CANADA Trends and Developments Contributed by: Lorne MacLean, KC, Fraser MacLean, Sophie Bartholomew and Rana Yavari, MacLean Law
Landmark case, the impact of artificial intelligence and ethical crises AI tools are increasingly used in case management, document review, and predictive analytics. However, their growth has revealed serious risks. The landmark decision Zhang v Chen (2024 BCSC 285) became Canada’s first major case addressing AI‑generated hallucinations in court filings. MacLean Law exposed fabricated case citations submit ‑ ted through AI, reinforcing that lawyers remain fully responsible for verifying all AI‑generated content. The firm proposed key AI ethics recommendations, including the following. • Lawyers must understand and use relevant tech ‑ nologies responsibly. • Confidentiality rules must explicitly address AI tools. • Due diligence requirements must ensure legal tech complies with ethical duties. • Lawyers must disclose when AI is used in court documents and certify human verification. This case has now been cited nearly 50 times and has influenced courts globally. Explosive growth of common‑law unmarried relationships Canada now has the highest proportion of com ‑ mon‑law couples in the G7, with a 447% increase since 1981. Many such relationships arise from eco ‑ nomic or social pressures rather than choice, often disadvantaging the lower‑income partner – frequently women. Property division British Columbia (BC) and Saskatchewan treat com ‑ mon‑law couples like married spouses after a set peri ‑ od of residing in a marriage-like relationship based on various factors including cohabitation (eg, two years in BC). Ontario and Quebec require claims based on unjust enrichment or constructive trust, which can be com ‑ plex and uncertain.
that courts may rely on third‑party and documentary evidence, not just the dates put forward by the parties. f. Sandhu v Mangat, 2025 BCCA 34 This case clarified the limits of Parenting Co-ordi ‑ nators’ authority and the governance of special or extraordinary expenses (Section 7). The decision underscores that co-ordinators must remain within their delegated powers under the Family Law Act. g. J.A. v K.A., 2025 BCCA 375 The Court held that review applications – which do not require proving a material change in circumstances – should be more widely used to achieve fair spousal support outcomes, especially in short marriages. It also reaffirmed that the primary child support obli ‑ gation lies with biological parents, with step‑parents The Ontario Court of Appeal upheld spousal support for a high‑income recipient and reaffirmed that sup ‑ port determinations require deference to trial judges. The Court emphasised the importance of compen ‑ satory and non‑compensatory principles, including economic partnership and household contributions. i. Anderson v Anderson, 2023 SCC 13 The Supreme Court of Canada confirmed that informal domestic agreements (eg, “kitchen table” arrange ‑ ments) should be given substantial weight when they fairly reflect the parties’ intentions. j. W.A.K. v C.R.A.M., 2024 BCSC 2009 In a landmark gender‑neutral ruling, an ultra‑high‑income wife was ordered to pay signifi ‑ cant spousal and retroactive child support to her high‑earning ex‑husband. paying only “top‑up” support. h. R.L. v M.F., 2025 ONCA 595 The Court affirmed that in ultra‑high‑net‑worth cases, a spouse’s high income or substantial property set ‑ tlement does not eliminate entitlement to meaningful support, and that courts must remain gender‑neutral in support analyses.
83 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook