Podcasts about canada attorney general

This case concerns the third party spending limits most recently added to the Election Finances Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E.7 (“EFA”), in 2021, and whether they infringe the informational component of the right to vote (i.e., a citizen's right to exercise their vote in an informed manner), which is protected by s. 3 of the Charter. The amendments to the EFA sparked constitutional challenges. The application judge heard and decided two sequential proceedings. In the first proceedings: Working Families Ontario v. Ontario, 2021 ONSC 4076, 155 O.R. (3d) 545 (“Working Families 1”), the application judge concluded that the extension of a 6-month pre-writ restricted period to one that was doubly restrictive was unjustifiable as it did not minimally impair the free expression rights of third party advertisers. In response to that ruling, the Ontario government announced its intention to invoke the notwithstanding clause in s. 33 of the Charter, and introduced Bill 307, which received Royal Assent five days later as the Protecting Elections and Defending Democracy Act, 2021, S.O. 2021, c. 31 (“PEDDA”). Other than the addition of the notwithstanding clause, the PEDDA amendments to the EFA are identical to the amendments that were invalidated in Working Families 1. In the second proceedings, which give rise to these appeals, the legislation was challenged as a violation of s. 3 of the Charter, and as an improper use of s. 33 of the Charter. The application judge concluded that the use of the notwithstanding clause in enacting PEDDA was not improper, and that the re-enacted spending limits on third party advertising during the pre-writ period did not infringe the right to vote under s. 3. The majority of the Court of Appeal agreed that the notwithstanding clause was properly invoked. However, it concluded that the appeals should be allowed and declared the challenged spending restrictions invalid, but would suspend the effect of the declaration for 12 months. Argued Date 2024-05-21 Keywords Charter of rights — Constitutional law — Elections — Right to vote — Third party election spending limits — Constitutionality of limits imposed by Ontario Election Finances Act, on third party political advertising expenditures in Ontario during 12-month pre-writ period before a fixed date provincial election — Whether s. 37.10.1(2) of Election Finances Act, unjustifiably infringes s. 3 of Charter — What is appropriate standard of review — Whether majority of Court of Appeal erred by reformulating test in Harper v. Canada (Attorney General), 2004 SCC 33, [2004] 1 S.C.R. 827, to turn on two “proxies”, namely whether restrictions are “carefully tailored” and whether they permit a “modest information campaign”, and thereby conflating s. 2(b) and s. 3 analyses — Whether majority erred in importing justificatory analysis to s. 3, and in scrutinizing government's rationale for where lines had been drawn for amount and duration of spending limits — Whether majority erred by failing to give deference to application judge's factual findings — Whether majority erred by focusing on “change” in impugned spending restrictions as compared with earlier iterations of legislation — In alternative, is any breach of s. 3 justified under s. 1 — Election Finances Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E.7. Notes (Ontario) (Civil) (By Leave) Language English Audio Disclaimers This podcast is created as a public service to promote public access and awareness of the workings of Canada's highest court. It is not affiliated with or endorsed by the Court. The original version of this hearing may be found on the Supreme Court of Canada's website. The above case summary was prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch).

This case concerns the third party spending limits most recently added to the Election Finances Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E.7 (“EFA”), in 2021, and whether they infringe the informational component of the right to vote (i.e., a citizen's right to exercise their vote in an informed manner), which is protected by s. 3 of the Charter. The amendments to the EFA sparked constitutional challenges. The application judge heard and decided two sequential proceedings. In the first proceedings: Working Families Ontario v. Ontario, 2021 ONSC 4076, 155 O.R. (3d) 545 (“Working Families 1”), the application judge concluded that the extension of a 6-month pre-writ restricted period to one that was doubly restrictive was unjustifiable as it did not minimally impair the free expression rights of third party advertisers. In response to that ruling, the Ontario government announced its intention to invoke the notwithstanding clause in s. 33 of the Charter, and introduced Bill 307, which received Royal Assent five days later as the Protecting Elections and Defending Democracy Act, 2021, S.O. 2021, c. 31 (“PEDDA”). Other than the addition of the notwithstanding clause, the PEDDA amendments to the EFA are identical to the amendments that were invalidated in Working Families 1. In the second proceedings, which give rise to these appeals, the legislation was challenged as a violation of s. 3 of the Charter, and as an improper use of s. 33 of the Charter. The application judge concluded that the use of the notwithstanding clause in enacting PEDDA was not improper, and that the re-enacted spending limits on third party advertising during the pre-writ period did not infringe the right to vote under s. 3. The majority of the Court of Appeal agreed that the notwithstanding clause was properly invoked. However, it concluded that the appeals should be allowed and declared the challenged spending restrictions invalid, but would suspend the effect of the declaration for 12 months. Argued Date 2024-05-22 Keywords Charter of rights — Constitutional law — Elections — Right to vote — Third party election spending limits — Constitutionality of limits imposed by Ontario Election Finances Act, on third party political advertising expenditures in Ontario during 12-month pre-writ period before a fixed date provincial election — Whether s. 37.10.1(2) of Election Finances Act, unjustifiably infringes s. 3 of Charter — What is appropriate standard of review — Whether majority of Court of Appeal erred by reformulating test in Harper v. Canada (Attorney General), 2004 SCC 33, [2004] 1 S.C.R. 827, to turn on two “proxies”, namely whether restrictions are “carefully tailored” and whether they permit a “modest information campaign”, and thereby conflating s. 2(b) and s. 3 analyses — Whether majority erred in importing justificatory analysis to s. 3, and in scrutinizing government's rationale for where lines had been drawn for amount and duration of spending limits — Whether majority erred by failing to give deference to application judge's factual findings — Whether majority erred by focusing on “change” in impugned spending restrictions as compared with earlier iterations of legislation — In alternative, is any breach of s. 3 justified under s. 1 — Election Finances Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E.7. Notes (Ontario) (Civil) (By Leave) Language English Audio Disclaimers This podcast is created as a public service to promote public access and awareness of the workings of Canada's highest court. It is not affiliated with or endorsed by the Court. The original version of this hearing may be found on the Supreme Court of Canada's website. The above case summary was prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch).

We begin by going through a recent John Carpay column in The Epoch Times: "The Danger of Intellectual Laziness: How Albert Speer Became a Nazi." Then we examine the originating application in the Egale lawsuit against the Saskatchewan government over parental notification for gender transitions in children under 16. Finally, we discuss the trial of Chris Barber and Tamara Lich.John Carpay in The Epoch Times, Sep  9, 2023: The Danger of Intellectual Laziness: How Albert Speer Became a NaziAmazon.ca: Inside the Third Reich by Albert SpeerEgale's Google Drive documents page (including Originating Application)Egale: UR Pride Centre for Sexuality and Gender Diversity v. Government of Saskatchewan et al.Justice Centre, Oct 12, 2019: PT et al v. AlbertaCalgary Sun, Sep 6, 2023: 2023: Teacher's sex-assault trial delayed by closed-door applicationTrue North, Sep 9, 2023: “We are not backing down”: Scott Moe commits to parental rights billSimon Fraser University: Ann TraversCanLII, Jan 30, 2004: Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law v. Canada (Attorney General), 2004Carson Jerema, Sep 5, 2023: Tamara Lich exposed the incompetence of the Canadian stateThe Canadian Press via Edmonton Journal, Sep 8, 2023: Freedom Convoy lawyers to argue admissibility of Facebook evidenceThe Canadian Press via Edmonton Journal, Sep 4, 2023: 'Hold the line:' 'Freedom Convoy' organizers' criminal trial begins TuesdayGov. of Canada, Justice Laws Website: Criminal CodeJustice Centre, Sep 8, 2023: Charges against couple who refused to quarantine withdrawnTheme Music "Carpay Diem" by Dave StevensSupport the show

As the country enters into an unofficial period of post-Covid reflection, we ask ourselves what needs to be done to educate Canadians on the rights and freedoms that were so cavalierly dismissed over the last two years. Then, John goes over a couple of new Charter cases the Justice Centre is taking on, both of which involve politicians and municipal governments.Justice Centre, Sep 27, 2022: Justice Centre legal action will continue against ArriveCANCanadian Covid Care Alliance: A Citizens' HearingLicia Corbella in The Calgary Herald, Jun 30, 2020: Alberta man died from the lockdown, not COVID-19Viva Frei on Youtube, Sep 30, 2022: FULL INTERVIEW! Keith Wilson, Talking Hon. Brian Peckford's Trudeau Charter Challenge!National Post, Sep 27, 2022: 'Completely unjustifiable': Feds paid out $190 million in bonuses to public servantsCanLII, Mar 9, 1989: Borowski v. Canada (Attorney General), 1989 Amazon.ca: SJWs Always Lie: Taking Down the Thought Police by Vox DayJustice Centre, Sep 26, 2022: Municipal Councillor Punished For Attending Ottawa Protest Challenges DecisionJustice Centre, Sep 26, 2022: Municipal councillor fights suspension for refusing to disclose Covid vax statusJustice Centre, Sep 26, 2022: Crown drops Covid charges against Derek Sloan, Randy Hillier, and other protestorsCBC, Jun 3, 2022: Conservative MP removed from Parliament Hill over vaccination statusPeter Stockland in The Epoch Times via NTD, Jun 5, 2022: The Abhorrent Treatment of MP Wagantall and Our Apathy in Not Even Asking ‘Why'Epoch Times via NTD, Jun 7, 2022: MP Wagantall ‘Blown Away by Incredible Response' After Being Removed From Parliament Hill for Not Revealing Vaccination StatusTrue North, Sep 29, 2022: Justice Centre wants Trudeau government to drop all ArriveCan finesGlobal News, May 7, 2020: Coronavirus: Doug Ford visited cottage despite pleas for Ontario residents to stay homeTheme Music "Carpay Diem" by Dave StevensSupport the show

Reports and PapersClick here to access Injustices and Miscarriages of Justice Experienced by 12 Indigenous Women. Click here to read Carly Peddle, Emma Ronsley & Debra Parkes, Toward Abolishing the Mandatory Life Sentence and Parole Ineligibility Periods for Murder: Discussion Document.Click here to check out Sarah Chaster's paper, Cruel, Unusual, and Constitutionally Infirm: Mandatory Minimum Sentences in Canada.Click here to access Marie-Eve Sylvestre's research, Moving towards a minimalist and transformative criminal justice system: Essay on the reform of the principles and objectives of sentencing, prepared for the Department of Justice Canada.Click here to access research by the Department of Justice on MMPsClick here to read the Senators Go to Jail report.LegislationClick here to access Bill S-233Click here to read Bill C-223Click here to check out Bill S-230PBO ReportsClick here to read the PBO report titled The Federal Cost of Minimum Sentences. Click here to check out Demonstrative Examples of Costing Sentenced InmatesClick here to access the PBO report, The Fiscal Impact of Changes to Eligibility for Conditional Sentences Imprisonment in Canada.Click here to check out the PBO report on the Funding Requirement and Impact of the “Truth in Sentencing Act” on the Correctional System in Canada.JurisprudenceClick here to read R. v. Bissonnette, 2022 SCC 23Click here to access Twins v. Canada (Attorney General), 2016 FC 537Click here to read R. v. Luxton, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 711Click here to access R. v. D.B., [2008] 2 S.C.R. 3, 2008 SCC 25Click here to read R. v. Ipeelee, 2012 SCC 13, [2012] 1 S.C.R. 433 Other ResourcesClick here to check out Kim's Senate Bio pageClick here to access publications by Professor Parkes

Episode 220:  The attention grabbing headline of the the article in The Province newspaper on the morning of July 3, 2013 screamed, “RCMP foil Canada Day bomb plot”, the subheading read, “VICTORIA: Two British Columbians allegedly hatch scheme to blow up legislature.” Since March of that year, RCMP had been engaged in what they called Project Souvenir, a complex and expensive sting operation to gather evidence against two Surrey residents, John Stuart Nuttall, 38, and his common-law wife, Amanda Marie Korody, 29. The RCMP alleged that the pair were Islamist extremist bent on blowing up BC's legislature buildings in Victoria and killing as many innocent Canadians as possible on Canada Day that year. On the morning of July 1, the couple had apparently placed three pressure cooker bombs strategically near concrete planters on the west and east sides of the Provincial legislature buildings.  The pair were taken into custody in the hallway of a hotel in Delta, B.C. where they had used a room, wired by cops for video and sound, where they had built their bombs and spoken openly about their plot to kill Canadians. But, as the truth came out, evidence revealed that Nuttall and Korody were not even remotely the devious threats to national security they'd been said to be and that the RCMP had in fact, according to court findings, entrapped the pair. The bombs had been inert, made using intentionally flawed designs and materials handed to the couple by the RCMP themselves during the more than one million dollar operation to bust them. Sources: John Nuttall | ReverbNation R. v. Nuttall, 2016 BCSC 1404 (CanLII), < https://canlii.ca/t/gsq89 > R. v. Nuttall, 2018 BCCA 479 (CanLII), < https://canlii.ca/t/hwnvs > Korody v. Canada (Attorney General), 2015 FC 1398 (CanLII), < https://canlii.ca/t/gpfvp> Friends of John Nuttall say he was a great friend, but was also troubled | Globalnews.ca 3 Jul 2013, 4 - The Province at Newspapers.com 3 Jul 2013, 3 - Times Colonist at Newspapers.com 4 Jul 2013, 4 - The Vancouver Sun at Newspapers.com CKNW — NUTTALL & KORODY Video Vancouver Sun — Raw: Alleged terrorists Nuttall, Korody talk about Canada Day plot Vancouver Sun — Raw: John Nuttall, accused in B.C. terror case, speaks with undercover officer You searched for korody - BC Civil Liberties AssociationBC Civil Liberties Association Vancouver Sun — An alleged terrorist's Surrey suite is revealed 97a Ave Canadian Press — B.C. couple walk free after entrapment ruling in terror case BC Terror Trial Reveals Gong Show RCMP Investigation Exclusive W5 interview: Terror plotters claim they were groomed by Mounties and were relieved bombs were fake W5: Undercover RCMP anti-terror investigation — YouTube Surrey Suite, BB TV — YouTube Terror trial video shows second thoughts — YouTube Canada Day crowd at B.C. legislature was target in thwarted bomb plot, police say — Victoria Times Colonist Nuttall and Korody, couple accused in Victoria legislature bomb plot, remain free after B.C. Court of Appeal ruling - BC | Globalnews.ca RCMP spent $1M on Victoria terror plot investigation, including $90K on Nuttall and Korody - BC | Globalnews.ca RCMP entrapment of B.C. couple in legislature bomb plot was ‘travesty of justice,' court rules | CBC News Support the show: https://www.patreon.com/darkpoutine See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

On this long overdue episode of the pod, Professor Hilary Young and Robert Danay discuss the apparent new trend in which judges in Canada have been creating new common law torts. Some of the cases discussed include: Ahluwalia v. Ahluwalia, 2022 ONSC 1303 in which Mandhane J. created the new tort of family violence; Caplan v. Atas, 2021 ONSC 670 in which Corbett J. created the new tort of cyber harassment; Nevsun Resources Ltd. v. Araya, 2020 SCC 5, in which the Supreme Court of Canada declined to strike a claim rooted in the new tort of breaching customary international law; Merrifield v. Canada (Attorney General), 2019 ONCA 205, in which the Ontario Court of Appeal rejected a new tort of harassment; Crookes v. Newton, 2011 SCC 47 in which the Supreme Court described the circumstances under which the republication of a hyperlink may be considered defamatory (and also cited Rob's paper called “The Medium is not the Message: Reconciling Reputation and Free Expression in Cases of Internet Defamation” (2010), 56 McGill L.J. 1); and Barrick Gold Corp. v. Lopehandia, 2004 CanLII 12938 (ON CA), in which the Ontario Court of Appeal found the fact that a defamatory statement was published on the internet increased the quantum of damages and vitiated the availability of the qualified privilege defence. In Obiter Dicta: Hilary recommended "The World of Yousuf Karsh: A Private Essence" a photography exhibition at the Canadian Museum of Immigration at Pier 21 in Halifax, Nova Scotia; and Rob recommended Ukrainian band DakhaBrakha's performance on NPR's Tiny Desk Concert Series. If you have comments or questions you can find us on Twitter or Facebook.

Episode 212: On the afternoon of January 27, 1993, the day before her 20th birthday, Sian Simmonds, a student who was working he way through school, was found dead in her basement suite in the Guildford neighbourhood of Surrey, B.C. She had been shot and bludgeoned. Neighbours had heard screams coming from her suite. Only days later, a man named David Schlender was arrested. Already on bail for the attempted murder of one of his cocaine dealers the year before, Schlender told police he'd been hired by another man, Brian West, to commit the murder in exchange for wiping an outstanding drug debt. The investigation of Brian West led to another man, Josephakis Charalambous, the Simmonds' family doctor who had hired West to murder Sian. Eighteen months before her murder, Sian and her older sister Katie had filed grievances with the BC College of Physicians and Surgeons alleging sexual assault by Charalambous. Rather than face censure by the College and risk losing his substantial annual income, Charlambous had sought to silence the girls. As the truth came out about the doctor, his carefully constructed facade of the community minded healer came tumbling down revealing an ugly pattern of violence and predatory behaviour toward young women and girls. Sources: Betrayal of trust | Maclean's | DECEMBER 12, 1994 R. v. West, 1997 CanLII 3157 (BC CA), < https://canlii.ca/t/1dzn4 > R. v. Charalambous, 1997 CanLII 3363 (BC CA), < https://canlii.ca/t/1dznk > Mountie Seduced My Wife. I Want a New Trial — PressReader.com Charalambous v. Canada (Attorney General), 2009 FC 1082 (CanLII), < https://canlii.ca/t/26bkj > Charalambous v. Canada (Attorney General), 2015 FC 1045 (CanLII), < https://canlii.ca/t/gl077 > Charalambous v. Canada (Attorney General), 2016 FCA 177 (CanLII), < https://canlii.ca/t/gs5q6 > Charalambous v. Attorney General of Canada, 2017 CanLII 1337 (SCC), < https://canlii.ca/t/gx021 > Doctor denied day parole 27 years after hiring hitman to kill teen | Vancouver Sun Scandalous Case had Public Riveted — PressReader.com Documentary pays tribute to parents of murdered children - New West Record Family Physician Hired a Hit Man to Silence Her…Permanently - Medical Bag Serving Life 25-One Guard's Story — Scribd Dr. Death M.D. by David Pietras - Ebook | Scribd Doctors Who Kill by Carol Anne Davis - Ebook | Scribd Fatal Prescription: A Doctor without Remorse by John Griffiths | Goodreads Medical Ethics | The Canadian Encyclopedia About CAVEAT Support the show: https://www.patreon.com/darkpoutine See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

About the Series  Charter: A Course is a podcast created by the David Asper Centre for Constitutional Rights (the Asper Centre)  and hosted by the Asper Centre's Executive Director Cheryl Milne.  Charter: A Course focuses on Canadian constitutional law and litigation. In each episode, we highlight the  accomplishments of U of T Law's faculty and alumni involved in leading constitutional cases and issues. Each  episode also includes a “Practice Corner,” where we talk about the ins and outs of what it means to be a  constitutional litigator.   Whether you are a law student, a lawyer, or just an interested person, we hope that you learn about an aspect  of constitutional law and litigation that interests you in our podcast.  Episode 6 Show Notes  Section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states that every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the  law without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, color, religion, sex, age or mental or physical  disability.  With the help of our distinguished guests, constitutional litigators Mary Eberts and Jonathan Rudin (author of Indigenous People and the Criminal Justice System: A Practitioner's Handbook) we trace the history of Section 15 and its development in Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence, as well as its use in furthering the efforts to realize substantive equality for Indigenous peoples in Canada, in particular in the criminal justice system.   Mary and Jonathan also share their thoughts about the value of interveners in Charter litigation in Canada.   Find a full transcript of this episode HERE.  Case Links  In this episode, the following cases were discussed:  Fraser v. Canada (Attorney General), 2020 SCC 28 (CanLII)  Attorney General of Canada v. Lavell, 1973 CanLII 175 (SCC), [1974] SCR 1349  The Queen v. Drybones, 1969 CanLII 1 (SCC), [1970] SCR 282  Corbiere v. Canada (Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs), 1999 CanLII 687 (SCC), [1999] 2 SCR 203 Lovelace v. Ontario, 2000 SCC 37 (CanLII), [2000] 1 SCR 950 R. v. Kapp, 2008 SCC 41 (CanLII), [2008] 2 SCR 483 Law v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), 1999 CanLII 675 (SCC), [1999] 1 SCR 497 Alberta (Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development) v. Cunningham, 2011 SCC 37 (CanLII), [2011] 2 SCR 670 Kahkewistahaw First Nation v. Taypotat, 2015 SCC 30 (CanLII), [2015] 2 SCR 548 R. v. Gladue, 1999 CanLII 679 (SCC), [1999] 1 SCR 68 R. v. Ipeelee, 2012 SCC 13 (CanLII), [2012] 1 SCR 433 R. v. Sharma, 2020 ONCA 478 (CanLII) About the Asper Centre  The Asper Centre, a part of the University of Toronto's Faculty of Law since 2008, is devoted to realizing  constitutional rights through advocacy, research and education. The Centre aims to play a vital role in  articulating Canada's constitutional vision to the broader world. The cornerstone of the Centre is a legal clinic  that brings together students, faculty and members of the bar to work on significant constitutional cases and  advocacy initiatives. The Centre was established through a generous gift from U of T law alumnus David  Asper (LLM '07).  Thank You's  Charter: A Course is proudly sponsored by the University of Toronto's affinity partners: MBNA and TD Insurance. We would like to thank each of our sponsors, and you can discover the benefits of affinity products at  bit.ly/affinity-offers.   We would like to thank the creators of our theme music for Charter: A Course. Constitutional law  professor Howie Kislowicz and law professor Rob Currie gave us the licence to use their constitutional law shanty  in exchange for a donation to the Calgary Food Bank. The song's performers are: Vanessa Carroll, Rob Currie,  Howie Kislowicz, Avinash Kowshik, Anna Lund, Patricia Paradis, Elin Sigurdson, Lyle Skinner, and Dave Wright.  You can listen to the entire shanty here: Charter a Course. Please consider contributing to your local food bank!  Thank you to Flint Patterson, JD student at the University of Toronto Faculty of Law, for his contributions to the production of this episode.  Thank you to our wonderful guests on this episode, Mary Eberts and Jonathan Rudin! Thank you to our audio editor Liam Morrison of Bell Room Media Solutions.  Lastly, we are very grateful to you, our listeners, for taking the time to join us on this voyage as we  charter a course into podcasting!

About the Series  Charter: A Course is a podcast created by the David Asper Centre for Constitutional Rights (the Asper Centre) and hosted by the Asper Centre's Executive Director Cheryl Milne.  Charter: A Course focuses on Canadian constitutional law and litigation. In each episode, we highlight the accomplishments of U of T Law's faculty and alumni involved in leading constitutional cases and issues. Each episode also includes a “Practice Corner,” where we talk about the ins and outs of what it means to be a constitutional litigator.   Whether you are a law student, a lawyer, or just an interested person, we hope that you learn about an aspect of constitutional law and litigation that interests you in our podcast. Episode 5 Show Notes  Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees that every person has the right to life, liberty, and security of the person, except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.  This episode focuses on s. 7 of the Charter, climate change litigation and constitutional remedies in these cases.   In this episode, we speak with lawyer and former Constitutional Litigator-in-Residence at the Asper Centre, Nader Hasan about the meaning and purpose of section 7 in the context of climate change and government action/inaction, and as it relates to protecting the environment for future generations. Nader is legal counsel for the applicants in the Mathur v Ontario climate change litigation (see case link below), which he discusses in this episode. In this episode's “Practice Corner”(starting at 38:30), we speak with University of Toronto Faculty of Law Professor Kent Roach about constitutional remedies as a core aspect of charter litigation. Kent is the author of Constitutional Remedies in Canada (Carswell, 2013) and has recently published an article on judicial remedies in climate change litigation internationally. Find a full transcript of this episode HERE. Case Links In this episode, the following cases were discussed: Gosselin v. Québec (Attorney General), 2002 SCC 84 (CanLII) Mathur v. Ontario, 2020 ONSC 6918 La Rose v Her Majesty the Queen 2020 FC 1008 Urgenda Foundation v. State of the Netherlands, 2015 Tanudjaja v. Canada (Attorney General), 2014 ONCA 852 (CanLII) Doucet-Boudreau v. Nova Scotia (Minister of Education), 2003 SCC 62 (CanLII) About the Asper Centre  The Asper Centre, a part of the University of Toronto's Faculty of Law since 2008, is devoted to realizing constitutional rights through advocacy, research and education. The Centre aims to play a vital role in articulating Canada's constitutional vision to the broader world. The cornerstone of the Centre is a legal clinic that brings together students, faculty and members of the bar to work on significant constitutional cases and advocacy initiatives. The Centre was established through a generous gift from U of T law alumnus David Asper (LLM '07).  Thank You's Charter: A Course is proudly sponsored by the University of Toronto's affinity partners: MBNA and TD Insurance. We would like to thank each of our sponsors, and you can discover the benefits of affinity products at bit.ly/affinity-offers. We would like to thank the creators of our theme music for Charter: A Course. Constitutional law professor Howie Kislowicz and law professor Rob Currie gave us the licence to use their constitutional law shanty in exchange for a donation to the Calgary Food Bank. The song's performers are: Vanessa Carroll, Rob Currie, Howie Kislowicz, Avinash Kowshik, Anna Lund, Patricia Paradis, Elin Sigurdson, Lyle Skinner, and Dave Wright. You can listen to the entire shanty here: Charter a Course.  Please consider contributing to your local food bank!  Thank you to Szymon Rodomar and Flint Patterson, JD students at the U of T Faculty of Law, for their immense contributions to the production of this episode.  Thank you to our wonderful guests on this episode, Nader Hasan and Professor Kent Roach! Thank you to our audio editor Liam Morrison of Bell Room Media Solutions.  Lastly, we are very grateful to you, our listeners, for taking the time to join us on this voyage as we charter a course into podcasting! 

(PUBLICATION BAN IN CASE) On December 22, 2016, the appellant, Mr. Albashir, was charged with several offences related to his operation of a commercial trade, including living on the avails of prostitution contrary to s. 212(1)(j) of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, between March 15 and December 5, 2014. Despite finding factual guilt on all counts, the trial judge quashed the s. 212(1)(j) counts on the indictment as unconstitutional, relying on Canada (Attorney General) v. Bedford, 2013 SCC 72, [2013] 3 S.C.R. 1101. On December 20, 2013, in Bedford, the Court held that s. 212(1)(j) was overbroad and could not be saved under s. 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but suspended the declaration of invalidity for a period of one year. The British Columbia Court of Appeal allowed the Crown's appeal and ordered that convictions be entered for the s. 212(1)(j) counts, finding that the trial judge fell into error when he quashed them. Since Parliament replaced s. 212(1)(j) with a new offence that largely mirrors its predecessor in substance but carves out a number of exceptions intended to address concerns over security of the person raised in Bedford within the period of the suspension, conduct captured by the former iteration of the offence during the suspended declaration of invalidity is prosecutable. During the suspension period, s. 212(1)(j) was constitutionally valid. The retroactive effect of a suspended declaration of invalidity is pre-empted by the passing of remedial legislation: the declaration of invalidity never came into effect to render the provision a nullity ab initio. Keywords Constitutional law - Criminal law, Legislation - Constitutional law - Criminal law - Legislation - Declaration of invalidity - Living on avails of prostitution - Temporary suspension of declaration of invalidity - Parliament repealing and replacing legislation before expiration of suspended period - What is the effect of a suspended declaration of invalidity if Parliament repeals and replaces the legislation found to be constitutionally invalid prior to the expiry of the suspended declaration?. Notes (British Columbia) (Criminal) (As of Right) Disclaimers This podcast is created as a public service to promote public access and awareness of the workings of Canada's highest court. It is not affiliated with or endorsed by the Court. The original version of this hearing may be found on the Supreme Court of Canada's website. The above case summary was prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch).

In this inaugural Stereo Decisis "Shorts" episode, we pay tribute to the legacy of Joseph Arvay, QC, who passed away on December 7, 2020 at the age of 71. Cases of Arvay's mentioned in the episode include: Canada (Attorney General) v. Bedford, 2013 SCC 72 Carter v. Canada (Attorney General), 2015 SCC 5 Canada (Attorney General) v. PHS Community Services Society, 2011 SCC 4 Donations in honour of Arvay's memory can be made to the Hope Centre in Welland, Ontario. Find us on Twitter and Facebook

Renowned constitutional lawyer Joe Arvay passed away unexpectedly at the age of 71. Over the course of a remarkable career focused on public interest constitutional litigation he had a profound impact on the lives of many people. A few of the many cases he was involved with are discussed on the show, ranging from the Little Sisters bookstore case, that dealt with freedom of expression and equality rights to one of his most recent cases involving civil forfeiture of property that might be used, in the future, for criminal activity. R. v. Henry was a case involving a man wrongfully convicted of 10 sexual offences for which he was designated a dangerous offender and kept in jail for almost 27 years. His wrongful conviction was caused by the Crown not disclosing 30 witness statements that would have undermined already problematic identification evidence, as well as key forensic evidence. The Crown also concealed evidence of another suspect who had been arrested twice in the vicinity of the attacks. Mr. Arvay was successful in obtaining compensation for Mr. Henry as a constructional remedy, without having to prove that the prosecutor who withheld the evidence acted with malice. Prior to this case, no compensation would have been available unless the wrongfully convicted person was able to provide the Crown was motivated by an improper purpose. The high threshold was intended to protect prosecutorial discretion over matters such as the decision to prosecute someone or not. The Supreme Court of Canada accepted Mr. Arvay’s argument that there is no discretion concerning the obligation to provide disclosure of evidence once a prosecution is undertaken. Another notable case discussed on the show is Canada (Attorney General) v. Bedford. In this case, the Supreme Court of Canada struck down several of the prostitution laws that existed at the time. The court accepted that the legal prohibitions made life more dangerous for sex workers by preventing them from taking steps to ensure their safety. This was found to contravene section 7 of the Charter that protects the security of the person. Carter v. Canada (Attorney General) is also discussed on the show. In this case, the Supreme Court of Canada concluded that the assisted suicide prohibitions were unconstitutional to the extent that they prohibited physician-assisted death for a competent adult person who (1) clearly consents to the termination of life and (2) has a grievous and irremediable medical condition (including an illness, disease or disability) that causes enduring suffering that is intolerable to the individual in the circumstances of his or her condition.This case reversed an earlier Supreme Court of Canada decision and is an example of Mr. Arvay not accepting an older decision as being immutable. The Supreme Court of Canada agreed that earlier decisions could be revised in two circumstances: (1) where a new legal issue is raised; and (2) where there is a change in the circumstances or evidence that fundamentally shifts the parameters of the debate.The final case discussed was ongoing at the time of Mr. Arvay’s death. It involved the British Columbia civil forfeiture legislation which permitted property to be taken by the government on the basis that it is likely to be used, in the future, for criminal activity.Mr. Arvay was successful at trial in having these provisions struck down as being unconstitutional. The trial judge used an example of a person being convicted of dangerous driving, serving their sentence, purchasing a new car, and having the government take the new car on the basis that it was likely they would drive dangerously again in the future. Follow this link for a transcript of the episode and links to the cases discussed.

On this episode of the podcast, Hilary Young and Robert Danay are joined by constitutional litigator and self-styled "Blackademic," Joshua Sealy-Harrington. The discussion primarily centred on the recent decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Chouhan, which was a constitutional challenge to Bill C-75, a law that removed the ability of an accused (or a prosecutor) to remove potential jurors peremptorily. This law was passed in the aftermath of Gerald Stanley's controversial acquittal in the murder of Colton Boushie, a 22-year old Indigenous man in Saskatchewan. Joshua represented the intervener BC Civil Liberties Association in Chouhan. The discussion also touched on the recent decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Fraser v. Canada (Attorney General), 2020 SCC 28, which was a constitutional challenge to an aspect of the RCMP's statutory pension scheme that disproportionately affected women. It was the first decision in which the Court found an unjustifiable breach of the right to equality in s. 15 of the Charter on the basis of "adverse impact" discrimination. In obiter dicta, Hilary recommended the songs of Tom Lehrer, which the math professor/satirical musician recently released into the public domain. Rob recommended the CBC show You Can't Ask That! and Joshua recommended The Alchemy of Race and Rights by Patricia J. Williams. Find us on Twitter and Facebook!

Florian shares his own bizarre story of being pitched coronavirus masks by an LSP over LinkedIn. Esther discusses news that LSPs are suing the Translation Bureau of Canada (Attorney General of Canada), one of the world’s largest translation buyers. LSPs claim that the Translation Bureau’s translation memory is “flawed and polluted,” which is costing them time and money. Florian unpacks RWS’s latest half-year trading update to March 2020. Revenues were down by -1.8% from 2019, but overall, Life Sciences and some large enterprise IT were not doing too badly, suggesting these sectors may take less of a hit from Coronavirus across the wider language industry. Florian shares localization insights from Swiss-based life science company Hamilton, which manufactures ventilators and coronavirus testing equipment. Hamilton has language services volumes of 3-5 million words annually, most of which is technical documentation (tech doc). The two close with a story on public sector interpreting in the UK, where Registered Interpreters have been given key worker status by the London Metropolitan Police during the Coronavirus lockdown, but are still battling for fair pay and appropriate safety measures to be granted. Links to the stories discussed in this episode: LSPs Sue Canada Translation Bureau Over ‘Polluted’ Translation Memories https://slator.com/industry-news/lsps-sue-canada-translation-bureau-over-polluted-translation-memories/ RWS Gives Early Indication of Pandemic’s Impact on Translation Industry https://slator.com/financial-results/rws-gives-early-indication-of-pandemics-impact-on-translation-industry/ Inside Localization at Hamilton, Maker of Coronavirus Testing Workstations https://slator.com/features/inside-localization-at-hamilton-maker-of-coronavirus-testing-workstations/ NRPSI Voices Concerns Over Fair Pay, Safety of Registered UK Interpreters https://slator.com/industry-news/nrpsi-voices-concerns-over-fair-pay-safety-of-registered-uk-interpreters/

With governments declaring states of emergency due to the pandemic, what individual rights remain? In the second half of the show, we discuss a case that has a lot of parents throughout North America concerned about their rights. What happens if their child falls into the grip of the radical transgender agenda being pushed by school, medical and legal systems?Canada Justice Laws Website: Emergencies ActRadio Canada International: History: August 22, 1914: War Measures ActCBC, Mar 24, 2020: WestJet laying off 6,900 workers amid worsening COVID-19 crisisTweet247: #TrudeauDictatorship Twitter Trend : The Most Popular Tweets | CanadaNational Post via MSN, Feb 28, 2020: How the case of an Alberta woman shows the Charter trouble with mandatory alcohol screeningGlobal News, Mar 22, 2020: Coronavirus: Quebec government bans public gatherings of all sizesCanada News, Mar 24, 2020: Mayors of Ottawa, Gatineau ask residents to limit interprovincial travelIan Brodie on Twitter, Mar 22, 2020: CTV's on air campaign for the emergencies act makes me want to donate to a civil liberties groupCanLII: Authorson v. Canada (Attorney General), 2003 SCC 39Fox News, Mar 24, 2020: Trump calls for restarting economy by Easter: ‘We have to get back to work'Justice Centre Active Case: AB v CD4thwavenow, May 29, 2015: Dr. Susan Bradley: “The trans lobby has got us on the run”Justice Centre Active Cases: N.B. v. Ottawa Carleton District School BoardToronto Star, Jun 22, 2018: Canada's top judge says Supreme Court should provide leadership at a time when fundamental values are being undermined in the world  Adam N. Black in The Financial Post, Jan 29, 2020: B.C. Court of Appeal sends a clear family law message in case of transgender teenEpoch Times, Feb 19, 2020: Minors May Get Sex Changes Without Parental Consent, if California's Teachers Union Has Its WayTheme music "Carpay Diem" by Dave StevensSupport the show (https://www.jccf.ca/donate/)

This episode of Runnymede Radio features Dr. Paul Daly, a member of the Faculty of Law (Common Law Section) at the University of Ottawa, where he holds a University Research Chair in Administrative Law and Governance. In this episode, Dr. Daly and Mark Mancini, the National Director of the Runnymede Society, discuss the much anticipated rulings of the Supreme Court of Canada in the so-called "administrative law trilogy", a trio of cases in which the Court has sought to clarify the law governing judicial review of administrative decisions in Canada. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov Bell Canada v. Canada (Attorney General)

Judgment (English)

On this episode of the show Hilary Young, Oliver Pulleyblank and Robert Danay discuss the recent guilty plea to dangerous driving offences by the accused in the tragic Humboldt Broncos bus crash, the decision of the United Nations Human Rights Committee that the Indian Act discriminates against women and the decision of the recent decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Frank v. Canada (Attorney General), 2019 SCC 1. In obiter dicta, Oliver talks about the upcoming release of new albums, Hilary talks about the appropriation of Justin Trudeau's likeness (and that of his family) by a Kentucky outfitter and Rob talks about Nike's new self-lacing shoes. We are on Twitter: @stereodecisis ...and Facebook ...and Patreon!

Summary (English)

On this week's episode of the pod, Hilary Young, Robert Danay and Oliver Pulleyblank discuss the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Rogers Communications Inc. v. Voltage Pictures, LLC, 2018 SCC 38, which concerned the ability of a copyright owner to gain easy access to the identities of alleged copyright infringers; the Federal Court judicial review of a decision concerning the removal of a judge by the Canadian Judicial Council in Girouard v. Canada (Attorney General), 2018 FC 865; and the creative sentencing decision of Mr. Justice Nakatsuru in R. v. Morris, 2018 ONSC 5186, which dealt with questions of systemic discrimination, moral culpability and the scourge of gun violence in Canada. In obiter dicta, Rob discusses a story about a grandmother in Texas who killed an alligator that she believed to have eaten her miniature horse, Hilary discusses the Beverley Bralette and Oliver pays tribute to teachers after suffering through his son's birthday party. We are on Twitter: @stereodecisis And Facebook. If you love the show and want to donate to support it, you may now do so through Patreon.  

This week on Hull on Estates, Paul Trudelle and Nick Esterbauer discuss recent developments in the prohibition against physician-assisted death, including the exemption granted by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice last month in A.B. v. Canada (Attorney General). (http://bit.ly/1RILY06)

This summer, the SCC heard arguments for Canada (Attorney General) v Bedford, a high-profile constitutional challenge to Canada's current approach to prostitution. In this episode, part 1 of 2, we discuss the history, the positions, and what's at stake.

This summer, the SCC heard arguments for Canada (Attorney General) v Bedford, a high-profile constitutional challenge to Canada's current approach to prostitution. In this episode, part 1 of 2, we discuss the history, the positions, and what's at stake.