Devan Marr

My work just tossed Adobe for Foxit.

Nature is healing. We're going back to 2016!

I like this article, though I disagree with the creating a paper trail for greater exposure portion. Seeming dismissive in hindsight isn't what is going to get you on standard of care. It's the lack of confirming instructions.

Look, we Jewish folk need at least ONE day off from the job.

In the off chance you have spare time, the Clio legal market report has some WILD commentary that is giving me heart palpitations.

Just saw a Reddit thread about a Floridian complaining about all the Canadian snowbirds and I’m here thinking, “same my dude, same.”

I want to believe.

Noted! I just heard you muse about an update on the September birthday episode! I actually found the section of your book on academia incredibly applicable to law too, and have incorporated it into my presentations “AI & The Law: Maybe the Luddites were on to something…”

Getting caught up on Mystery AI Hype Theatre, and I would kill for a good “AI and the law” episode. Mostly so I can get more ammo for the three panel talks coming up in a few months. @emilymbender.bsky.social & @alexhanna.bsky.social

Banker Daddy has jokes it seems!

My standards are very low, but yeah that was very funny.

Counter argument: Chill out, get a hobby, make friends, help your neighbours shovel snow.

There is literally a screen cut ever 1.5 seconds, I was nauseous watching it (and not just because it's AI generated.)

141/ Addendum! I also got @bronwynroe.bsky.social's last name wrong. It's Roe, not Rowe (which is what it said on the screen). A good reminder to check the materials for proper spelling before you start shouting into the internet ether.

Hah, I only had to watch and brief! You did the hard work.

To be fair to counsel, it was a general example in the context of a specific legal test and what sorts of factors could be part of the consideration. I don’t think it’s a good one but it is unhelpful to attack lawyers making the arguments.

Thanks, although I refuse to call it skeeting.

140/ Phew. I'm tired and I was only watching & typing. Certainly more pushback from the panel for CycleTO's position than expected, but as I mentioned elsewhere, that's not indicative of any specific outcome.

139/ And we're wrapped! Parties have agreed to $35,000 for costs, but will make submissions whether costs ought to be payable depending on the outcome.

Looking forward to getting a decision in...a few months.

138/ Hunter pointing out that the case law sets a high standard for arbitrariness and gross disproportionately. This wasn't the case here.

137/ Hunter is back up for the Gov't for reply submissions (just a few minutes to address points raised by other sides)

136/ Savard - trying to turn these mixed fact and law questions into law questions on appeal, takes the power away from the trial judges. And a degree of appellate review thats inconsistent with the evidence based nature of the task.

135/ Savard is doing a whirlwind tour of SCC case law.

134/ Why causation? Because they are questions of "mixed fact and law" and those get deferential treatment.

133/ David Asper Centre and M. Savard is up as the next intervenor. They'll focus on the "step 1" issue of s. 7. In the wake of Bedford, it's nothing more than a question of causation.

132/ I feel like I've heard 5 versions of how to pronounce Justice Schabas' name today...

131/ - For Our Kids Toronto is the next intervenor. Vibhu Sharma. Their view is to ensure that the principle of best interests of the child are factored into the s. 7 analysis.

130/ Century has gone long, but...the judges are writing.

129/ Full disclosure, I've chatted with Louis and like him as a human being, so I'm biased, but he's doing a great job shoring up how the SCC case law has moved in favour of their view.

128/ Century getting tight on time, but granted a few more minutes.