why—it works.” MIT Review. There is obviously some idea how these programs work, but how they are created, trained, and evaluated can vary greatly. For a brief explanation see this Artificial Intelligence Fact Sheet and familiarize yourself with a few technical terms

Key AI technologies used in law include:

• Natural Language Processing (NLP): Enables machines to understand and generate human language, useful in legal research and contract analysis.
• Machine Learning (ML): Allows systems to learn from legal data and improve predictions, such as in litigation analytics.
• Large Language Models (LLMs): Such as ChatGPT or Claude, which can generate, summarize, and explain legal texts with varying degrees of accuracy.
• Supervised Learning – input and output are given. AI told to find similar fact patterns. Best for simple questions and finding quick answers.
• Unsupervised Learning – input and output are uncategorised. AI must learn to find patterns and make connections. Can be useful finding patterns otherwise not considered. Possibly useful for reasoning.

Research Tips

While most AIs will function similarly, they will each have their own biases and unique algorithms. Take a look through these guides for advice on evaluating AIs, guidelines for use, prompt writing tips, and more information.

Universities

• Using Generative AI To Do Research (York University)
• Artificial Intelligence Lib Guide (University of Manitoba)
• Guide for Artificial Intelligence (McGill University)

Law Society Guides

• Generative Artificial Intelligence: Guidelines for Use in the Practice of Law (Law Society of Manitoba)
• Using Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) Tools to Obtain Legal Information (Saskatchewan Access to Legal Information (SALI))
• AI Guide: Practical considerations when assessing and
  using AI in legal practice   (Nova Scotia Barristers’ society)

Court Notices

• Federal Court, “Notice to the Parties and the Profession: The Use of Artificial Intelligence in Court Proceedings” (7 May 2024)
• Court of King’s Bench of Manitoba” Use Of Artificial Intelligence In Court Submissions” (23 June 2023)

Articles

• Jamie J. Baker, “2018: A Legal Research Odyssey: Artificial Intelligence as Disruptor” (2018) 110:1 Law Libr J 5.
• How Vincent AI Transformed Legal Research for Solo Practitioner John Horn
• Telegraph: The warning signs the AI bubble is about to burst

If you’re still having trouble with using AI for research, or want to verify your findings, contact the library and we are happy to double check.

Latest Current Awareness

Newsletters

One of our many services is the distribution of legal newsletters. Our subscriptions with Lexis+ and Westlaw Canada allow us to share their newsletters with members of the Law Society of Manitoba. These newsletters cover all areas of law. For one example of what we offer, check out the latest on family law with this popular title available from LexisNexis.

Franks & Zalev – This Week in Family Law

A weekly current awareness service covering recent cases on criminal offences, evidence and procedure, as well as sentencing and young offenders.

The latest issue highlights matters on:

• Expert Evidence: From Admissible to Dismissible in Two Easy Steps:
  • Sutherland v. Sutherland (2025), 14 R.F.L. (9th) 49 (N.S. S.C.) — Cromwell J.
    • Issues: Nova Scotia — Admissibility of Expert Evidence
    • The Nova Scotia Supreme Court’s decision in Sutherland is unusual in family law: an expert who, at least on paper, seemed eminently qualified to give opinion evidence was nevertheless excluded at the admissibility stage and barred from testifying before the case was heard on the merits.
• No Mooo-lah for Mooo-tual Mooo-sings:
  • Metske v. Metske (2025), 16 R.F.L. (9th) 266 (Ont. C.A.) — Lauwers, Zarnett, and Pomerance JJ.A.
    • Issues: Ontario — Proprietary Estoppel So many estoppels; so little time.
    • In Metske, the Ontario Court of Appeal set aside a $405,000 proprietary estoppel award arising from a failed family farm succession plan. Although the dispute between estranged relatives over a dairy operation was not a family law case, it offers valuable guidance on proprietary estoppel in the setting of informal family arrangements, and on the evidentiary and legal rigour needed before turning “casual understandings” into legally enforceable obligations.

If you would like to subscribe to any of these publications, please email library@lawsociety.mb.ca to be added to the distribution list.

Court Notices & Practice Directions

Court of King’s Bench

Practive Directive

• September 5, 2025 – Re: Direct Indictments – Adult Accused
  • “This practice direction applies to adult accused where the Crown has preferred a direct indictment charging the same offence as was charged in the information against the accused, or an included offence. In such cases, s. 523(1.2) of the Code provides that any detention or release order issued by the Provincial Court continues to apply. As a  result, if the accused has counsel who has filed a Designation of Counsel form, the accused will not need to appear in this court for the indictment to be read.”

Provincial Court

Notices

• • • • August 22, 2025 – Court Closures due to Wildfires (August 25-29)
      • August 18, 2025 – Amended Court Closures due to Wildfires (August 18-22)
      • August 15, 2025 – Court Closures due to Wildfires (August 18-22)
      • August 8, 2025 – Court Closures due to Wildfires (August 11-15)

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

Emond’s Basics of Tort Law. By Alex Colangelo.
Toronto: Emond, 2024. viii, 157 p. Includes table of cases, glossary, and index. ISBN 9781774626702 (softcover) $79.00; ISBN 9781774626719 (digital) $59.00.

 Reviewed By

Melanie R. Bueckert
Legal Research Counsel
Manitoba Court of Appeal

“Emond’s Basics of Tort Law is a very short book—each chapter is about 10–15 pages long—that provides a highlevel overview of the law of torts in common law Canada. It briefly addresses intentional torts, property torts, business torts, negligence, occupier and host liability, product liability, professional liability, strict liability, and vicarious liability. It also touches on barriers to tort claims (such as limitation periods, insurance issues, and government immunity) and the topics of damages and remedies

 …

This text accomplishes what it sets out to do, in the words of its cover copy: “introduce the full scope of modern Canadian tort law to students encountering the subject for the first time.” However, as the copy goes on to note, it is “[i]ntended to be used alongside traditional law school resources”; that is, this book is a useful summary and roadmap, but is not meant to replace other, more thorough treatises on the subject. To that end, it may be useful for self-represented litigants, students, and those looking for a quick tort law refresher.”

Click here for the full review

Events

Upcoming Events

Substantive Law

Civil Litigation

Buffalo Point First Nation v Buffalo Point Cottage Owners Association Inc, 2025 MBCA 72: This appeal raises the issue of whether the standard of review for appeals of commercial arbitration awards remains as set out in Sattva Capital Corp v Creston Moly Corp, 2014 SCC 53 and Teal Cedar Products Ltd v British Columbia, 2017 SCC 32, or is to be governed by Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65. It was concluded that Sattva remains good law and still governs commercial arbitration appeals.

SPG Construction Ltd. v. 15472296 CANADA INC. et al, 2025 MBKB 101: Defendant brought motion to stay or dismissed action based on jurisdiction. Defendants seek a declaration that the Superior Court of Justice of Ontario has jurisdiction simpliciter or alternatively is a more appropriate jurisdiction concerning the subject matter of the action. Goldenberg, A.J. wrote in her conclusion, “Associate judges do not have jurisdiction under s.38 of the KB Act or Rule 21.01(3). I find that the service of the claim in Ontario was authorized by Rule 17.06. I am not satisfied that Ontario is clearly a more appropriate forum than Manitoba; therefore, I find that Manitoba is a convenient forum for the hearing of this proceeding.” [Links added]

Criminal Law

R v Meier, 2025 MBCA 74: Crown appeal. Accused was acquitted of firearms-related charges. Crown’s case consisted entirely of circumstantial evidence. Crown’s appeal is based on their claim that the trial judge only reviewed the evidence in a piecemeal fashion and not as a whole. R. v. Villaroman, 2016 SCC 33 was a part of both parties submission and the trial judge’s decision. Appeal dismissed.

R v SS, 2025 MBCA 70: Accused seeks appeal on grounds that she received ineffective assistance of counsel.  In support of her appeal, she moved for the admission of further evidence. R v GDB, 2000 SCC 22, sets out the reasonableness standard and the three routes to a miscarriage of justice are summarized in R v Mazhari-Ravesh, 2022 MBCA 63. R v Zamrykut, 2017 MBCA 24, set out the test for the admission of further evidence where ineffective assistance of counsel is alleged. Motion and appeal dismissed.

R v Agustin, 2025 MBKB 99: Accused charged with sexual assault. Discussion of consent, citing R. v. Park, 1995 CanLII 104 (SCC) and R. v. Ewanchuk, 1999 CanLII 711 (SCC). Accused was found guilty.

R v Doerksen, 2025 MBPC 56: R v Kravchenko 2020 MBCA 30 cited to highlight the complexity of sentencing aggravated assault, as the range is broad and is highly fact specific, as well as the three step framework it outlines. Parties disagreed about whether or not the case is fairly categorized as a random attack on a stranger. The gap principle (R v Smith 2006 NSCA 95) was applied in sentencing.

Family Law

A.A. v R.R., 2025 MBCA 75: Applicant sought leave to appeal, without notice to the respondent, an order denying her request for an emergent hearing. Hearing and appeal granted on the following grounds: In denying the request for an emergent hearing, (1) Did the triage duty judge err in law when he concluded that the corporate assets are not subject to The Family Property Act? (2) Did the triage duty judge err in law when he concluded that the Family Division does not have jurisdiction pursuant to s. 41 of the The Court of King’s Bench Act to provide relief under The Corporations Act?

Wills, Trusts, and Estates

Schrof v Schrof, 2025 MBCA 71: Discussion of rule 46.2 of the MB, Court of Appeal Rules (Civil), Man Reg 555/88R, for a rehearing of an appeal. Willman v Ducks Unlimited (Canada), 2005 MBCA 13, cited regarding the threshold for a rehearing under rule 46.2.

Legislation

Federal

The House is on summer break, scheduled to return Sept. 15

See here for the latest activity.

Provincial

The House adjourned on June 2, 2025.

The 2nd Session of the 43rd Legislature will reconvene on Wednesday, October 1, 2025 at 1:30 p.m.

Current Bills    |    Bill Status

New Regulations