Beneath the Law

Send us a textAre city crackdowns on St. Patrick's Day parties really about public order—or about squashing a good time? Gavin Tighe and Stephen Thiele tackle the curious case of Waterloo v. Persons Unknown, where the city sought a rare quia timet injunction to prevent unpermitted St. Paddy's Day gatherings. What starts as a lighthearted banter about Guinness and green garb quickly dives into deeper waters: civil liberties, the evolution of secular holidays, the role of public policy in municipal law enforcement, and the historical tensions around Irish-Canadian identity. The duo debates whether municipalities should embrace or suppress grassroots celebration—and what it means when courts target faceless organizers for simply wanting to party.Listen For01:01 From Saint to Street Party02:44 The Rise of Nuisance Bylaws06:40 What Is a Quia Timet Injunction14:55 No Right to Party Says the Court18:51 The Forgotten Politics of St Patrick's Day26:48 The Ban That Makes Them Party Harder Leave a rating/review for this podcast with one click Contact UsGardiner Roberts website | Gavin email | Stephen email  

Send us a textAre we stretching the Canadian Charter to cover bike lanes and park encampments?Gavin Tighe and Stephen Thiele dive into a fiery debate on the limits of judicial activism and the clash between democracy and constitutional rights. From the controversy over supervised injection sites to the latest showdown over Toronto's bike lanes, the duo critiques court decisions that override elected governments' social policies. They explore how recent rulings may threaten the integrity of the Charter itself and spark wider political consequences—like making the "notwithstanding clause" less taboo. It's a spirited, provocative conversation that questions who really gets to decide the greater good in a democracy.Listen For4:42 Supervised Injection Sites Showdown5:49 Bike Lanes Become a Charter Issue10:59 Small Businesses Hit by Bike Lanes12:50 Tyranny of the Few vs. Majority Rule17:23 Stretching the Charter to Its Limits20:04 The Notwithstanding Clause: Friend or Foe? Leave a rating/review for this podcast with one clickContact UsGardiner Roberts website | Gavin email | Stephen email  

Send us a textImagine your peaceful cottage weekend being hijacked by Airbnb party animals.In this episode of Beneath the Law, Gavin Tighe and Stephen Thiele dive into the legal and ethical quagmire of short-term rentals in Ontario and beyond. They unpack a shocking case from Milton where a tenant secretly turned a landlord's home into an illegal Airbnb operation—complete with unauthorized renovations and fire code violations—then had the audacity to sue the town for millions. Listen For2:20 The Airbnb Lawsuit from Milton4:45 Licensing, Liability & a $4 Million Claim6:05 Justice, Balance & Vacation Property Economics20:07 Charter Rights vs. Economic Interests22:26 Who Really Pays the Fines?24:40 Asset Devaluation & Changing Laws Leave a rating/review for this podcast with one clickContact UsGardiner Roberts website | Gavin email | Stephen email  

Send us a textIs our approach to drug addiction helping or hurting our cities? Gavin and Stephen tackle one of the most controversial issues in modern urban life: safe injection sites and the opioid crisis. The duo breaks down a controversial court injunction that temporarily blocked the government's plan to convert supervised injection sites into rehab-focused "hubs." But in a twist worthy of a legal thriller, it turns out 9 of the 10 sites had already voluntarily agreed to transition — a fact the judge was never told. With sharp legal insight and candid commentary, they question whether harm reduction truly reduces harm—or if it's deepening the crisis. Listen For8:37 Old Policy, New Crisis: Are Safe Sites Effective?15:17 Legal Showdown: Government vs. Harm Reduction23:54 Can Courts Force Policy?25:29 The Notwithstanding Clause: A Charter Time BombLeave a rating/review for this podcast with one clickContact UsGardiner Roberts website | Gavin email | Stephen email  

Send us a textEver been sued for making it rain? In this thought-provoking episode of Beneath the Law, Gavin Tighe and Stephen Thiele dive into the murky waters of vexatious litigants—those who weaponize the justice system for personal vendettas, harassing opponents with endless, frivolous lawsuits.  From gladiator references to baby stroller briefcases, they unpack real-world cases, including a wild Ontario saga involving 13 lawsuits, social media rants, and accusations of a legal crime syndicate. They explore the gatekeeping role of the courts, the need for better safeguards like a vexatious litigant registry, and the human cost of unchecked legal abuse.  Listen For1:32 What Does “Vexatious Litigant” Even Mean?4:13 A Wild Case of 13 Lawsuits and a Legal Crime Syndicate6:06 How Courts Declare Someone Vexatious11:04 The Missing Registry: How Do We Track These People?12:24 The Baby Stroller Plaintiff: A Wild Legal Tale20:39 SLAPP Suits and the Broader ProblemLeave a rating/review for this podcast with one clickContact UsGardiner Roberts website | Gavin email | Stephen email  

Send us a textAre the courts becoming the new political battlegrounds? Gavin and Stephen dive into the concept of "lawfare"—the weaponization of the legal system for political gain. Focusing on the Ontario Place redevelopment case, they explore the delicate balance between democratic governance and the courts' role as a check on power. As they reflect on the nostalgic past of Ontario Place, the hosts tackle complex legal issues like standing in litigation, the public trust doctrine, and the broader implications of challenging government decisions in court.Listen For:05:11: Ontario Place: A brief history of its rise and fall09:34: Standing in court: Who has the right to sue?19:58: Lawfare in action: How Ontario Place's redevelopment became a battleground23:01: The “public trust” doctrine: A failed legal argumentA Practical Guide to the Law of Defamation. ow.ly/Wnml50T6Zbe - This book offers guidance on current and developing defamation law in Canada. It lays out prominent cases, prevalent legal principles and more.Leave a rating/review for this podcast with one click Contact UsGardiner Roberts website | Gavin email | Stephen email

Send us a textAre you aware of the hidden dangers lurking in your restaurant orders and online agreements? In this episode, Gavin and Stephen discuss a tragic case involving a fatal food allergy at a Disney Springs restaurant. They dive into the legal complications that arose, particularly focusing on Disney's controversial attempt to force the case into arbitration based on a seemingly unrelated online agreement. The discussion highlights the broader implications of clicking "I agree" without understanding the potential legal consequences. Tune in to hear how this case unfolded and the lessons it offers about food safety and legal agreements.Listen For:02:29 - Tragic Allergy: A Fatal Dinner at Disney Springs09:27 - Wrongful Death Claims: Surprising Low Damages17:52 - Arbitration vs. Court: The Hidden Costs22:15 - Contracts of Adhesion: The Click That Binds YouA Practical Guide to the Law of Defamation. ow.ly/Wnml50T6Zbe - This book offers guidance on current and developing defamation law in Canada. It lays out prominent cases, prevalent legal principles and more.Leave a rating/review for this podcast with one clickContact UsGardiner Roberts website | Gavin email | Stephen email

Send us a textIs the media failing us with sensationalism? In this episode, Stephen and Gavin explore the controversial defamation lawsuit involving Canadian MP Han Dong and Global News. They discuss the critical issue of media responsibility in reporting, the allegations of Chinese interference in Canadian politics, and the resulting legal battle. The conversation highlights the challenges faced by mainstream media in maintaining credibility in a sensationalized landscape, the legal principles surrounding defamation and anti-SLAPP motions, and the broader implications for democracy and public trust.Listen For:04:20 - Manipulation of Facts in Modern Media09:01 - Defamation Lawsuit Against Global News24:09 - Potential Consequences for Global News29:46 - The Future of Media Credibility and Public TrustLeave a rating/review for this podcast with one clickContact UsGardiner Roberts website | Gavin email | Stephen email 

Send us a textBackground- October 2023 terrorist action in Israel in which over 1,000 people were killed by Hamas has led to war in the Gaza Strip- War has resulted in displacement of Palestinians and estimates of over 30,000 killed- In response, there have been numerous pro-Palestinian protest and anti-war protests, including at University campuses in the United States and Canada- Injunctions to remove protestors in Quebec had failed- After more than a month of occupation of King's College Circle, U of T brought an application to remove pro-Palestinian encampment on the grounds that protestors were engaged in an unlawful trespass of the university's propertyInjunction proceeding- University is private education institution, not affiliated with government- Property of the university is private, but with spaces open to the public - King's College Circle is for use by the entire university population and is also a tourist attraction- After attempting to engage in negotiations with protestors, U of T finally issued a Trespass Notice under provincial Trespass legislation, but police would not enforce notice- Required U of T to go to court for an injunction- U of T argued that protestors had caused damage and had engaged in violent actions on campus, and that occupation was simply illegal as the grounds constituted private university property- To obtain an injunction, generally required to establish serious issue to be tried, irreparable harm and that balance of convenience favours the granting of an injunction; however, serious issue to be tried standard elevated to prima facie case where result is a mandatory injunction, like the removal of the encampment- Court finds that U of T's argument that protestors engaged in violent actions or were engaged in expressions of hate toward others not proven; no prima facie case on these allegations- However, court finds that there was a prima facie case on the issue of trespass; property belonged to U of T and occupation of King's College Circle was essentially exclusive to the pro-Palestinian protestors- Protestors controlled entry to King's College Circle and only permitted those sympathetic to their position entry to the King's College Circle grounds- King's College Circle, however, was an area of U of T to be used by the entire University community and others such as tourists- Protestors relied on Charter to protect themselves against removal from the encampment; contended that they had a right to freely express themselves and associate together in protest- Court finds that Charter did not apply to protect protestor because protestors had not provided notice of constitutional question as required under law, but that Charter did not provide protection in a trespass case. In any event, Trespass Act was reasonable limit prescribed by law- As well, court noted that protestors were actually violating free expression of others because of their control of King's College Circle and who was permitted entry- In connection with the injunction test, there was a clear trespass- In most cases, a clear trespass ends the inquiry and a party is not required to prove irreparable harm or satisfy the balance of convenience test- U of T, however, suffered irreparable harm because of damage to its property that would not be recoverable from the protestors; act of trespass on its own constituted strong irreparable harm- U of T also suffered reputational loss because of the protest- With respect to balance of convenience, court found that the protestors were not being absolutely prohibited from protesting; this weighed in favour of U of T who had established that it suffered harm- Public space of campus had been taken over by pro

Send us a textAn elderly widow scored a courtroom victory!In this episode, Stephen and Gavin dive into the gripping legal battle between a powerful Canadian bank and an elderly widow over a disputed $50,000 credit card debt. They unravel the complexities of the case, highlighting the bank's aggressive tactics, the widow's defense as an authorized user, and the court's sympathy for her plight. The discussion explores broader issues of predatory lending, the ethics of increasing credit limits without consent, and the nuances of law versus equity in the judicial system. Listen For:02:50 - The Modern Credit Card09:40 - Authorized User Defense14:03 - Missing Evidence23:12 - Law vs. EquityLeave a rating/review for this podcast with one clickContact UsGardiner Roberts website | Gavin email | Stephen email

Send us a textEver wonder why you never read the fine print?  In this episode, Gavin and Stephen look into the often-overlooked world of waiver of liability clauses. They discuss a recent British Columbia case where a mountaineering company's liability waiver was scrutinized after a climber was injured. They explain the importance of these clauses for businesses, the strict standards courts apply to enforce them, and how they balance protecting economic interests with ensuring consumer safety. Listen For:02:49 - The Case of the Injured Rock Climber09:28 - The Role of Clear and Concise Language18:00 - Waivers in Consumer Contracts25:42 - Waivers and Minors: A Legal Gray AreaLeave a rating/review for this podcast with one click Contact UsGardiner Roberts website | Gavin email | Stephen email

Send us a textFrom defamed to victorious: A mortgage manager's triumphant battle.In this episode, Gavin and Stephen discuss a case where the plaintiff, accused of fraudulently processing mortgages, was blackballed within the banking industry due to a defamatory alert. The court found the bank's defenses of justification and qualified privilege unconvincing, leading to significant damages, including punitive damages for the bank's reckless disregard of the truth. This case underscores the importance of careful and truthful communication, especially when wielding the substantial influence of a major financial institution. Listen For:02:21 - Defamation in Canada08:48 - Fraud Discovery17:14 - Investigator's Role24:03 - Damages BreakdownLeave a rating/review for this podcast with one clickContact UsGardiner Roberts website | Gavin email | Stephen email 

Send us a textWeighing justice and prejudice in the Weinstein case reversal.In this episode, Gavin and Stephen explore the controversial overturning of Harvey Weinstein's conviction. They explore the nuanced and often polarizing landscape of legal standards, particularly focusing on the balance of evidence and the dangers of prejudicial character evidence in sexual assault cases. They discuss the implications of Weinstein's case on the #MeToo movement, the role of similar fact evidence, and how past behaviours are used in court to shape perceptions of guilt or innocence, shedding light on the complexity of ensuring fair trials in the emotionally charged atmosphere of high-profile sexual misconduct cases. Listen For:04:57 - Review of Weinstein's charges and trial evidence08:50 - Analyzing the appeals court decision18:29 - Contextual challenges in the Weinstein trial20:57 - Power dynamics and consent in sexual assault cases Leave a rating/review for this podcast with one click Contact UsGardiner Roberts website | Gavin email | Stephen email

Send us a textJudicial appointments spark controversy. In this episode, Gavin and Stephen dive into the contentious debate surrounding the political nature of judicial appointments in Ontario. They discuss Ontario Premier Ford's candid remarks on crime and bail, the inherent political process of selecting judges, and the criticisms levelled against this system. Addressing everything from the role of laypeople in judicial committees to the independence of the judiciary post-appointment, the hosts argue that while the process is far from perfect, it is deeply rooted in democratic principles. They champion the idea that judges, once appointed, are shielded from the political fray, able to exercise their duties with impartiality—a cornerstone of the Canadian legal system.Listen For:4:20 - The Provincial Power to Appoint11:21 - Reality of Supreme Court Appointments19:36 - Independence of the JudiciaryLeave a rating/review for this podcast with one clickContact UsGardiner Roberts website | Gavin email | Stephen email 

Send us a textIt's a constitutional showdown. Gavin and Stephen discuss into the implications of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, particularly in light of recent events including the January 6th riots and legal actions concerning former President Donald Trump.  They explore the historical context and application of the amendment, especially Section 3, which pertains to insurrection and its consequences for political participation. The conversation also explores a recent legal decision from Colorado that sought to remove Trump's name from the ballot, examining its constitutionality and potential impacts on U.S. democracy and the electoral system. Leave a rating/review for this podcast with one clickContact UsGardiner Roberts website | Gavin email | Stephen email

Send us a textHockey, scandal, and the law.Gavin, Stephen, and guest Lad Kucis review a controversial case that's made headlines across the Country. It involves former members of the Canadian World Junior Championship hockey team, now facing criminal charges for an alleged sexual assault that occurred six years prior. Amidst the legal discourse, the conversation critically examines the interplay between civil settlements and subsequent criminal proceedings, the impact on the accused players' careers, and the broader implications for the sport's integrity and the justice system at large. The episode is a potent reminder of the complexities and consequences when sports icons fall from grace, leaving a trail of legal quandaries and societal reflection in their wake.Listen For:2:47 – The Incident Unveiled5:34 – Regulatory Bodies React7:40 – The Civil Settlement Conundrum23:56 – Public Perception and PrejudiceGuest: Lad Kucis, Gardiner RobertsLeave a rating/review for this podcast with one clickContact UsGardiner Roberts website | Gavin email | Stephen email

Send us a textAn ATV, a tragic turn, and a court decision that changed everything.Hosts Gavin and Stephen, dive into the Ontario Court of Appeal's ruling on de Roche v McInnis. The case unravels the duty of care owed not just by drivers, but by vehicle owners, accentuating the utmost importance of insurance and proper training. They reflect on the broader implications for owners of recreational vehicles, the devastating consequences of negligence, and the workings of statutory interpretation, emphasizing the importance of having insurance for recreational vehicles.This discussion is a stark reminder that with the thrill of high-speed adventure comes a weighty responsibility, echoing the dire need for precaution and protection in the realm of recreational vehicle use. Listen For:3:15 - Introducing the Case: de Roche v McInnis8:45 - The Duty of Care Explained: Navigating Negligence17:32 - Understanding Statutory Interpretation22:41 - Insuring Adventure: The Safety Net of LiabilityLeave a rating/review for this podcast with one clickRead Stephen's blog on the McGinnis case2024 ONCA 63 (CanLII) | Desrochers v. McGinnis | CanLII (McGinnis case)Contact UsGardiner Roberts website | Gavin email | Stephen email

Send us a textThe Supreme Court of Canada has really stirred the pot this time. The issue is whether mandate letters should be subject to disclosure. Mandate letters are instructions or views given to cabinet ministers by the leader of a government. Sparked by CBC News' request for one collection of letters from 2018, the legal battle questioned their confidentiality. Ultimately, the Supreme Court reversed lower court rulings, emphasizing the importance of cabinet confidentiality for democracy and effective governance. Gavin and Stephen Thiele explore the decision's implications, arguing it protects necessary government deliberation zones, akin to privacy in other professional realms. They critique the media's and opposition's transparency demands, suggesting such pressures could undermine responsible government by stifling free debate and decision-making within the cabinet. Listen For:1:13 The Impact on Democracy and Governance6:34 Legal and Constitutional Framework11:36 Media's Role and Responsibility17:07 Implications for Legal ScholarshipLeave a rating/review for this podcast with one clickContact UsGardiner Roberts website | Gavin email | Stephen email

Send us a textGavin and Stephen discuss a defamation case involving a social media influencer in Edmonton, Alberta. The influencer, Rosemary, had a falling out with a couple, leading to a series of defamatory posts about them on her Instagram account. The court found in favour of the couple, awarding the female plaintiff $50,000 and the male plaintiff $75,000.  This highlights the importance of being careful about what you post on social media, as defamation can lead to significant legal consequences. They also discuss the challenges of applying old defamation laws to new technology and the changing nature of media.Listen For1:54 There's Been a Seismic Shift in Defamation Law Due to Social Media3:04 Challenges in Applying Traditional Law to New Technology4:56 The Role of Social Media Influencers in Defamation11:08 The Difficulty of Enforcing Defamation Judgements Leave a rating/review for this podcast with one clickContact UsGardiner Roberts website | Gavin email | Stephen email

Send us a textIn this episode Gavin and Stephen discuss the recent decision by the federal court on the challenge to the constitutionality and legality of the federal government's decision to invoke the Emergencies Act in response to the trucker convoy protest in Canada.  They argue the protest was non-violent and did not pose a threat to the security of Canada, making the use of the Emergencies Act unreasonable and ultra vires of the federal government. They also express concern about the potential for damages to be awarded to those who were unlawfully injured by the misuse of the statute, which could result in significant costs for Canadian taxpayers. No doubt where this one's headed… the Supreme Court of Canada.Leave a rating/review for this podcast with one clickContact UsGardiner Roberts website | Gavin email | Stephen email

Send us a textIn this episode we're unwrapping the tale of the Banker's Sandwich Scandal. You might have read the headlines. Szabolcs Fekete, a financial crime expert at Citibank was fired by the bank after claiming a two-sandwich lunch on expenses. He'd claimed he ate one sandwich for lunch then ate the second for dinner. But under closer scrutiny he admitted he had travelled with a partner and the second sandwich was for them.But is firing the right price for this deception? Seems a high cost for a low price. In this episode Gavin and Stephen put a bit more “meat in the sandwich” so to speak and explain the rest of the story.Listen For1:32 Understanding the Foundation of the Employer-Employee Relationship6:56 The Consequences of Dishonesty and the Cover-Up16:04 Contextual Approach and Intention in Legal Analysis27:05 The Importance of Clear Policies and Fair Process Leave a rating/review for this podcast with one clickContact UsGardiner Roberts website | Gavin email | Stephen email

Send us a textHave former US President Donald Trump's legal battles exposed biases within the Us judicial system?How do you think the election of judges affects their impartiality and the perception of justice in the US?How does public confidence in the judiciary impact the overall health of a democracy?In this episode, Gavin and Stephen would argue YES to all of the above.  And they argue the American judicial system may not survive the divisive political climate. Listen For1:16 Trump's Exclusion from the Ballot in Colorado3:25 Politicization of Judiciary and Judicial Appointments6:53 Public Confidence and the Health of Democracy9:18 Trump's Influence on the Perception of Judicial BiasLeave a rating/review for this podcast with one clickContact UsGardiner Roberts website | Gavin email | Stephen email

Send us a textGavin and Stephen discuss the intersection of law and sports, specifically focusing on incidents in hockey where players have been criminally charged or sued for their actions on the ice. There have been high-profile cases, such as those involving NHL players Dino Ciccarelli, Marty McSorley, and Todd Bertuzzi, who were all charged with assault for their actions during games. They also discuss a recent case in England where a player was charged with involuntary manslaughter after his skate blade cut another player's throat, resulting in his death. There is potential for both criminal and civil liability in sports. Players need to understand the potential consequences of their actions. And there are also challenges in determining damages in such cases, particularly when a player's professional career is ended due to an injury. Listen For5:45 Consent and Liability in Sports8:03 Incidents Leading to Criminal Charges in Sports11:29 Civil Liability and Damages in Sports Injuries20:18 Legal Implications of Sports Regulations and Player ConductContact UsGardiner Roberts website | Gavin email | Stephen email

Send us a textIn this episode Etobicoke Centre MP Yvan Baker discusses gun control in Canada and the US. Baker says government regulation is important in controlling firearms, but the debate is ongoing. Baker explains that Canada has traditionally had more restrictive gun laws than the US, but there is a growing desire for stronger action to prevent serious gun crimes. He mentions recent measures such as the banning of about 1500 models of assault-style firearms and the introduction of red flag and yellow flag laws, which allow citizens to report concerns about gun owners. He also discusses the challenges of gun smuggling from the US and the need for more resources and technology at the border. The conversation also touches on the potential for mass tort litigation against gun manufacturers.Guest Yvan Baker, MP Etobicoke CentreYvan is a member of the Standing Committee on Finance. He is the Chair of the Canada-Ukraine Parliamentary Friendship Group and an executive member of the Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association. In recognition of his service to the community, Yvan was awarded the Queen's Diamond Jubilee Medal. Yvan holds an MBA from the Tuck School of Business at Dartmouth College and a BBA from the Schulich School of Business at York University.Facebook | X | InstagramContact UsGardiner Roberts website | Gavin email | Stephen email

Send us a textTom Hanks has warned his fans about a circulated AI-generated ad featuring him, clarifying he had nothing to do with the ad.Megan Fox has had issues with Lensa's Magic Avatars, a popular AI art tool that creates stylized portraits based on user-submitted photos.Stephen Spielberg has expressed his nervousness about the impact of AI on the future, particularly its potential to replace human creativity in art. And before his passing, Stephen Hawking went one step further voicing his concerns that advanced AI might one day replace humans altogether. In the legal world, there's a battle emerging in which legal systems globally are trying to keep pace with artificial intelligence. US President Biden recently issued an executive order underlining the need for effective regulatory translation when it comes to AI. Alfredo Esposito is an Italian lawyer with a focus on intellectual property and digital rights. What he sees is the legal system just can't keep up with the whirlwind of technological advancements, specifically in AI and property rights.  Listen For:0:19 Ownership and Regulation of AI4:10 European Context of Copyright Law and AI6:11 Legal Protection of Voice and Image23:47 Global Enforcement and Human RightsGuest: Alfredo EspositoLinkedIn | Facebook | Instagram | XAlfredo's online articles Contact UsGardiner Roberts website | Gavin email | Stephen email

Send us a textLet's dive into a controversial issue. How about gender identity and the role of parents and schools in Canada? New policies by the governments of New Brunswick and Saskatchewan, require parental consent for children under 16 to use different gender identity pronouns. In this episode Gavin and Stephen highlight the legal and political implications of these policies, including a recent decision by the Saskatchewan Court of King's Bench to issue an injunction against the policy. They also discuss the potential use of the notwithstanding clause by the Saskatchewan government to override the court's decision. Are we entering an age where parental involvement in children's lives is potentially being harmed by policies that seek to separate parents and children?Contact UsGardiner Roberts website | Gavin email | Stephen email

Send us a textA recent decision by the Law Society against the firm Diamond and Diamond spotlights a pivotal aspect of law firm marketing, particularly within the personal injury sector.Gavin and Stephen dissect the case of Jeremy Diamond, a lawyer who facing penalty from the Law Society for misleading advertising. His firm was caught making false claims regarding their services and expertise. This episode also touches on the broader implications exploring how the Law Society tribunal's decision sheds light on the contentious issue of contingency fees which enable lawyers to charge a portion of the damages awarded in the case (“We don't get paid unless YOU get paid”). This is a practice that may democratize access to legal service it can also open the door to potentially unscrupulous practices.Listen For:0:34 The changing landscape of law firm marketing3:51 The case of Diamond and Diamond11:54 A critique of the referral business model22:12 Discussion on plea agreements and judicial discretionContact UsGardiner Roberts website | Gavin email | Stephen email

Send us a textGavin and Stephen discuss the implications of digital footprints and privacy in the context of law and technology. Every action online leaves a digital footprint, which can be used in legal cases to determine when a document was created. They also discuss the issue of privacy in the workplace, particularly when employers provide devices like phones or computers to their employees. There was one case where teachers were disciplined for their private messages on a school-provided computer, raising questions about the boundaries of privacy. And the use of drones for surveillance is sparking controversy, both by law enforcement and private individuals. Laws need to keep up with rapidly advancing technology. Contact UsGardiner Roberts website | Gavin email | Stephen email

Send us a textThere's a clear regulatory gap in the world of temporary rentals like Airbnb's. Long-term Airbnb stays face challenges which is clear from a recent Toronto Star story. A couple from Switzerland booked a 10-month Airbnb stay in midtown Toronto. Everything seemed fine with the couple settling in and getting along well with the landlord. Then things took a turn when the landlord wanted the property back due to a family emergency. Guest: May Warren, Toronto StarEmail | XContact UsGardiner Roberts website | Gavin email | Stephen email

Send us a textJordan Peterson's clash with the College of Psychologists of Ontario has been controversial to say the least. In this episode, Stephen and Gavin highlight the profound ability to misunderstand argument, position, and opinion for a belief – and the growing divide in society when it comes to viewpoints and tolerance for alternative perspectives.  Where does the balance lie between defending freedom of speech and maintaining professional conduct within the adversarial system?Contact UsGardiner Roberts website | Gavin email | Stephen email

Send us a textEmojis… widely used in digital communication to convey emotions, actions, or ideas, haven't typically been universally recognized as legally binding symbols in formal contracts or agreements. Until now. A recent decision at the Court of King's Bench for Saskatchewan found the thumbs-up emoji (

Send us a textMonths ago, proponents of Bill C-18, the Online News Act, dismissed warnings from Meta and Google, believing their threats to remove news links from their platforms were mere bluffs. But inevitable has occurred with Meta taking action recently by actively blocking news links and sharing on Facebook and Instagram.The situation appears dire, leaving little hope for resolution. In this episodes Canada's leading legal expert on this topic, Michael Geist explains what's happened and if there's a possible disentanglement for this mess.Guest: Michael GeistMichael Geist is a law professor at the University of Ottawa where he holds the Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-commerce Law.https://www.michaelgeist.ca/Read Michael's blog on Bill C-18Listen to Michael's podcast Law BytesGardiner Roberts website https://www.grllp.com/Email Gavin Tighe gjtighe@grllp.comEmail Stephen Thiele sthiele@grllp.com

Send us a textAnti Libel Chill legislation is a fairly recent change. Libel Chill is the fear of being sued for speaking your mind. An example of this is if a developer wanted to build something in a particular area but a grassroots ratepayer organization formed to oppose it. The developer might hire a legal team to essentially send the message that if people say bad things about the developer say on social media, there will be litigation. You want to say bad things about me, I'm going to make it expensive for you.This kind of strategy has become common, and a name has developed called Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation or SLAPP. Now a number of Canadian jurisdictions are putting in place Anti SLAPP legislation with a goal to give people peace of mind when they speak their mind.Noble idea, but will the legislation work?Gardiner Roberts website https://www.grllp.com/Email Gavin Tighe gjtighe@grllp.comEmail Stephen Thiele sthiele@grllp.com

Send us a textLast month, Russell Brown announced he was stepping down as a justice of the Supreme Court of Canada. His resignation put a halt to the Canadian Judicial Council's probe of a claim of misconduct directed against Brown related to an incident in the United States. And it means there won't be a public report on the matter.Accounts of the incident differ but it has been established there was some kind of fight between Brown and a US Marine veteran at a resort in Scottsdale, Arizona. The Marine veteran, Jon Crump, alleged Brown was belligerent and harassed his female drinking companions. There's a lot more to this story.Gardiner Roberts website https://www.grllp.com/Email Gavin Tighe gjtighe@grllp.comEmail Stephen Thiele sthiele@grllp.com 

Send us a textIn June 2023, prosecutors for a case in New York filed a motion backed by six case studies. The defending attorneys looked at the case studies and scratched their heads… they never heard of these cases.It turns out the six cases had been found by the prosecuting attorneys using Chat GPT, the generative AI tool. As artificial intelligence tools are prone to do, Chat GPT hallucinated the cases. They didn't exist.Gardiner Roberts website https://www.grllp.com/Email Gavin Tighe gjtighe@grllp.comEmail Stephen Thiele sthiele@grllp.com 

Send us a textIt's a concept known as Sugaring or Sugar Dating. A website service created to connect generally older males with younger females. Sugar Daddies.The older men are generally expected to provide younger women with gifts and money. The expectations of the younger women can vary.A very old (and somewhat creepy) concept. But in this particular case, the Sugar Daddy, was a lawyer. And the issue was professional conduct.Gardiner Roberts website https://www.grllp.com/Email Gavin Tighe gjtighe@grllp.comEmail Stephen Thiele sthiele@grllp.com 

Send us a textThere's a scene in the 1931 film “Frankenstein” that conjures an easy image – an angry mob of people storm the castle of Dr Frankenstein armed with pitchforks.Nearly a century later we the people still have the same mentality, we just prefer to do it online.In 2013, a Nova Scotia woman, convicted several times under the Animal Protection Act over more than a decade, became the focus of online anger. Someone developed a Facebook page, using her name prominently committed to harassing her. People posted angry comments toward her, someone suggested she should be beat to a pulp, and others suggested she should be shot. But harassment is also a crime in the Criminal code. Ruling on this case was finally handed down a few months ago.In this episode, vigilante harassment? Or vigilante justice? Gardiner Roberts website https://www.grllp.com/Email Gavin Tighe gjtighe@grllp.comEmail Stephen Thiele sthiele@grllp.com

Send us a textRobert Pella was a candidate in the most recent municipal election running for Catholic School Trustee in the City of Toronto. He was running against an incumbent and fought a tough battle and lost… but by only ONE VOTE.He first went to the school board and asked for a recount. They refused.So, he had to go to court and won his case, but with strict restrictions in place. You need to hear the rest of this story. Gardiner Roberts website https://www.grllp.com/Email Gavin Tighe gjtighe@grllp.comEmail Stephen Thiele sthiele@grllp.com

Send us a textIf you own a property bordering a golf course you know the risk involved. Stray shots will see golf balls enter your property or maybe even hit your house.Who is responsible for damages? The homeowner? The Golf Course? The Golfer?As with all things involving the Law, it depends. There are various claims homeowners can make including negligence and yes the Course and the golfer themselves can be named.In this episode Gavin and Stephen go through the case studies to find responsibility is a narrow fairway.Read Stephen's blog on this subject https://www.grllp.com/blog/Golf-course-liable-for-escaping-golf-balls-467 Gardiner Roberts website https://www.grllp.com/Email Gavin Tighe gjtighe@grllp.comEmail Stephen Thiele sthiele@grllp.com

Send us a textPrime Minister Justin Trudeau gets a lot thrown at him. But in 2021 in southern Ontario, the CEO of the Peoples Party of Canada, a rival party, threw a handful of small rocks at him. Unquestionably that should never have happened. There's no room for that in our society. Charges were laid and the accused acknowledged what he had done. But as part of his defense, he wanted the Prime Minister called to give evidence at the trial.Trudeau decided to challenge the subpoena and won his challenge. He wasn't required to testify.Normally a defendant is given every opportunity to defend themselves in a court of law including calling witnesses, but would the Prime Minister's testimony have lent anything to the legal proceedings? Or was this an effort simply to try to gain political points?Read Stephen's blog on this story Gardiner Roberts website https://www.grllp.com/Email Gavin Tighe gjtighe@grllp.comEmail Stephen Thiele sthiele@grllp.com

Send us a textIn late March 2023, a Manhattan grand jury indicted former US President Donald Trump on more than 30 counts related to business fraud. Sounds ominous. Is it though? Is a grand jury truly… Grand?A Judge in New York once said a prosecutor could indict a ham sandwich in front of a Grand Jury because the process is designed to do the prosecution's bidding.In this first episode of Beneath the Law, Canadian lawyers Gavin Tighe and Stephen Thiele examine what the charges really mean, what the grand jury process is really about, and how these legal proceedings might spill into political impacts.Is it time for just desserts? Or ham sandwiches?Gardiner Roberts website https://www.grllp.com/Email Gavin Tighe gjtighe@grllp.comEmail Stephen Thiele sthiele@grllp.com

Send us a textAre Toronto's homeless encampments pushing the city to its breaking point?Gavin and Stephen sit down with Dana McKiel, former sports broadcaster and founder of Toronto's Downtown Concerned Citizen Coalition (DCCO). McKiel offers a firsthand look at the challenges faced by Toronto's downtown residents, highlighting the rise of homelessness, makeshift camps, and their significant impact on the community. They discuss the city's evolving response, from controversial "homeless hotels" to facilitated public encampments, questioning the effectiveness of current policies. Listen for:04:42 Homeless Hotels & Pricey Contracts10:18 Explosions & Danger in Public Parks19:21 Encampment “Whack-a-Mole”24:29 Tourists & Homeless in the Same Hotel?Leave a rating/review for this podcast with one clickConnect with guest: DANA MCKIEL, Founder Downtown Concerned Citizen CoalitionLinkedIn Contact UsGardiner Roberts website | Gavin email | Stephen email  

Send us a textWhat happens when a water gun incident lands someone in court? Gavin and Stephen dive into the bizarre case of a 63-year-old woman charged with assault for spraying her neighbour with a water gun. What initially appears to be a ridiculous legal issue turns out to have deeper, darker undertones involving allegations of racism and long-standing neighbourhood animosity. The unintended consequences of being criminally charged, from legal fees to job suspension, to the use of valuable court resources on trivial disputes.Listen For:02:36 Assault with a weapon... or a joke gone too far?09:02 What makes an act criminal? Legal definitions explained16:15 Legal aftermath: What happens if the charges are dropped?21:02 Good fences make good neighbors... or do they?Leave a rating/review for this podcast with one clickContact UsGardiner Roberts website | Gavin email | Stephen email  

Send us a textGavin Tighe and Stephen tackle the controversial case of a Manitoba NDP MLA and criminal lawyer, Mark Wasyliw, who was expelled from his party due to his law firm's association with Peter Nygard's defense.  They explore complex issues around the role of criminal defense lawyers, the implications of practicing law while in political office, and the fundamental principles of justice and advocacy.  Is the NDP's decision a matter of political morality, or a threat to the independence of the justice system? Listen For:03:04 - Mark Wasyliw: A Criminal Lawyer in Manitoba's NDP04:47 - Nygard's Case: Guilt by Association?17:18 - The Injustice of Silencing Advocates28:48 - When Politicians Interfere: An Apology with a Catch Leave a rating/review for this podcast with one click Contact UsGardiner Roberts website | Gavin email | Stephen email  

Send us a textAre the courts becoming the new political battlegrounds?  Gavin and Stephen dive into the concept of "lawfare"—the weaponization of the legal system for political gain.  Focusing on the Ontario Place redevelopment case, they explore the delicate balance between democratic governance and the courts' role as a check on power.  As they reflect on the nostalgic past of Ontario Place, the hosts tackle complex legal issues like standing in litigation, the public trust doctrine, and the broader implications of challenging government decisions in court. Listen For:05:11: Ontario Place: A brief history of its rise and fall09:34: Standing in court: Who has the right to sue?19:58: Lawfare in action: How Ontario Place's redevelopment became a battleground23:01: The “public trust” doctrine: A failed legal argument A Practical Guide to the Law of Defamation. ow.ly/Wnml50T6Zbe - This book offers guidance on current and developing defamation law in Canada. It lays out prominent cases, prevalent legal principles and more. Leave a rating/review for this podcast with one click Contact UsGardiner Roberts website | Gavin email | Stephen email  

Send us a textAre you aware of the hidden dangers lurking in your restaurant orders and online agreements?  In this episode, Gavin and Stephen discuss a tragic case involving a fatal food allergy at a Disney Springs restaurant.  They dive into the legal complications that arose, particularly focusing on Disney's controversial attempt to force the case into arbitration based on a seemingly unrelated online agreement.  The discussion highlights the broader implications of clicking "I agree" without understanding the potential legal consequences. Tune in to hear how this case unfolded and the lessons it offers about food safety and legal agreements. Listen For:02:29 - Tragic Allergy: A Fatal Dinner at Disney Springs09:27 - Wrongful Death Claims: Surprising Low Damages17:52 - Arbitration vs. Court: The Hidden Costs22:15 - Contracts of Adhesion: The Click That Binds You A Practical Guide to the Law of Defamation. ow.ly/Wnml50T6Zbe - This book offers guidance on current and developing defamation law in Canada. It lays out prominent cases, prevalent legal principles and more. Leave a rating/review for this podcast with one click Contact UsGardiner Roberts website | Gavin email | Stephen email  

Send us a Text Message.Is the media failing us with sensationalism? In this episode, Stephen and Gavin explore the controversial defamation lawsuit involving Canadian MP Han Dong and Global News.  They discuss the critical issue of media responsibility in reporting, the allegations of Chinese interference in Canadian politics, and the resulting legal battle.  The conversation highlights the challenges faced by mainstream media in maintaining credibility in a sensationalized landscape, the legal principles surrounding defamation and anti-SLAPP motions, and the broader implications for democracy and public trust. Listen For:04:20 - Manipulation of Facts in Modern Media09:01 - Defamation Lawsuit Against Global News24:09 - Potential Consequences for Global News29:46 - The Future of Media Credibility and Public TrustLeave a rating/review for this podcast with one clickContact UsGardiner Roberts website | Gavin email | Stephen email  

Send us a Text Message."If you can't kick someone out, it's not your house."  In this episode, Gavin and Stephen dissect the legal complexities surrounding recent pro-Palestinian protests on university campuses in Toronto.  They contrast the swift eviction at York University with the prolonged encampment at the University of Toronto, attributing the differences to legal strategies and timing.  The discussion explores the balance between property rights and freedom of expression, highlighting Justice Cohen's pivotal decision that set a precedent for handling such protests.  Listen For: 3:17 - Global Turmoil, Local Protests 8:14 - Expression vs. Encroachment 13:11 - Blueprint for Future Protests 24:14 - Beyond the Campus: Public Parks and Protests  Leave a rating/review for this podcast with one click  Contact Us Gardiner Roberts website | Gavin email | Stephen email  

Send us a Text Message.This episode was first publishedIf you own a property bordering a golf course you know the risk involved. Stray shots will see golf balls enter your property or maybe even hit your house.Who is responsible for damages? The homeowner? The Golf Course? The Golfer?As with all things involving the Law, it depends. There are various claims homeowners can make including negligence and yes the Course and the golfer themselves can be named. In this episode Gavin and Stephen go through the case studies to find responsibility is a narrow fairway.Listen For9:35 The Assumption of Risk and Defense in Property Damage Cases11:41 Types of Legal Claims in Golf Ball Damage Cases13:50 Challenges in Obtaining Injunctive Relief16:42 Balancing Business Impact and Property RightsRead Stephen's blog on this subject https://www.grllp.com/blog/Golf-course-liable-for-escaping-golf-balls-467Leave a rating/review for this podcast with one clickContact UsGardiner Roberts website | Gavin email | Stephen email  

An elderly widow scored a courtroom victory!In this episode, Stephen and Gavin dive into the gripping legal battle between a powerful Canadian bank and an elderly widow over a disputed $50,000 credit card debt. They unravel the complexities of the case, highlighting the bank's aggressive tactics, the widow's defense as an authorized user, and the court's sympathy for her plight. The discussion explores broader issues of predatory lending, the ethics of increasing credit limits without consent, and the nuances of law versus equity in the judicial system. Listen For:02:50 - The Modern Credit Card09:40 - Authorized User Defense14:03 - Missing Evidence23:12 - Law vs. EquityLeave a rating/review for this podcast with one clickContact UsGardiner Roberts website | Gavin email | Stephen email  

Ever wonder why you never read the fine print? In this episode, Gavin and Stephen look into the often-overlooked world of waiver of liability clauses. They discuss a recent British Columbia case where a mountaineering company's liability waiver was scrutinized after a climber was injured. They explain the importance of these clauses for businesses, the strict standards courts apply to enforce them, and how they balance protecting economic interests with ensuring consumer safety. Listen For:02:49 - The Case of the Injured Rock Climber09:28 - The Role of Clear and Concise Language18:00 - Waivers in Consumer Contracts25:42 - Waivers and Minors: A Legal Gray AreaLeave a rating/review for this podcast with one clickContact UsGardiner Roberts website | Gavin email | Stephen email