We are thankful to be welcome on these lands in friendship. The lands we are situated on are covered by the Williams Treaties and are the traditional territory of the Mississaugas, a branch of the greater Anishinaabeg Nation, including Algonquin, Ojibway, Odawa and Pottawatomi. These lands remain home to many Indigenous nations and peoples.

We acknowledge this land out of respect for the Indigenous nations who have cared for Turtle Island, also called North America, from before the arrival of settler peoples until this day. Most importantly, we acknowledge that the history of these lands has been tainted by poor treatment and a lack of friendship with the First Nations who call them home.

This history is something we are all affected by because we are all treaty people in Canada. We all have a shared history to reflect on, and each of us is affected by this history in different ways. Our past defines our present, but if we move forward as friends and allies, then it does not have to define our future.

Learn more about Indigenous Education and Cultural Services

Search the:

Apply Donate Crisis Centre

Does 'Justice' Mean 'Just Outcomes' or 'Just Reasoning'?

Cristie Ford, Associate Professor and Director, Centre for Business Law, Peter A. Allard School of Law, University of British Columbia

Published April 19, 2018 by Technologies of Justice.

Cristie Ford spoke on data mining and justice outcomes, exploring the question: Does justice mean 'just outcomes' or 'just reasoning'? The session took place on January 26, 2018, at the Technologies of Justice conference, hosted at the University of Ontario Institute of Technology.

Ford discussed artificial intelligence (AI) usage, machine learning, patterns and language as well as financial innovation and innovation in law, and their relation to her Early Stage research paper on how this technology can be brought into the legal system. She discussed administrative law and administrative tribunals, and how administrative tribunals are a possible key target for technology usage in law because of the way they are structured. She posed the question “What is the definition of reasonable, and how does it relate to law?”

Ford talked about the use of process in court and its relation to technologies: how technology, like legal process, is an ongoing process and not the end goal. She brought up the topic of augmenting or using algorithms in decisio- making and how we think of using software to determine outcomes. She highlighted the need to decide if this process is something that would be considered 'just.' She asked the audience, “Is outcome predicting an improvement to the legal system if we are not using traditional or known reasoning processes?” She brought up the possibility of mistakes or misinterpretations of an AI or neural network. She also asked, “What makes a decision reasonable?" when justification, intelligibility and transparency are considered baseline and the ethos of justification and a minimum moral content of law are not visible in a human context. She brought up the question of comparing normal humans to AI in decision-making as opposed to an idealistic view, and how perhaps the solution could be software-assisted human decision-making. She concluded her discussion by emphasizing the need to determine our feelings on non-human decision-making and a non-human process of law, as well as the way predictive capacity in decision-making by AI could uniquely change the future of law.