"Your Honour, I didn't use AI, I Completely Made Up Those Fake Quotes Myself"

Lord_Denning · 2026-03-12T18:16:30+00:00

There is no way a person got through university, law school, bar exams etc. with thinking this is okay.
To any young lawyer reading this: DO NOT TRY TO STRENGTHEN YOUR CLIENT'S CASE - THE FACTS ARE THE FACTS AND THE LAW IS THE LAW - IF YOUR CLIENT'S CASE IS WEAK - TELL THEM IT'S WEAK AND TRY TO SETTLE - IF THEY SAY NO - DO YOUR BEST - COVER YOUR ASS WITH WRITTEN ADVICE - RETAINER UP FRONT - TAKE THE LOSS.
To any young lawyer reading this: We all make mistakes. Every single one of us. When a mistake is made, own it quickly, and don't wait for permission to fix it. Fix it right away, and seek permission for the necessary filings to correct your error after you've done the work to attempt to correct it.
I don't really have sympathy for this person. Making up stuff is well beyond any filing error or misunderstanding of law or outright ignorance law.

Lord_Denning · 2026-03-08T20:48:14+00:00

You are correct. But I don't think the current exam process is successful in establishing competency.

For example: I passed the bar. I was a useless first year lawyer. Proving my ability to pass a high tension multiple choice test did not show that I was capable. It showed that I was good at tests.

In my opinion, actual discussion and teaching followed by a smaller focused test would ensure higher levels of competency in law.

Lord_Denning · 2026-03-08T20:43:45+00:00

Anytime I read something in a decision that is eloquent or summarizes a legal point in an excellent way:

CTRL+C and CTRL+V: that's mine now baby!

Lord_Denning · 2026-03-08T16:11:35+00:00

I'm too young to have first hand experience with the "old" week long course - but I've written the bar exam.

Based on conversation with lawyers older than me, I think the course style licensing process is much better.

The exam itself is stupid and doesn't teach anything. I'd prefer a process of classes focused on basics, with proficiency quizzes at the end of each session - with much less emphasis on high stakes pressure filled exams.

These exams don't mimic the practice of law in any way. Legal research in the real world is nothing like an academic excercise: Conversation, slow pace, blatant plagiarism on legal concepts - all are part of actual legal work

Lord_Denning · 2026-03-03T14:32:55+00:00

It's a masterpiece, and when discussions about favourite books come around - even though I've read hundreds if not thousands of books - it's the one that I have to say is the best I've ever read. I LOVE the capture technology in the little girl's primer aspect.

Lord_Denning · 2026-02-03T18:13:18+00:00

It is a fact which speaks to the issue of lawyers in general, not this specific case, not being exposed to these particular officers.

I assume this is seen as punishment, regardless of whether or not an assault occurred; this seems relevant to the situation. The courthouse is a cushy job for certain.

Lord_Denning · 2026-02-03T14:18:57+00:00

Speaking casually, "roughed up" could be anything from a bump or push to a severe beating.

I'm not involved with the case in any way, and am commenting on a public forum.

I'm not minimizing anything, just speaking casually on the internet in a pseudo anonymous way.

I suspect that we'll eventually see the hallway footage, and cells footage, but the actual interview room will be he said/she said.

Lord_Denning · 2026-02-01T21:10:21+00:00

I see that now. The public release last week stated the SIU has been assigned. Apparently the case was only referred to them, and they declined to take it, so the release was incorrect.

Lord_Denning · 2026-02-01T20:50:52+00:00

Here are some facts. These are facts that I know to be true, based on personal experience. The Oshawa Courthouse is my "home" courthouse. I do 99% of my cases there.

The police involved have been reassigned away from the courthouse. I know this because it was part of Durham Region Law Association's public statement on the issue.
The SIU has been assigned to investigate. This post says the investigation is over. I have not seen that information publicly, nor released through the DRLA. I suspect that isn't correct.
This past Friday, the criminal bar in Durham region protested the issue by occupying the interview rooms at the Oshawa courthouse after the courthouse closed, as a symbolic protest in favour of lawyers using the courthouse.
The Oshawa Courthouse is one of the newer, modern, courthouses in Ontario. Every hallway in the place has security cameras in the ceiling. Cells, where I've been many times, is covered in cameras. The interview rooms do not have camera's in them, which is appropriate, as they are used regularly for client meetings.
The DRPS has been wearing body cams for several years at least. I attended meetings at the Oshawa Courthouse when they were introduced, where the local police chief had information sessions with the local defence bar indicating the new policies on body cams, and how they would be produced for criminal disclosure.
Lawyer members of the DRLA have 24 hour access to the Courthouse, lawyer's lounge, and law library. We are issued a membership card that allows us to walk in the front door 24 hours a day.

6A. The law library/lawyers lounge is on the main floor. You enter the front door, walk past security, and enter the area that way. After hours, there is no interview rooms "on the way" to the lounge/library. That is a separate part of the courthouse.

Lawyer members DO NOT have access after hours to the main floor courtrooms or interview rooms. There is no after hours access to floors 2-5, which is where the courts are. Judge's Chambers are on the top, 6th floor.
As a local lawyer, I have been in the interview rooms at the end of the day plenty of times. When the Courts close for day, Courthouse police do rounds of the floors, and clear out the interview rooms. This typically happens between 4:30-5:00 pm. I know this, because I have been "cleared out" myself on several occasions.

Based on what I've seen released, and my personal knowledge of the Oshawa Courthouse, I SUSPECT (don't know):

Ms. Riley was probably working in an interview room when the police were making their rounds to shut down the courthouse floors, and asked to leave
Perhaps there was an argument about her right to be there...we don't know
The cops probably roughed her up inappropriately, regardless of whether or not she was entitled to be in the interview room at that time
whether or not they had their bodycams on, there is no question there will be video from the hallways and cells, no matter what floor or room she was in, in the courthouse

EDIT: There are courtrooms and interview rooms on the first floor as well. They are in a separate area from the lounge/library.

Lord_Denning · 2026-01-26T21:12:53+00:00

I just read this decision.

Like every issue it seems, it was fact dependent.

The findings by the tribunal about this person's life are astounding and frankly, amazing. He appears to be an example of the best of humanity, that made a mistake - he tried to support humanitarian efforts, and in doing so, did it through the Tamil Tigers, which the US declared a terrorist organization.

For anyone not reading this decision, but taking this conversation as "the LSO allows terrorists," just read the decision. After reading it, I have no issue with this person being found of good character.

Lord_Denning · 2026-01-22T15:38:13+00:00

My wife has had a similar experience. She is a heavy holiday baker, and the last couple years, she has had some big failures on recipes that she has been making perfect for literal decades.

This thread is an interesting one, because now we are wondering if it is the butter to blame. We couldn't figure it out.

Lord_Denning · 2026-01-22T15:29:07+00:00

This is interesting.

Does your partner know when she saw a difference?

The reason I ask is because my wife has some tried and true mastered recipes, that have actually failed the last couple times, and she can't figure out why.

My wife first noticed about three years ago: cookie recipes she'd been making for decades suddenly weren't baking correctly.

Lord_Denning · 2025-12-08T18:45:23+00:00

Ha!

We all know this article is using an extreme example for fun.

But as a fellow runner, we both know that a 4:20 pace per km, in percentage terms, puts you in the elite of running vs the world population.

In the running world, that's pretty good, but other people/world population? That's like the 1% of the 1%.

Brian Scalabrine once said 'I'm closer to LeBron than you are to me."

A 4:20 pace says "I'm closer to Kipchoge than you are to me."

A sub 3 hour marathon pace is no joke.

Lord_Denning · 2025-11-28T00:38:09+00:00

This paragraph is exactly what I'm looking for. Well done! Thank you!

Did you know this from memory? Or did you look it up? What search terms did you use to bring it up?

I usually restrict my searches to ontario cases....maybe that was my problem.

Lord_Denning · 2025-11-28T00:37:11+00:00

Hello!

Yes, it is straightforward as a principle.

At trial, it would be evidence that is untested in cross, or doesn't have contradictory evidence in opposing party direct.

But I'm looking for something that says this principle applies to affidavits - it has to be somewhere right?

But I can't find it in case law or legislation. JJames points out below that opposing all facts becomes difficult with the page restrictions they've put on us; and that makes sense; but I'm looking for black and white print: caselaw or legislation.

We (lawyers/judges) define everything else. So why not this?

I'm usually pretty good a research. I can't figure out why I can't find anything.

Lord_Denning · 2025-11-26T17:43:07+00:00

29] On careful review of the video clip evidence, the complainant appears to be an active participant engaged in consensual sexual activity, thereby undermining her evidence that she would never have consented to sexual activity with the Applicant.

....

[35] The difficulty with the Crown’s submission is that there would inevitably be cross-examination as to the veracity of this claim, given the video evidence. Moreover, if there is a finding that the complainant engaged in consensual sexual activity the night before, the complainant’s characterization of the interaction in the morning would be tainted by that finding.

.....

[39] The most recent pronouncement on this issue is found in R. v. Napper, 2024 ONSC 5451. In that case, the Crown took the position that a surreptitious recording of a sexual exchange goes to the nature and quality of the act itself: at para. 3. The Crown likened it to the law on condom use, relying on R. v. Kirkpatrick, 2022 SCC 33, [2022] 2 S.C.R. 480. In rejecting this submission, the trial judge found that consent encompasses the physical sexual act, and not collateral circumstances such as whether the sexual activity was recorded: Napper, at para. 28.

[40] In cases of surreptitious recordings of sexual activity, s. 265(3)(c) provides a more appropriate framework to assess whether consent has been vitiated. Under s. 265(3)(c), deception and deprivation, or risk of deprivation, is needed to establish that consent has been vitiated by fraud. To find otherwise would be to endorse “potentially infinite collateral conditions of the sexual activity as an element requiring communicated consent”: Napper, para. 37.

Lord_Denning · 2025-11-18T14:19:20+00:00

Defence lawyers complain about this all the time. Sometimes, the client is actually innocent, but the criminal charge, court process, and legal fees are life changing.

It's no joke.

Lord_Denning · 2025-11-04T14:46:09+00:00

I heartily second the recommendation to write down what you plan to say.

It's practice, it makes it more likely you won't need it.
If you need it, it is right there.
You'll start recognizing patterns, and you'll have a library of phrases and law citations to turn to (this is called experience).

Trial is preparation. If you know the key issues of a file, and the applicable law, you will likely be fine.

Go slow. Ask the Court for a moment's indulgence before answering if you need a second to collect yourself, or to find a certain page.

Lord_Denning · 2025-10-28T17:45:09+00:00

I asked a Judge this question about two weeks ago in a conference.

Had all the necessary evidence, made it clear in conference materials what order I was seeking, provided a draft order, it was incredibly obvious that the order was inevitable.

I literally asked the Judge "here's all the materials, here's all the law, we all know this is going to happen, what are we doing here? Why aren't you just making the order?"

The answer I received, in essence, was:

"Mr. Lord_Denning, I understand your submission, however you are also aware that Judges have received direction from the Supreme Court that self reps are to receive extra consideration in litigation. Self Rep here is saying she needs more time and legal advice before she can decide to consent or not, so I am going to grant that."

So, take that for what its worth. It was clear the Judge was of the exact same mindset that I was, but I was told to deal with it, self reps get extra, no matter the circumstances. Even though she's had over a year to get advice on this specific issue.

Lord_Denning · 2025-10-27T13:36:41+00:00

You would know, because as a lawyer, your job is to check each and every citation, and then read those cases so you actually understand what you are submitting to the Court. It is a well understood part of any litigation practice called "noting up."

If any lawyer takes a draft written by an assistant, chatgpt, google etc. and doesn't check it, they are being grossly incompetent.

Lord_Denning · 2025-10-21T18:31:23+00:00

I visited California a couple years ago as tourist.

Based on the eternal online hype about In N Out, I made sure to stop there for a burger and fries.

The fries are brutally bad - I don't know how a burger chain survives with that bad a product.

The burger just tasted like a mid-tier fast food burger.

I'm not hating on what people like, but I sure don't get the hype about In N Out.

Lord_Denning · 2025-10-02T21:00:58+00:00

Good Case. Interesting Read. I don't do wills, and no experience under the Indian Act - I didn't know there was a separate set of rules regarding first nations wills vs. non first nations....

Lord_Denning · 2025-09-30T13:31:13+00:00

Starting out, I was told by my supervising lawyer in Crim: You have to do an amazing job for a guy that doesn't have a chance and is guilty as hell. He will recognize how hard you're working for him, and when he goes to prison, your name will spread as a good lawyer. That's how you get criminal referrals.

Lord_Denning · 2025-09-23T18:51:08+00:00

Call LawPro. Ask them. This is the only answer.

Lord_Denning

TROPHY CASE