What are the opening hours?

Monday 8:30am - 5pm Tuesday 8:30am - 5pm Wednesday 8:30am - 5pm Thursday 8:30am - 5pm Friday 8:30am - 5pm

Juriliber Publishers, Ste. 600, 10055/106 Street, Edmonton, AB (2026)

12/18/2025

WHERE TO SUE?

It is important to consider which province has jurisdiction for a suit, if more than one province seems to be involved in the dispute. That is doubly so if the lawsuit is going to be commenced somewhat close to the end of any arguable limitation period.

Plaintiffs living in Alberta sued over a motor vehicle collision in British Columbia. The plaintiffs lived here and the medical treatments and disability were in Alberta. The plaintiffs sued in Alberta and served the defendant in British Columbia where he lived. The defendant argued that not only was Alberta not the more appropriate or suitable forum, he also argued that Alberta lacked jurisdiction simpliciter. In other words, at common law Alberta had no jurisdiction at all. A mistake on that topic would be fairly easy, as the Supreme Court of Canada some years ago changed the rules for (bare) jurisdiction simpliciter, and substituted vaguer tests. To confuse things further, the tests for the very different topics of jurisdiction simpliciter and more appropriate forum, were given the same name (though somewhat different contents). And some provinces have enacted legislation about jurisdiction simpliciter but others have not.

I cannot comment on the substance of jurisdiction simpliciter in this case, as the plaintiffs later admitted that Alberta lacked it, so the Alberta judge did not analyze it. That of course made the topic of more appropriate forum irrelevant.

The plaintiffs tried an ingenious way out of the problem. British Columbia has legislation allowing the transfer of a lawsuit from another province to British Columbia. Alberta has no such legislation, but there is Alberta case authority saying that Alberta courts have inherent jurisdiction to order that. The judge here declined to do that on these facts and absent Alberta legislation. Furthermore, the whole problem was the British Columbia limitation period, which would bar a new suit in British Columbia. The judge pointed out that the British Columbia legislation appeared to bar keeping the old lawsuit, but running it in British Columbia, if the British Columbia limitation period had expired.

What are the two morals to this story?

1. If a limitation period has apparently been missed, or proceedings are arguably in the wrong court, get high-quality legal advice about whether any repair is still possible, e.g. by trying to attach to or create a lawsuit another way.

2. If litigation may be needed and more than one province (or country) may be involved (or may house the opponent’s assets), get immediate good legal advice about where to sue and in what court and when. Do not give advice about the law of another province. It may have practical issues you have never thought about. If there is no clear certain answer, sue in good time in both jurisdictions or courts. You can always discontinue one suit later when things become clearer.

The recent decision is Kaur v. Retzlaff 2025 ABKB 753, JCE 2203 06895 (AJ Dec 16).

http://www.legalviews.com/coteopinion125.htm...

Hon. J.E. Côté

12/18/2025

NOTICE TO THE PROFESSION AND PUBLIC

Suspension of Appeal Conferences and Judicial Dispute Resolutions as of January 1, 2026

December 18, 2025

Effective January 1, 2026, the Court of Appeal of Alberta will suspend both the Appeal Conference (AC) and the Judicial Dispute Resolution (JDR) pilot projects. ACs and JDRs will not be scheduled after that date. This change follows the one recently made by the Court of King’s Bench of Alberta with the launch of its Family Focused Protocol.
This suspension affects the following Notices to the Profession and Public which were issued on August 14, 2020:
• Appeal Conferences Pilot Project for Family Law Fast Track Appeals
• Judicial Dispute Resolution Pilot Project

Ritu Khullar
Chief Justice of Alberta

12/11/2025

RESTORING CORRECT FILINGS

The Court of King’s Bench filing problems may be at a new nadir.

A self-represented appellant had a statutory right to file an appeal. No legislation said how that was to be accomplished, though the statute did give a time limit for appealing.

It was customary to start appeals under this statute by filing an Originating Notice. This appellant carefully drafted (or had prepared) a completely correct Originating Notice, and an affidavit whose filing no one later criticized. Being self-represented, the appellant went to the counter to file these. The Clerk thought the affidavit too long (probably for dubious reasons), and would not file either document. But the Clerk did mention Family Docket Court. The appellant went there and got from a judge a fiat allowing filing.

Back at the counter, the Clerk filed the documents. But the Clerk did not put a new file number in the blank on the Originating Notice, and instead filled in an existing file number from a different (but likely related) lawsuit. And the Clerk crossed out the word “Originating” in the title of the new pleading before filing it.

A King’s Bench justice later charitably suggested that the Clerk may have become confused by “a labyrinth of filing forms and procedures and ... triages” imposed and published by the Court of King’s Bench. That could well be the case.

The respondent, doubtless delighted with the Clerk’s eccentricity, argued that this was all a nullity, that a simple Application could not start an appeal, and that none of this was curable because the deadline for filing had since passed.

The justice did cure the situation, pointing out that in all material aspects, the appellant had done things correctly (and on time). If there was any mistake or flaw, it was the Clerk’s. The appellant was not asking to have his own work corrected. The errors were the court’s, not a litigant’s. The work to correct was the court’s. The justice distinguished one Court of Appeal precedent, probably correctly. One could suggest several other good reasons why the justice was correct and there was nothing incurable here (such as the fiat and lack of legislation about form under this statute). But the reasons given suffice.

Had the appellant had a lawyer, the filing counter would have been off-limits, the papers would never have been filed, and the argument that there was no timely appeal would have been plausible.

As the justice hinted, and frequent recent procedural decisions show, someone should do something to prevent and cure all the recurring filing messes, insuperable barriers, and gross injustices. They have gone on too long.

See De Meyer v. Pedora 2025 ABKB 682 (Nov 25).

http://www.legalviews.com/coteopinion124.htm...

Hon. J.E. Côté

12/11/2025

Notice to the Profession and Public - New Processes in Family Law - Family Focused Protocol
Dec 10, 2025
Effective January 2, 2026, the Court of King’s Bench of Alberta is launching a project that will implement a series of new processes focused on a family-centred, resolution-oriented, and streamlined approach to family matters. A family entering the system will be assigned a Mandatory Intake Triage (MIT) Justice who will meet with the parties to assess and deal with any interim needs. That same Justice will become the family’s Case Conference Justice and will assist them with all of the required steps to guide them to a final determination through resolution or by trial. This project is called the Family Focused Protocol (FFP).

Pursuant to the FFP, individuals submitting applications to the Court in family law matters may do so through one of three distinct streams:

Regular Family Process
Desk Process
Urgent Process
I. Regular Family Process Applications
The Regular Family Process is for families seeking final decisions on all issues, which may include seeking non-urgent contested interim relief. The main steps are: 1) Meet mandatory requirements and start the action (see below); 2) Prepare and submit documents for vetting (via Justice Digital for counsel); 3) Attend Mandatory Intake Triage Conference; 4) Attend Settlement Conference; 5) If unresolved, attend Case Conference for a litigation order and proceed to trial.

For directions regarding service of materials under the Regular Family Process, see Appendix A to this Notice.

Pre-Conditions for a Regular Family Process Application
Commencement of an Action
An Action must be commenced and served before any party can seek interim or final relief by way of a Regular Family Process Application. An Action may be commenced by:

Statement of Claim (versions available here);
Family Law Claim (FL-10), which may be filed with a date to be determined (“TBD date”) and no Supporting Statement (versions of FL-10 available here); or
Originating Application.
The commencement document must be served in accordance with Part 11, Division 2 of the Alberta Rules of Court, and an affidavit of service must be filed.

Mandatory Requirements
Unless a matter is urgent, or a waiver had been obtained, all parties seeking relief from the Court in a family proceeding are required to complete the Family Justice Strategy Mandatory Requirements:

Parenting After Separation Seminar;
Alternative Dispute Resolution;
Disclosure; and,
Meeting with Family Court Counselor (if self-represented; and where available).
Filing and Service of a Regular Family Process Application
Parties seeking interim or final relief by way of a Regular Family Process Application must file and serve, in accordance with Appendix A, a Mandatory Intake Triage (MIT) package, which consists of:

Proof of compliance with the Mandatory Requirements, including the Applicant’s Disclosure Package;
Commencement Document (previously filed and served);
Request for Mandatory Intake Triage (MIT) Conference Form;
MIT Summary Form; and,
If interim relief is sought, a Form FL-18 Application and supporting Affidavit/Statements.
After filing, the MIT Package must be served upon the Respondent, and an Affidavit of Service must be filed.

The Respondent will be given time, pursuant to Family Practice Note 2, to respond. The Applicant may then file a reply to the response.

If the Respondent files a cross-application, the Respondent must comply with (a) and (d) above. If the cross-application is under the Family Law Act, the Respondent must also file and serve a Form FL-11 or form FL-18 with supporting affidavit/statement. If the cross-application is under the Divorce Act, the Respondent must file and serve a Form FL-18 with supporting affidavit.

Before the Case Management Officer (CMO) checks the MIT Package(s) for compliance, time will be allowed in accordance with Family Practice Note 2.

Case Management Officer (CMO) Review of Regular Family Process Application
Once an MIT package has been filed and served, a CMO will review the materials for compliance before the parties can schedule an MIT meeting with a justice.

An MIT Package that is not compliant with the Mandatory Requirements will be returned by the CMO to the parties, with either:

A complete rejection if the non-compliance is significant, in which case the materials will have to be corrected, resubmitted and served; or
A notification outlining the required corrections within a timeframe set by the CMO; should the deficiencies be addressed within the specified period, the CMO will proceed to finalize the review.
Documents may be rejected for reasons such as the following:

A waiver or deferral of a Mandatory Requirement is required, which must first proceed by way of Desk Process Application (see below for Desk Process);
The interim relief sought was not included in the Commencement Document;
The required financial disclosure is incomplete;
Non-compliance with Family Practice Note 1 and/or Family Practice Note 2.
Mandatory Intake Triage (MIT) Conference
Scheduling of Mandatory Intake Triage (MIT) Conference
Upon approval of the MIT Package, the CMO will send the parties an email certifying compliance with the Court’s requirements and providing a booking link to schedule a one-hour Mandatory Intake Triage Conference (MIT Conference). Parties must fill out the booking link within 30 days of receipt of the email. Otherwise, they will have to resubmit and re-serve their MIT package for review.

The Mandatory Intake Triage (MIT) Conference
The MIT Conference is a hearing, before an assigned MIT Justice in a courtroom, and on the record. Remote hearings will be permitted only when approved in advance by the Court in appropriate circumstances (parties seeking a remote hearing may make a request by completing the Hearing Mode Request Form). The Justice presiding at the MIT Conference may:

Grant interim relief;
Make procedural orders;
Order reports pursuant to Family Practice Note 7 and/or Family Practice Note 8;
Appoint Child’s Counsel;
Assist the parties in determining the need for expert reports or other reports, along with any relevant evidence needed to ensure a meaningful Settlement Conference;
Engage in mediation;
Grant any other Order or make any other direction that is appropriate in the circumstances.
In addition to providing any necessary interim relief, the purpose of the MIT Conference is to prepare the parties for a half-day mandatory Settlement Conference with a different Justice (not the MIT/Case Conference Justice, unless the parties and the Justice consent).

Upon completion of the MIT Conference, further applications for interim relief will be permitted only in exceptional circumstances. If an urgent matter arises after an MIT Conference and it cannot wait to be addressed at Trial, the Applicant must complete and file a Request for Meeting with Case Conference Justice, and the MIT Justice (referred to as the Case Conference Justice after the MIT Conference) will determine whether, how, and when the further application for interim relief will be heard.

Mandatory Intake Conference (MIT) Report
Upon conclusion of the MIT Conference, an MIT Conference Report will be provided to the parties and filed on the Court file. Unless an issue is resolved, settlement discussions that took place on that issue remain confidential and will not be included in the MIT Conference Report.

Unless both parties are self-represented, Counsel will be directed to prepare any orders arising from the MIT Conference. If both parties are self-represented, the Court will direct the Court Generated Orders Clerk to prepare any required orders.

Unless all issues have been resolved at the MIT Conference, the MIT Report will direct the parties to schedule a Settlement Conference:

Immediately; or
Upon the completion of the procedural orders made by the MIT Conference Justice.
In exceptional circumstances, at the sole discretion of the MIT Justice, the parties may be directed to trial without participating in the Settlement Conference.

Settlement Conference
Scheduling of Settlement Conference
Once the parties have completed all steps ordered by the MIT/Case Conference Justice, or upon the immediate direction of the MIT/Case Conference Justice, parties may schedule a half-day Settlement Conference by completing and filing a Joint Request for Settlement Conference form.

Materials for Settlement Conference
The materials that must be submitted by the parties prior to the Settlement Conference are set out in the Settlement Conference Memorandum. These materials must be sent by email to the following addresses:

Red Deer and all locations south of Red Deer, Including Calgary:
CaseConferenceCoordinator.KBJCalgary@albertacourts.ca
Wetaskiwin and all locations north of Wetaskiwin, including Edmonton:
CaseConferenceCoordinator.KBJEdmonton@albertacourts.ca
The Settlement Conference
The Settlement Conference is a hearing, before a Justice, which may take place in a courtroom, or a boardroom, as determined by the Settlement Conference Justice. Remote hearings will only be permitted in exceptional circumstances.

The Justice presiding at the Settlement Conference will be different from the MIT/Case Conference Justice, unless the parties consent and the MIT/Case Conference Justice agrees to conduct the Settlement Conference. The aim of the Settlement Conference is to resolve all outstanding issues between the parties.

If both parties consent, a request may be made to the MIT Justice for a Binding Settlement Conference.

Settlement Conference Report
Upon the conclusion of the Settlement Conference, a Settlement Conference Report will be provided to the parties and filed on the Court file. Unless an issue is resolved, settlement discussions on that issue remain confidential and will not be included in the Settlement Conference Report.

Unless both parties are self-represented, Counsel will be directed to prepare any orders arising from the Settlement Conference. If both parties are self-represented, the Court will direct the Court Generated Orders Clerk to prepare any required orders. Unless all remaining issues have been resolved at the Settlement Conference, the parties will be directed to:
Prepare a Consent Litigation Plan Order, or, if applicable, a Streamlined Trial Order;
Meet with Resolution Counsel to prepare a Litigation Plan Order or, if applicable, a Streamlined Trial Order, which must be approved by the assigned Case Conference Justice; or
Attend a Case Conference with the assigned Case Conference Justice to, among other things, determine suitability for a Streamlined Trial if required, finalize a Litigation Plan Order, or prepare a Streamlined Trial Order.
Pre-Trial Conference
For any matter that is proceeding to Trial, the parties must schedule a Pre-Trial Conference with their assigned Case Conference Justice 90 days or more prior to the scheduled trial date, unless otherwise ordered.

II. Desk Applications Process
There are two types of desk application streams. All desk applications, including desk divorce applications, that are not listed below, will use the current desk application processes in place.

Filing processes for desk applications will not change under the FFP.

The FFP desk applications listed below may be filed by email, and in accordance with the Court’s email filing procedures and naming conventions, and will be referred to a designated Family Roster Justice:

Mandatory Requirement Waiver/Deferral Requests;
Resolution Counsel Meeting Requests (Parties must have completed PAS and exchanged disclosure, and one party must earn less than $90,000);
Time-Sensitive Consent Orders;
Notice to Disclose Applications;
Urgent Requests, using the current protocol;
Request for Meeting with Case Conference Justice (only where there is no existing referral);
Where there is no assigned MIT/Case Conference Justice, applications pursuant to Family Practice Note 2, paragraph 47
For Consent Order requests to appoint Counsel for a child, the parties must provide a letter explaining the reason for the request, along with a completed Legal Aid Alberta Referral form. These will be forwarded to the designated Justice (currently Kachur J for Red Deer and south, and Loparco J for Edmonton and north).

III. Urgent Applications Process
For the purpose of the Urgent Applications Process in Family proceedings, the Court defines urgent matters as:

• Where there is a risk of violence or immediate harm to one of the parties or a child, including applications for exclusive possession of a family home where these criteria are met;
• Where there is a risk of removal of a child from the jurisdiction;
• Emergency Protection Order reviews;
• Matters relating to parenting time, contact or communication with a child that cannot reasonably be delayed
If a party has an urgent application and they have an assigned MIT/Case Conference Justice, that urgent request should be brought to the assigned MIT/Case Conference Justice via the designated form available at this link: https://albertacourts.ca/kb/court-operations-schedules/urgent.

For those matters where there has been no MIT/Case Conference Justice assigned, urgent requests (for the entire Province) shall be directed to a Desk Duty Justice in Edmonton or Calgary.

When submitting an urgent request, a draft application and supporting documents must also be submitted.

Appendix A: Service of Materials under the Regular Family Process
All documents commencing an Action (Statement of Claim; Family Law Claim (FL-10); Originating Application) must be served in accordance with Part 11, Division 2 of the Alberta Rules of Court.
Applicants are required to provide an email address for the Applicant and the Respondent on the Request for a Mandatory Intake Conference Form and on the Mandatory Intake Triage Summary Form. If an Applicant does not know the Respondent’s email address, or if the Respondent does not have a functioning email address, the Applicant is required to obtain an Order for Substitutional Service from an Applications Judge, setting out an alternative form of service.
In those cases where the Applicant does not know the Respondent’s email address, the Applicant must put their own email address in the place reserved for the Respondent's email address on the Request for Mandatory Intake Conference Form and Mandatory Intake Triage Summary Form.
Where there is an Order for Substitutional Service, the Applicant must serve all materials by the process set out in that Order. In addition, the Applicant will be required to provide all communications from the Court, in relation to the matter, to the Respondent per the Order for Substitutional Service.
All subsequent materials filed with the Court under this Practice Note may be served by email, unless otherwise ordered by the Court.

12/11/2025

EVIDENCE CITES
A recent Court of King’s Bench decision usefully gives fairly brief citations of authorities on a number of often recurring evidentiary issues. They include

a. hearsay in affidavits (¶ 17)
b. business records or the principled exception to the hearsay rule (¶ 17)
c. without-prejudice proposals (¶ 18)
d. effect of agreements or orders to have an expert report prepared (¶ʼs 21-22)
e. who is a court expert whose report is admisssible in evidence (¶ 23)
f. the general criteria for admissibility of expert evidence (¶ 24)
g. an expert's duty of independence and impartiality (¶ 26)
h. binding effect of procedural agreements (¶ 29)
i. excluding undisclosed records from evidence (¶ 29)
j. scope of failure to notify an issue of credibility or cross-examine on it (¶ʼs 30-33)
k. how much of an answer to an undertaking becomes admissible trial evidence (¶ʼs 36-37)
l. factual assertions in parties' briefs, concise letters, or other correspondence (¶ 39)
m. the various criteria and observations useful when deciding credibility of a witness (¶ʼs 41-45)
n. the importance of prior inconsistencies on matters more than minor or details (¶ 47)
o. judges' power to accept some witness evidence or parts of it, not others (¶ 48)

See Q.M. v. R.M. 2025 ABKB 704 (Dec 2).

http://www.legalviews.com/coteopinion123.htm...

Hon. J.E. Côté

12/10/2025

NON-COURT OPTIONS

The Court of King’s Bench now suffers from a number of backlogs and filing and procedural complexities or mysteries. Yet arbitration can sometimes have drawbacks. A three-member arbitration panel can be expensive and introduce other complications. Some clients are reluctant to leave the court system entirely. Yet clients rarely want a long frustrating process, waiting years to get an answer.

So what can a lawyer do? Settling by compromise is attractive. But often one or both of the parties does not want to give up much, or even has exaggerated ideas about the whole dispute.

One route to follow is negotiation which is fortified by mediation by an independent, experienced person. Finding a good mediator should not be too difficult, and would not be very expensive. But assessing the worth of mediation, and convincing both clients of that worth, can be more difficult. Often at least one of the parties thinks that the big aim is to get approximately equal concessions by both sides, or otherwise get a settlement which is “fair”. But often the real issue is different. It is whether almost any settlement is better than protracted expensive litigation.

The second of these blogs, almost 9 years ago, explained some surprising and little-known facts about mediation and settlement. That blog is dated December 15 2016 and entitled “Mediation”. It is the second blog near the bottom of the list of blogs here. See also another blog about mediation and settlement, dated June 15 2017.

Advocacy for a mediation is a topic not often discussed. On it, see chapter 11 of my textbook, Systematic Advocacy: Planning to Win (Juriliber 2017).

Judges sometimes suggest that parties make use of the “referee” procedure in the Rules of Court. A referee could be some court officer, but usually is a private person whom the two parties agree to. The court then (by consent order) gives the referee a question to try. For example, the referee might be an accounting expert asked to assess the damages or the earnings in a lawsuit. Or an engineer who will decide some difficult factual question involving technical matters. Once the referee makes a decision, a court application to confirm or reject that decision is needed (if the parties do not agree). But the standard of review is much like that on an appeal, and it takes clear error for a judge not to confirm the referee’s decision. Ontario used to make heavy use of such references (which were then heard by Masters).

Once the parties select a referee, the hearing can occur as soon as the appointment books of the referee, lawyers, and witnesses, permit.

On referees, see Rules 6.44 to 6.46, and the commentary on them in the Stevenson & Côté Handbook.

Hon. J.E. Côté

12/03/2025

Surrogate Digital Service and Justice Digital Branding Update
Dec 3, 2025
Effective December 2025, the visual design of Court of King’s Bench digital services will be updated to reflect the Courts’ visual identity. These changes will be applied first to the Surrogate Digital Service (SDS), beginning December 4, 2025. Other services will follow in the coming months.

The updates affect appearance only. There are no changes to functionality or to the processes for filing applications, submitting documents, or accessing existing materials.

These changes support the need for the Courts to maintain the identity of the Courts as separate and independent from government. The revised design aligns these digital services with Alberta Courts’ visual standards while continuing to recognize they are operated in partnership with the Government of Alberta.

As part of this update of SDS:

The header at the top of the page identifies it as part of Alberta Courts, and specifically the Court of King’s Bench
Copyright reference in the footer reflects © Alberta Courts
Colour and typography follows the Alberta Courts’ visual identity
A notice appears in the digital service informing users of this change
A statement on the help page, indicating this digital service is developed and operated by the Government of Alberta in partnership with the Court of King’s Bench

Example of the Re-branded Surrogate Digital Service Interface

11/26/2025

SERVING ADDRESS FOR SERVICE

A recent Court of Appeal decision is educational on two topics.

A. Address for Service

Self-represented parties often try to make it impossible to serve documents on them. They demand proof of personal service of everything. But that is completely wrong. The Rules of Court do not require personal service of any document after the suit’s commencement. See R. 11.15. An address for service is needed on court documents filed: see R. 13.13(2)(f). The form for a statement of claim or statement of defence is prescribed in the Rules. See also Stevenson & Côté, Alberta Civil Procedure Handbook R. 11.15n.

So, no party has an absolute right to receive papers or notice. As noted, a statement of defence (or statement of claim) has to give an address for service. That has been the law for well over a century. Litigation would not work without those rules. And after service on an address for service, papers left at that address, or sent to it in certain ways, are in law service and in law are notice. A defendant cannot make the plaintiff go through the steps to prove its case, unless the defendant gives an address for service. Parties who do not receive, open or read things given to that address, are the authors of their own misfortune.

Often a suit involving a self-represented plaintiff, has a history of the other party having to serve everything personally. The self-represented litigant has not given, or does not respect, an address for service. No judge or justice should let that dance continue. The self-represented party should be told to give an address for service at once, and an order should be issued saying that is the address for service, and service there suffices.

Here the Court of Appeal hinted at all that, but actually based its decision on the other legal point.

B. Exhausting Procedural Remedies in the Court Appealed From

The Court of Appeal emphasized the importance of Rules 9.15 and 9.16. They give King’s Bench judges and justices the power to upset King’s Bench judgments or orders which were made without notice, or where the opponent did not appear by accident, mistake or insufficient notice.

The Court of Appeal held that usually lack of notice or service should be decided (first) in the Court of King’s Bench, not the Court of Appeal. Rule 9.16 says that the original King’s Bench Justice should decide the matter. Often extra evidence is needed. The original judge is much better situated to hear that evidence and decide that, than is a panel of three Justices of Appeal.

See Lavoie v. Lukiw 2025 ABCA 377 (Nov 19).

http://www.legalviews.com/coteopinion121.htm...

Hon. J.E. Côté

11/26/2025

DODGING CASE LAW

These days, it is fairly common to see a judgment or ruling which does not use case law well, or even at all. Why? Counsel may not have helped the judge much. A computer search or law book may not have revealed applicable precedents. Authority may have been scarce or old. This area of law might be little known. Time might have been very tight. Counsel may have conceded something.

But sometimes the omission’s cause is closer to the bench. The judge’s motivation may have been good, but the thinking was ill-informed. Or the judge may have felt that known authority was not worth following. The Hon. Jack Watson has studied the ups and downs of Canadian legal precedents for decades. He has boiled down the possible motivations for not following precedent, to 13. Here they are.

Law Indifference: The judge does not try to find out what the law is, and proceeds on idiosyncratic views or theories of what it ought to be, if it were located.

Law Resistance: The judge essentially understands the case law, but dislikes it, and works to undermine its effect or authority.

Law Ignoring: The judge buries or sidesteps adverse authorities, largely by not considering or not mentioning them, whether the judge knows them or not.

Law Oblivion: The judge hopes that if the law is not mentioned, it will go away.

Law Expiry: The judge, consciously or not, presumes that any case law not regularly re-invigorated by high authority becomes feeble and fades away, leaving a blank slate. (Yet authority says that binding decisions do not curdle over time.)

Law Re-Starting: The judge recasts the law’s history to imply trends or a consensus which did not occur, in order to undermine current propositions or to re-direct future development.

Law Imagining: The judge’s wishful thinking about the law over-writes what the law is, so the judge presumes that his hypothesis is the law, even where it is not.

Law Selection: The judge cherry-picks a little case law or passages in it, to give the law a different present appearance.

Law Tidying: The judge seeks to ‘simplify’ or ‘summarize’ the legal position, thus encapsulating, mostly in order to erase existing but undesired nuances or clarifications.

Law Re-Weighing: The judge escalates a proposition’s importance or authority, suggesting that some sources are innately better than others, while disregarding hierarchy of case law or even reality.

Law Parochialism: The judge chooses most or all authorities cited, from the same level of court in the same locality, as if nothing important happens further away.

Law Laundering: The judge actively promotes a position by whitewashing and uplifting court decisions of limited value, often adding this laundering to one or more of the other variants listed above.

Law Arrogation: The judge begins to think that the judge is the law.

http://www.legalviews.com/coteopinion120.htm...
Jean Côté and Jack Watson

Juriliber Publishers

12/18/2025

12/18/2025

12/11/2025

12/11/2025

12/11/2025

12/10/2025

12/03/2025

11/26/2025

11/26/2025

Address

Opening Hours

Telephone

Website

Alerts

Contact The Practice

Shortcuts

Share

Monday	8:30am - 5pm
Tuesday	8:30am - 5pm
Wednesday	8:30am - 5pm
Thursday	8:30am - 5pm
Friday	8:30am - 5pm