In praise of short paragraphs

A link to my webinar on Building an Inclusive Hearing Room; plus the CJC AI guidelines

This week I spent 36 hours in Calgary, as a mediator in a mock mediation and an arbitrator in a mock arbitration (for a day). It was fun and interesting to hear the perspectives of those new to the processes. I also broadcast a show about Oscar Peterson’s abrupt end to his Russian tour, 50 years ago this week.

Building an inclusive hearing room

My webinar of last month is now available for online streaming.

Tip of the week: In praise of short paragraphs

This week I finished reading Academic Writing as if Readers Matter. A full review/overview is coming, but this excerpt struck me as relevant to all decision-writing:

Sometimes a very short paragraph will be in order. Many academic writers think that short paragraphs are frivolous. They reek of (gasp) journalism, the refuge of superficial minds. Short paragraphs, it is said, show a reduced attention span on the part of the writer. As such, they bespeak a lack of serious purpose, and casual writerly execution.

Not so. Short paragraphs have force.

Their isolation in white space stands out and allows you to make important points that stand out because they stand alone.

Used judiciously, short paragraphs give power to your exposition.They allow you to create more complicated rhythms than if you simply place one thick brick of text atop another, and they give zing to your voice at the times when you need it. In short, they're another tool in a good writer's kit.

Links of interest

Justice David Stratas on Vavilov

So in terms of Supreme Court jurisprudence, where does Vavilov rank?

True, Vavilov is no grand literary achievement. There are no memorable turns of phrase, soundbites or quotable quotes. In places, it is repetitive. But after many decades of attempts and failures in this area, Vavilov achieved what once seemed impossible: it works really well. In the Supreme Court’s 150-year history, Vavilov occupies a bright place.

Heartiest congratulations, Supreme Court, for building what you did—a lasting structure. Keep it! Defend it! And please, oh please, don’t fiddle around with it!

Parole Board restricts in-person attendance at Bernardo hearing and then revisits the issue

Initially the Parole Board ruled that for security reasons, the families of Bernardo’s victims would only be able to attend the hearing virtually. After public backlash, the Parole Board Chair said that the decision would be revisited.

In a statement issued Wednesday evening, a spokesperson for the parole board said the tribunal body is "working to accommodate the in-person presentation of statements by victims" ahead of Bernardo's Nov. 26 hearing. 

The board did not further explain the safety concerns it mentioned to Danson.

"When scheduling hearings, the PBC must take into consideration a wide range of factors," said spokesperson Iulia Pescarus Popa in a media statement.

"These may include the board's ability to accommodate all observers in an institutional hearing room, to ensure the safe proximity of all attendees during the hearing, or operational considerations such as hearing management."

Insurers hiring doctors slammed for shoddy work as key medical experts

Medical experts have a duty to help the court by offering independent, objective and unbiased evidence in cases where opposing sides often clash on what the facts are.

Despite that, doctors and other health professionals who are called out for shoddy testimony face no consequences and there's nothing stopping them from appearing in court again, according to accident victim advocate Rhona DesRoches.

CJC AI Guidelines for Canadian Courts Leave Room for Improvement

The CJC Guidelines or future guidelines on the use of AI by courts and tribunals would benefit from the following recommendations:

1. Provide Specific Guidance on Different Types and Use Cases of AI: The Guidelines should offer specific guidance on using different types of AI, such as generative AI and automated decision-making systems, and their various applications within the court system. For instance, the Guidelines should offer specific guidance on using automated decision-making systems (see, for example, the Government of Canada’s Directive on Automated Decision-Making).

2. Expand the Discussion of Human Rights: Include a more detailed discussion of how AI can impact specific human rights, such as the rights to a fair trial, privacy, and procedural fairness. There are helpful precedents in circulation, such as the UNESCO Draft Guidelines for the Use of AI Systems in Courts and Tribunals or the Law Commission of Ontario’s Submission on Bill 194 – Strengthening Cyber Security and Building Trust in the Public Sector Act, 2024.

3. Provide More Detailed Guidance on How to Conduct Algorithmic Impact Assessments: This guidance should include recommendations for the scope and format of these assessments. A standard approach may be desirable, such as the use of UNESCO’s Ethical Impact Assessment or the Government of Canada’s Algorithmic Impact Assessment.

4. Provide More Detailed Guidance on Training and Capacity-Building: This should include guidance on developing and implementing training programs and providing ongoing education and support.

5. Incorporate a Robust “Human in the Loop” Principle: This principle should unequivocally state that AI should not replace human judgment in judicial decision-making (see, for example, the Government of Canada’s Directive on Automated Decision-Making; see also the Alberta Courts’ Notice to the Profession & Public – Ensuring the Integrity of Court Submissions When Using Large Language Models; see also Federal Court’s Interim Principles and Guidelines on the Court’s Use of AI).

6. Incorporate Guidance on Change Management: This would involve guidance on assessing organizational and justice system users’ needs, selecting appropriate AI tools, managing risks, and engaging stakeholders.

7. Deepen the Analysis and Understanding of Judicial Independence: The Guidelines should dedicate a section to explaining the complex interplay between AI and judicial independence. In the alternative, such policies should defer to some established understanding of this interaction. Regulation cannot be effective when those being regulated do not understand why they are being regulated.

What (British) MPs should know

And while readers may be disappointed to be reminded that their elected representatives have only a limited understanding of their place in the British constitution, it is gratifying to find the judiciary trying to do something about it.