The dawn, again
In 1999, on the cusp of a new century, stock markets rallied with the rise of the internet age. Art imitated life: that year also brought The Matrix, in which the protagonist takes a “red pill” and awakens to a world run by AI.

Today, markets are again energized by technological promise – the dawn of the AI era. The red pill has been replaced by what The Wall Street Journal dubs as getting “Claude pilled”: professionals testing Anthropic’s Claude Opus 4.5 and Claude Code, AI tools that complete, in a fraction of the time, tasks that traditionally took white-collar workers months to years to complete. Given access to users’ files, these AI tools delivered remarkable gains. Work that once took months was prototyped in days. Awe quickly gave way to anxiety as users realized that, projected forward, such tools could displace expertise that took entire careers to develop.

As the future of work shifts, it is natural to ask how hiring is changing and how candidates should respond. To explore these questions, The Analyst consulted leaders in recruiting and career counselling. The early evidence suggests a nuanced reality. While short term disruption is real, distinctly human capabilities will grow in value.

Larger funnel but more noise
Human resources practices are evolving. A HireVue poll, reported by HRD Canada, found that 72 per cent of HR leaders globally used AI last year, with most planning to increase usage in 2026. Early adoption focuses on repetitive tasks such as drafting job descriptions and filtering the flood of applications. That mirrors the experience of seasoned recruitment leader Bill Vlaad, MBA, founder and CEO of Vlaad & Company, an executive recruitment firm focused on financial services. Large employers, he notes, continue to rely on applicant tracking systems to post roles and sift resumes, particularly for entry level positions where openings and applicant pools are broad.

Yet what’s designed to improve efficiency can, paradoxically, create inefficiencies. Mark Julien, PhD, professor of human resource management at the Goodman School of Business, Brock University, points to an absurd dynamic: candidates use AI to write their cover letters and resumes, and employers then use AI to screen them: “In essence, it’s one machine talking to another.” The result, he argues, helps explain today’s disconnect, in which driven young people send countless applications while employers say they cannot find qualified candidates. Technology widens the top of the funnel, but without human calibration, it amplifies noise.
 
The value of human judgement
While AI supports hiring in Canadian financial services, old school principles endure. Vlaad notes that his firm and many of its leading clients still rely on “the tactile, analogue, in person elements” when assessing candidates, mirroring return to office policies across financial institutions. “Seven to 10 years ago, I would have thought that data driven decision-making would have been more prevalent,” he reflects. “Although companies tried this for a time, they recognized that they lost out on the human element [in hiring decisions].” For all its advances, AI has yet to replicate human reasoning about candidate fit.

Julien concurs: “The consensus in the HR community is that, while AI is a tool, it should not be used to replace human judgement.” Employers are moving from keyword box ticking to competency based hiring that demands evidence. For job seekers, this means that AI tools can help brainstorm, but it is authenticity and the ability to substantiate claims that make the difference.

Government policy responses
Legislation is also shaping the Ontario hiring landscape. As of January 1, 2026, employers in Ontario with 25 or more employees must disclose whenever AI is used to screen or assess candidates. In addition, employers are no longer permitted to require “Canadian experience” as a qualification, broadening access to talent. The legislation also mandates that interviewees be notified as to whether a hiring decision has been made.
While questions remain about the enforcement of these measures, their purpose is clear. These laws are designed to promote transparency and fairness throughout the recruitment process. By requiring disclosure and prompt communication, the regulations implicitly support keeping a “human in the loop” to ensure that automated elements in hiring remain explainable and reviewable.
 
What is old is new again
Vlaad and Julien offer practical guidance. Despite AI’s promise, the surest way to stand out is to not outsource your candidacy. After all, the operative word in human resources is “human.” These experts emphasize investing in your professional network and industry relationships. As Vlaad puts it, “Look at your network like an investment account. You have to continually invest in it.”

That means resisting transactional and short-term connection requests and instead providing value to your network. This could be by sharing relevant insights, research and news, or simply staying in touch to understand how others are doing. Julien’s advice is similar: get back to old school networking, build relationships, have real conversations and look for ways to add value. Those tried and true methods, he says, are even more relevant today. Both also stress writing your own cover letter and the key points within your resume. It is tempting to stuff applications with keywords to game the applicant tracking system. However, an overuse of AI is easy to detect during an interview. Candidates stand out when they are genuine and can speak to key results and achievements.

Finally, for those jaded by sending out countless applications, there is another lever: target small and medium sized firms. The smaller the company, the less likely it is to rely heavily on AI to screen applications. This can help circumvent applicant tracking systems which may eliminate their applications for consideration at similar, larger firms, allowing them to tell a nuanced story and engage directly with decision makers. Industry events, alumni networks and personal introductions are still effective ways to navigate the sea of AI generated applications and differentiate your candidacy.
 
Competitive edges in an evolving world
AI’s impact on hiring is still evolving, but a core theme is clear. Human judgement and relationships retain their premium in an age of intelligent tools. As Vlaad puts it, “Finance is a people business. It is putting people in front of people to find solutions.” Among all the AI supported applicants, the candidates who stand out will remain decidedly human.


____________

Ryan Sheriff is a senior director in Manulife’s Global Manager Research team. He has over 12 years of experience in portfolio management and investment due diligence, including directing allocations across a range of public and private markets. Ryan holds an MBA from the Rotman School of Management at the University of Toronto and is both a CFA charterholder and a Chartered Alternative Investment Analyst.