Mark Doble

We’re a fully remote tax law firm. And we still keep offices in Toronto and Ottawa - open to anyone who wants a desk, a whiteboard, or just human energy. No mandate. No side‑eye. Come in when it makes sense for everyone and the matter benefits from face‑to‑face time. How we operate: 1. In‑person when it adds value. We collaborate in-person when it makes sense. Otherwise, deep and remote work wins. 2. Open‑door by default. Our calendars are shared across the firm. Anyone can book time with anyone. No gatekeepers. No “check with me first.” 3. Context over rules. A teammate recently asked for a private office near their home. We got it for them. Different work, different seasons of life - different setups. Here are the principles that actually work for us: * Flexibility on employees’ terms - not the employer’s. * If you’re trusted to deliver outcomes, you should have a say in where and how you do your best work. When we design for people, the work takes care of itself - and our clients feel the difference.

172

6 Comments

The use of #biometric technology has become increasingly popular in Canadian workplaces. Because of this, the Office of the #Privacy Commissioner of Canada has released guidance for #federal employers.    McMillan LLP lawyer Robbie Grant unpacks with Canadian HR Reporter why this is good guidance not just for federally regulated employers, but for all Canadian employers.    “While the information is meant for federally regulated employers, it’s good guidance to use for all #employers in Canada.” https://bit.ly/3HJaMJQ (subscription required)

39

Bench IQ, a Toronto-based legal tech startup founded by Jimoh Ovbiagele (CEO), Maxim Isakov (CTO), and Jeffrey W. Gettleman (CCO), raised $5.3M in Seed funding, bringing its total to $7.4M. The round was co-led by Battery Ventures and Inovia Capital with participation from MVP Ventures and CIBC Innovation, alongside continued support from Haystack VC and Maple VC. Bench IQ’s AI platform provides litigators with insights into how judges think and rule, already attracting top Am Law 200 firms and major tech law firms as early users. INVESTORS: Battery Ventures, Inovia Capital, MVP Ventures, CIBC Innovation, Haystack VC & Maple VC ROUND: Seed AMOUNT: $5,300,000 HQ: #Toronto #Canada #VentureCapital #BenchIQ #TradedPartner #BatteryVentures #InoviaCapital #MVPVentures #CIBCInnovation #MaximIsakov #JeffreyGettleman #JimohOvbiagele #HaystackVC #MapleVC #TradedVC

38

The intellectual property landscape in Canada varies considerably, as we are favourably positioned in 15 areas while we are in an unfavourable position in 20 areas. But even in sectors with inventive strengths, limited freedom to operate hampers commercialization. Learn more about the intellectual property landscape in Canada here: https://bit.ly/45MobKB

45

1 Comment

Great read from Jim Hinton, Founder & IP Lawyer at Own Innovation and Alexis Conrad Principal IP Advisor, Communitech in the Financial Post 👇 They break down why Canada’s future strength depends on owning what we build, from code to patents and how programs like ElevateIP are helping founders protect what’s theirs. https://lnkd.in/ewyTUyPh

30

There it is! The ICJ Advisory Opinion was put into action, with one of the first concrete examples of how it's being used in domestic courts. Last week, in 𝘓𝘩𝘰'𝘐𝘮𝘨𝘨𝘪𝘯 𝘷. 𝘊𝘢𝘯𝘢𝘥𝘢, the Canadian Federal Court became one of the first to engage with the Opinion to assess the scope of Canada’s climate obligations and how international law interacts with domestic law. Although the Court acknowledges in the decision that the Opinion is not binding on states, it does refer to “key principles that may affect state conduct” that are outlined in the Opinion, which “may have significant legal implications in the Canadian context”. Here’s how the Federal Court approached it: ▶️ The Court acknowledged the persuasive authority of the ICJ Opinion, particularly its emphasis that states’ duty to protect the climate system is also grounded in customary international law and human rights obligations. ▶️ It clarified that direct enforcement of the Paris Agreement or UNDRIP is not justiciable in Canadian courts (it has a dualist approach to international law). Only domestic statutes implementing these obligations can be challenged constitutionally. In other words, international obligations can inform interpretation but cannot create standalone rights enforceable in Canadian courts. ▶️ The Court stated that customary international law could, in principle, provide a basis for a novel common law claim, but plaintiffs must show evidence of general state practice and opinio juris (the belief that a practice is legally obligatory). Importantly, the Court left open the possibility for novel claims based on customary international law to proceed to trial, emphasising that “motions judge[s] must err on the side of permitting novel but arguable claims to proceed to trial”. ▶️ The Court also stated that international law can guide how courts interpret domestic rights, such as Section 7 of the Charter (life, liberty, and security of the person), when environmental harms are at issue. Even if international law cannot create enforceable obligations, it shapes the standards against which Canada’s domestic climate measures are evaluated. ▶️ The Court carefully separated obligations owed internationally (to other states or the global community) from obligations domestically enforceable. Alleged violations of the Paris Agreement or UNDRIP could potentially be considered internationally wrongful acts, but domestic courts are not the forum to adjudicate them directly. ▶️ Importantly, the Court left open the possibility for plaintiffs to amend their constitutional complaint to better align with international law or domestic statutes. This gives claimants a chance to reframe arguments on international customary law, for example. #ClimateLitigation #ClimateLaw #ICJ

513

20 Comments

“You should be terrified if you are not on that bus, because that bus is not stopping” Xavier Langlois the GC of OneAdvanced and Nicole Parker the head of legal ops share their experience leading their business through the AI transition.

108

8 Comments

Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada/Commissariat à la protection de la vie privée du Canada issues detailed guidance for the use of biometrics in a privacy protective manner. Helpful framework for US-based companies to use when utilizing biometrics, in view of (1) the authorization-mandating US biometrics laws (like BIPA, CUBI and Colorado CPA); (2) the fact that biometric information/data is sensitive under the US privacy laws and according to the FTC and (3) the FTC Rite Aid decision (https://lnkd.in/emmvNkYa). It lays out the considerations to include such as:  ◆ Make sure your purpose is clear and legitimate ◆ Make sure the product you are choosing does what it is supposed to do  ◆ Check accuracy ◆ Make sure to consider other alternatives and determine that this one is better ◆ Consider whether the biometric program or initiative’s impact on privacy is proportional to the benefits gained  ◆ Get consent (and it will usually need to be explicit) [in the US this would be GDPR-like consent unless an exception applies; or an opt out/right to limit in CA) ◆ Use the minimum number of biometric characteristics needed  ◆ Use verification over identification  ◆ Seek to keep the template in the individual’s control  ◆ Don't extract secondary information without consent  ◆ Limit retention ◆ Adopt technical, physical and organizational measures to protect access and use ◆ Document to ensure accountability ◆ Institute governance  ◆ Provide transparency Pic by ChatGPT https://lnkd.in/eZ6rAG43

23