Interview - Langlois Featured On The McSween Show

Canadian public authorities and courts are increasingly integrating artificial intelligence tools into their decision-making processes, raising critical questions about procedural fairness and the proper role of human judgment. This comprehensive analysis examines the evolving guidelines from Canadian judicial bodies and governments, explores key lessons from emerging case law, and identifies unresolved legal questions about AI's appropriate use in administrative and judicial contexts.

Canada's federal government is seeking public input on AI transparency measures that could introduce new disclosure obligations, incident reporting requirements, and tracking mechanisms for AI systems. Organizations have until September 23, 2026 to influence the regulatory framework before it takes shape through potential legislation, standards, or mandatory requirements.

Directors will be forgiven for feeling like AI is “everything everywhere all at once”. Yes, our reference to the 2022 Oscar winning film is intentional. Like the movie, AI defies easy categorization. It can be equal parts exhilarating and hallucinatory, impressive and uncomfortable.

On June 4, 2026, the Government of Canada released Canada’s National Artificial Intelligence Strategy: AI for All, a five-year plan to accelerate AI adoption, strengthen domestic AI capacity and build public trust in AI systems. With the release of the AI for All strategy, the Government does not announce a new omnibus AI statute. Instead, it sets out a more targeted policy framework, informed by industry and stakeholder feedback, that organizes federal AI policy around six pillars:

AI is accelerating how quickly work gets done. Outputs are generated faster. Tasks are completed more efficiently. Across industries, organizations are seeing real productivity gains.

AI is everywhere. It’s being tested, approved, and rolled out across organizations. Inaccurate and hallucinated outputs continue to surface, and legal and professional consequences make headlines. Earlier this year, the Georgia Supreme Court suspended a prosecutor after AI-generated fake citations appeared in a court filing, leading the court to vacate the ruling entirely.

The new brand reflects the company’s evolution beyond translation toward broader adaptive AI solutions for high-stakes communication. As enterprise AI rapidly transforms the way organizations operate, high-profile examples of hallucinated outputs and context failures are reshaping expectations around what enterprise AI must deliver.

Depuis le lancement de ChatGPT d’OpenAI à la fin de 2022, l’intelligence artificielle (IA) est rapidement passée d’une technologie faisant l’objet de projets pilotes expérimentaux à un levier opérationnel essentiel pour de nombreuses sociétés ouvertes.

On July 28, 2026, the Ontario Securities Commission’s (OSC) released its 2025 Crypto Assets Survey.[1] The report provides a useful snapshot of how Canadians engage with cryptocurrency assets...

Data centres are at the core of seemingly every major conversation today, whether economic technological, or political. They’re also critical infrastructure: they power cloud computing, enable AI and support the massive volumes of data generated across the economy.

The Administrative Labour Tribunal examined whether an employee's resignation during a nine-month working notice period constituted constructive dismissal or a voluntary departure. The case explores the legal distinction between an initial termination announced by the employer and a subsequent resignation, and whether management actions during the notice period can transform a resignation into a dismissal without cause.

Le Tribunal administratif du travail examine une situation où une salariée démissionne durant un préavis de neuf mois donné par son employeur, alléguant un congédiement déguisé.

À compter du 20 octobre 2026, les employeurs de compétence fédérale devront respecter de nouvelles exigences en matière d'égalité de traitement et de recours aux agences de placement temporaire. Ces dispositions introduites au Code canadien du travail précisent les critères permettant de comparer les employés, les écarts salariaux permis et les nouvelles obligations en matière de tenue de registres.

La Cour du Québec clarifie l'interprétation de l'article 22 de la Loi sur l'accès à l'information en précisant qu'un organisme public n'a pas à démontrer une perte économique pour refuser la divulgation de renseignements. Cette décision facilite l'invocation des exceptions par les organismes publics et les tiers concernés par des demandes d'accès à l'information.

The Court of Québec has clarified the interpretation of section 22 of Quebec's Access to Information Act, determining that public bodies need not prove "economic loss" when refusing document disclosure. The ruling addresses whether universities and other public institutions can withhold pedagogical materials and technical information when disclosure might cause losses or benefit third parties, establishing a new standard for applying access to information exceptions.

Starting October 20, 2026, federally regulated employers in Canada must comply with new equal treatment requirements that prohibit wage differences based on employment status for comparable work. The regulations establish specific criteria for comparing employees, outline permissible exceptions to equal treatment, and impose new obligations on temporary help agencies.

La Cour supérieure du Québec se prononce pour la première fois sur la constitutionnalité de l'article 2858.1 du Code civil du Québec, qui établit une présomption de non-pertinence pour certains faits associés à des mythes et stéréotypes en matière de violence sexuelle et conjugale.

The Quebec Superior Court has ruled on the constitutionality of article 2858.1 of the Civil Code of Quebec, which establishes a presumption of irrelevance for evidence based on myths and stereotypes in cases involving sexual and spousal violence. The decision addresses whether this evidentiary framework infringes upon constitutional rights including reputation, full answer and defence, procedural fairness, and the right to a public hearing.

Dans un arrêt fort attendu, la Cour suprême du Canada a confirmé unanimement l’existence d’une garantie constitutionnelle du contrôle judiciaire de la légalité des décisions administratives.

The Supreme Court of Canada has unanimously confirmed a constitutional guarantee of judicial review for administrative decisions, marking a landmark moment in Canadian public law. In Democracy Watch v. Canada (Attorney General), the Court ruled that privative clauses cannot exclude judicial review of the legality of any aspect of administrative decisions, reinforcing the rule of law and the constitutional role of courts. The decision clarifies that while legislatures may limit certain aspects of judicial re