Podcasts about onca

Provide your feedback here. Anonymously send me a text message. In this episode, Mike discusses the Ontario Court of Appeal decision R. v. Jackson, 2025 ONCA 717 where police — after witnessing a suspected drug deal — stopped a vehicle, claiming a passenger was not wearing his seat belt. During the interaction, police saw cannabis shake (green specs and flakes) on the dashboard, smelled fresh marihuana and noticed an air freshener in the vehicle. When the man was about to be searched under Ontario's Cannabis Control Act, he fled, only to be chased down and arrested. A search incident to arrest turned up two ounces of fentanyl in his possession and other drugs in the vehicle. When this went to court the man alleged the police used the seatbelt infraction as a false pretext to arbitrarily detain him and search for drugs, and he wanted the evidence excluded. Was the traffic stop lawful? Or did the police use their Highway Traffic Act authority as a ruse — a false flag — to pull the vehicle over and search it? What you might learn may help you with future stops where you are suspicious of a vehicle's occupants while at the same time witness a traffic related infraction.  Sentencing reasons (R. v. Jackson, 2024 ONSC 2402).Ontario's Highway Traffic Act (HTA)s. 216(1) HTA:A police officer, in the lawful execution of his or her duties and responsibilities, may require the driver of a vehicle, other than a bicycle, to stop and the driver of a vehicle, when signalled or requested to stop by a police officer who is readily identifiable as such, shall immediately come to a safe stop.s. 106(3) HTA:Every person who is at least 16 years old and is a passenger in a motor vehicle on a highway shall, (a)  occupy a seating position for which a seat belt assembly has been provided; and (b)  wear the complete seat belt assembly as required by subsection (5). Ontario's Cannabis Control Act (CCA)s. 12(1) CCA:No person shall drive or have the care or control of a vehicle or boat, whether or not it is in motion, while any cannabis is contained in the vehicle or boat.s. 12(2) CCA:Subsection (1) does not apply with respect to cannabis that, (a)  is in its original packaging and has not been opened; or (b)  is packed in baggage that is fastened closed or is not otherwise readily available to any person in the vehicle or boat. s. 12(3) CCA:A police officer who has reasonable grounds to believe that cannabis is being contained in a vehicle or boat in contravention of subsection (1) may at any time, without a warrant, enter and search the vehicle or boat and search any person found in it.Other reference:R. v. Kaddoura, 2009 BCCA 113.Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at legalissuesinpolicing@gmail.com

Provide your feedback here. Anonymously send me a text message. In this episode, Mike discusses the Ontario Court of Appeal decision R. v. Samuels, 2025 ONCA 736 where police arrested a man for drug trafficking and searched him at the scene incident to arrest by lifting his shirt and removing a bag of drugs sticking out from his underwear waistband. The man's sweatpants were then lowered to his knees, exposing a pair of jeans underneath, so officer's could search his pockets. Police found a trove or drugs and drug-related evidence. Did these searches amount to a "strip search" such that special rules applied? Or were they more akin to a pat-down or frisk search, requiring no additional justification? Listen to learn on which side of this issue Ontario's top court fell? References:Lower court ruling (R. v. Samuels, 2023 ONCJ 596).Sentencing decision (R. v. Samuels, 2023 ONCJ 597).R. v. Choi, 2021 BCCA 410.R. v. Golden, 2001 SCC 83.Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at legalissuesinpolicing@gmail.com

Can police use text messages that a complainant voluntarily hands over without a warrant? Joseph, Michael and Alper walk through the fresh R v Dhaliwal (Oct 8, 2025) decision, recap the Supreme Court's R v Marakah (2017) framework on privacy in digital messages, and contrast R v Reeves (2018) and Lampert (2023 ONCA) on third-party devices and shared control. They unpack Section 8's “search” vs “seizure,” how passive police collection can still breach the Charter, and why 24(2) good-faith analysis often keeps the evidence in. The crew hash out when a warrant should be mandatory, the dangers of cherry-picked screenshots, and how AI-era fakery raises the stakes for authenticity and expert evidence. Website: http://www.NotOnRecordpodcast.com Sign up to our email list - http://eepurl.com/hw3g99 Social Media Links Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/NotonRecord Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/notonrecordpodcast/ TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@notonrecordpodcast Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/notonrecord Telegram: https://t.me/NotOnRecord Minds: http://www.minds.com/notonrecord Audio Platforms Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/4F2ssnX7ktfGH8OzH4QsuX Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/not-on-record-podcast/id1565405753 SoundCloud: https://soundcloud.com/notonrecord Rumble: https://rumble.com/c/c-842207 For more information on criminal law issues go to Neuberger & Partners LLP http://www.nrlawyers.com. Produced by Possibly Correct Media www.PossiblyCorrect.com

Sponsored by EasyDNS https://easydns.com/NotOnRecord In Episode 186, the team tackles a thorny “global charge” spanning more than two decades and uses it to unpack one of criminal law's hardest strategic calls: how to handle prior discreditable conduct and bad-character evidence in domestic-context sexual assault prosecutions. Drawing on Ontario Court of Appeal guidance in R v MRS (2020 ONCA 667) and R v ZWC (2021 ONCA 116), they contrast narrative relevance with forbidden propensity reasoning, and debate when to object pre-trial versus “lean in” to expose contradictions, motive to fabricate, and animus especially when allegations number in the hundreds and particulars are thin. They weigh risks on appeal, the limits of motions for particulars, credibility traps in he-said-she-said trials, and how custody disputes and timing can colour the evidentiary landscape. It's a candid, practice-level conversation about judgment calls that can win a case or foreclose appellate remedies. R. v. MRS, 2020 ONCA 667 - https://canlii.ca/t/jb6p4 R. v. Z.W.C., 2021 ONCA 11 - https://canlii.ca/t/jddvg Website: http://www.NotOnRecordpodcast.com Sign up to our email list - http://eepurl.com/hw3g99 Social Media Links Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/NotonRecord Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/notonrecordpodcast/ TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@notonrecordpodcast Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/notonrecord Telegram: https://t.me/NotOnRecord Minds: http://www.minds.com/notonrecord Audio Platforms Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/4F2ssnX7ktfGH8OzH4QsuX Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/not-on-record-podcast/id1565405753 SoundCloud: https://soundcloud.com/notonrecord Rumble: https://rumble.com/c/c-842207 For more information on criminal law issues go to Neuberger & Partners LLP http://www.nrlawyers.com. Produced by Possibly Correct Media www.PossiblyCorrect.com

Provide your feedback here. Anonymously send me a text message. In this episode, Mike discusses the Ontario Court of Appeal  decision R. v. Ngo, 2025 ONCA 685 where police conducted a no-knock entry when executing a search warrant? Was departing from the knock-and-announce rule justified in the circumstances? Or did police action render the manner of search unreasonable?Lower court decision (R. v. Ngo, 2022 ONSC 3700)Sentencing decision (R. v. Ngo, 2023 ONSC 282)Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at legalissuesinpolicing@gmail.com

Sponsored by EasyDNS https://easydns.com/NotOnRecord Joseph, Michael and Diana discuss the meaty legal breakdown of His Majesty the King v. J.W., 2025 ONCA 637. They unpack how the Ontario Court of Appeal treats myths and stereotypes in sexual-assault cases, especially delay in reporting and continued association, what's permissible to argue, and how to ground inferences without crossing into prohibited reasoning. Expect a practical tour of jury charges, prior consistent statements (and their limits), strategic tips for defence counsel, and why careful, collaborative charge-crafting matters on appeal. R. v. J.W., 2025 ONCA 637 - https://canlii.ca/t/kfdtw Website: http://www.NotOnRecordpodcast.com Sign up to our email list - http://eepurl.com/hw3g99 Social Media Links Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/NotonRecord Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/notonrecordpodcast/ TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@notonrecordpodcast Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/notonrecord Telegram: https://t.me/NotOnRecord Minds: http://www.minds.com/notonrecord Audio Platforms Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/4F2ssnX7ktfGH8OzH4QsuX Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/not-on-record-podcast/id1565405753 SoundCloud: https://soundcloud.com/notonrecord Rumble: https://rumble.com/c/c-842207 For more information on criminal law issues go to Neuberger & Partners LLP http://www.nrlawyers.com. Produced by Possibly Correct Media www.PossiblyCorrect.com

** There are less than 10 tickets remaining for the live recording of Uncommons with Catherine McKenna on Thursday Oct 2nd. Register for free here. **On this two-part episode of Uncommons, Nate digs into Bill C-2 and potential impacts on privacy, data surveillance and sharing with US authorities, and asylum claims and refugee protections.In the first half, Nate is joined by Kate Robertson, senior researcher at the University of Toronto's Citizen Lab. Kate's career has spanned criminal prosecutions, regulatory investigations, and international human rights work with the United Nations in Cambodia. She has advocated at every level of court in Canada, clerked at the Supreme Court, and has provided pro bono services through organizations like Human Rights Watch Canada. Her current research at Citizen Lab examines the intersection of technology, privacy, and the law.In part two, Nate is joined by Adam Sadinsky, a Toronto-based immigration and refugee lawyer and co-chair of the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers' Advocacy Committee. Adam has represented clients at every level of court in Canada, including the Supreme Court, and was co-counsel in M.A.A. v. D.E.M.E. (2020 ONCA 486) and Canadian Council for Refugees v. Canada (2023 SCC 17).Further Reading:Unspoken Implications A Preliminary Analysis of Bill C-2 and Canada's Potential Data-Sharing Obligations Towards the United States and Other Countries - Kate Robertson, Citizen LabKate Robertson Chapters:00:00 Introduction & Citizen Lab03:00 Bill C-2 and the Strong Borders Act08:00 Data Sharing and Human Rights Concerns15:00 The Cloud Act & International Agreements22:00 Real-World Examples & Privacy Risks28:00 Parliamentary Process & Fixing the BillAdam Sadinsky Chapters:33:33 Concerns Over Asylum Eligibility in Canada36:30 Government Goals and Fairness for Refugee Claimants39:00 Changing Country Conditions and New Risks41:30 The Niagara Falls Example & Other Unfair Exclusions44:00 Frivolous vs. Legitimate Claims in the Refugee System47:00 Clearing the Backlog with Fair Pathways50:00 Broad Powers Granted to the Government52:00 Privacy Concerns and Closing ReflectionsPart 1: Kate RobertsonNate Erskine-Smith00:00-00:01Kate, thanks for joining me.Kate Robertson00:01-00:01Thanks for having me.Nate Erskine-Smith00:02-00:15So I have had Ron Debert on the podcast before. So for people who really want to go back into the archive, they can learn a little bit about what the Citizen Lab is. But for those who are not that interested, you're a senior researcher there. What is the Citizen Lab?Kate Robertson00:16-01:00Well, it's an interdisciplinary research lab based at University of Toronto. It brings together researchers from a technology standpoint, political science, lawyers like myself and other disciplines to examine the intersection between information and communication technologies, law, human rights, and global security. And over time, it's published human rights reports about some of the controversial and emerging surveillance technologies of our time, including spyware or AI-driven technologies. And it's also really attempted to produce a thoughtful research that helps policymakers navigate some of these challenges and threats.Nate Erskine-Smith01:01-02:50That's a very good lead into this conversation because here we have Bill C-2 coming before Parliament for debate this fall, introduced in June, at the beginning of June. And it's called the Strong Borders Act in short, but it touches, I started counting, it's 15 different acts that are touched by this omnibus legislation. The government has laid out a rationale around strengthening our borders, keeping our borders secure, combating transnational organized crime, stopping the flow of illegal fentanyl, cracking down on money laundering, a litany of things that I think most people would look at and say broadly supportive of stopping these things from happening and making sure we're enhancing our security and the integrity of our immigration system and on. You, though, have provided some pretty thoughtful and detailed rational legal advice around some of the challenges you see in the bill. You're not the only one. There are other challenges on the asylum changes we're making. There are other challenges on lawful access and privacy. You've, though, highlighted, in keeping with the work of the Citizen Lab, the cross-border data sharing, the challenges with those data sharing provisions in the bill. It is a bit of a deep dive and a little wonky, but you've written a preliminary analysis of C2 and Canada's potential data sharing obligations towards the U.S. and other countries, unspoken implications, and you published it mid-June. It is incredibly relevant given the conversation we're having this fall. So if you were to at a high level, and we'll go ahead and some of the weeds, but at a high level articulate the main challenges you see in the legislation from the standpoint that you wrote in unspoken implications. Walk us through them.Kate Robertson02:51-06:15Well, before C2 was tabled for a number of years now, myself and other colleagues at the lab have been studying new and evolving ways that we're seeing law enforcement data sharing and cross-border cooperation mechanisms being put to use in new ways. We have seen within this realm some controversial data sharing frameworks under treaty protocols or bilateral agreement mechanisms with the United States and others, which reshape how information is shared with law enforcement in foreign jurisdictions and what kinds of safeguards and mechanisms are applied to that framework to protect human rights. And I think as a really broad trend, what is probably most, the simplest way to put it is that what we're really seeing is a growing number of ways that borders are actually being exploited to the detriment of human rights standards. Rights are essentially falling through the cracks. This can happen either through cross-border joint investigations between agencies in multiple states in ways that essentially go forum shopping for the laws and the most locks, that's right. You can also see foreign states that seek to leverage cooperation tools in democratic states in order to track, surveil, or potentially even extradite human rights activists and dissidents, journalists that are living in exile outside their borders. And what this has really come out of is a discussion point that has been made really around the world that if crime is going to become more transient across borders, that law enforcement also needs to have a greater freedom to move more seamlessly across borders. But what often is left out of that framing is that human rights standards that are really deeply entrenched in our domestic law systems, they would also need to be concurrently meaningful across borders. And unfortunately, that's not what we're seeing. Canada is going to be facing decisions around this, both within the context of C2 and around it in the coming months and beyond, as we know that it has been considering and in negotiation around a couple of very controversial agreements. One of those, the sort of elephant in the room, so to speak, is that the legislation has been tabled at a time where we know that Canada and the United States have been in negotiations for actually a couple of years around a potential agreement called the CLOUD Act, which would quite literally cede Canada's sovereignty to the United States and law enforcement authorities and give them really a blanket opportunity to directly apply surveillance orders onto entities, both public and private in Canada?Nate Erskine-Smith06:16-07:46Well, so years in the making negotiations, but we are in a very different world with the United States today than we were two years ago. And I was just in, I was in Mexico City for a conference with parliamentarians across the Americas, and there were six Democratic congressmen and women there. One, Chuy Garcia represents Chicago district. He was telling me that he went up to ICE officials and they're masked and he is saying, identify yourself. And he's a congressman. He's saying, identify yourself. What's your ID? What's your badge number? They're hiding their ID and maintaining masks and they're refusing to identify who they are as law enforcement officials, ostensibly refusing to identify who they are to an American congressman. And if they're willing to refuse to identify themselves in that manner to a congressman. I can only imagine what is happening to people who don't have that kind of authority and standing in American life. And that's the context that I see this in now. I would have probably still been troubled to a degree with open data sharing and laxer standards on the human rights side, but all the more troubling, you talk about less democratic jurisdictions and authoritarian regimes. Well, isn't the U.S. itself a challenge today more than ever has been? And then shouldn't we maybe slam the pause button on negotiations like this? Well, you raise a number of really important points. And I think thatKate Robertson07:47-09:54there have been warning signs and worse that have long preceded the current administration and the backsliding that you're commenting upon since the beginning of 2025. Certainly, I spoke about the increasing trend of the exploitation of borders. I mean, I think we're seeing signs that really borders are actually, in essence, being used as a form of punishment, even in some respects, which I would say it is when you say to someone who would potentially exercise due process rights against deportation and say if you exercise those rights, you'll be deported to a different continent from your home country where your rights are perhaps less. And that's something that UN human rights authorities have been raising alarm bells about around the deportation of persons to third countries, potentially where they'll face risks of torture even. But these patterns are all too reminiscent of what we saw in the wake of 9-11 and the creation of black sites where individuals, including Canadian persons, were detained or even tortured. And really, this stems from a number of issues. But what we have identified in analyzing potential cloud agreement is really just the momentous decision that the Canadian government would have to make to concede sovereignty to a country which is in many ways a pariah for refusing to acknowledge extraterritorial international human rights obligations to persons outside of its borders. And so to invite that type of direct surveillance and exercise of authority within Canada's borders was a country who has refused for a very long time, unlike Canada and many other countries around the world, has refused to recognize through its courts and through its government any obligation to protect the international human rights of people in Canada.Nate Erskine-Smith09:56-10:21And yet, you wrote, some of the data and surveillance powers in Bill C-2 read like they could have been drafted by U.S. officials. So you take the frame that you're just articulating around with what the U.S. worldview is on this and has been and exacerbated by obviously the current administration. But I don't love the sound of it reading like it was drafted by AmericanKate Robertson10:22-12:43officials. Well, you know, it's always struck me as a really remarkable story, to be frank. You know, to borrow Dickens' tale of two countries, which is that since the 1990s, Canada's Supreme Court has been charting a fundamentally different course from the constitutional approach that's taken the United States around privacy and surveillance. And it really started with persons looking at what's happening and the way that technology evolves and how much insecurity people feel when they believe that surveillance is happening without any judicial oversight. And looking ahead and saying, you know what, if we take this approach, it's not going to go anywhere good. And that's a really remarkable decision that was made and has continued to be made by the court time and time again, even as recently as last year, the court has said we take a distinct approach from the United States. And it had a lot of foresight given, you know, in the 1990s, technology is nowhere near what it is today. Of course. And yet in the text of C2, we see provisions that, you know, I struggle when I hear proponents of the legislation describe it as balanced and in keeping with the Charter, when actually they're proposing to essentially flip the table on principles that have been enshrined for decades to protect Canadians, including, for example, the notion that third parties like private companies have the authority to voluntarily share our own. information with the police without any warrant. And that's actually the crux of what has become a fundamentally different approach that I think has really led Canada to be a more resilient country when it comes to technological change. And I sometimes describe us as a country that is showing the world that, you know, it's possible to do both. You can judicially supervise investigations that are effective and protect the public. And the sky does not fall if you do so. And right now we're literally seeing and see to something that I think is really unique and important made in Canada approach being potentially put on the chopping block.Nate Erskine-Smith12:44-13:29And for those listening who might think, okay, well, at a high level, I don't love expansive data sharing and reduced human rights protections, but practically, are there examples? And you pointed to in your writing right from the hop, the Arar case, and you mentioned the Supreme Court, but they, you know, they noted that it's a chilling example of the dangers of unconditional information sharing. And the commission noted to the potentially risky exercise of open ended, unconditional data sharing as well. But that's a real life example, a real life Canadian example of what can go wrong in a really horrible, tragic way when you don't have guardrails that focus and protect human rights.Kate Robertson13:31-14:56You're right to raise that example. I raise it. It's a really important one. It's one that is, I think, part of, you know, Canada has many commendable and important features to its framework, but it's not a perfect country by any means. That was an example of just information sharing with the United States itself that led to a Canadian citizen being rendered and tortured in a foreign country. Even a more recent example, we are not the only country that's received requests for cooperation from a foreign state in circumstances where a person's life is quite literally in jeopardy. We have known from public reporting that in the case of Hardeep Najjar, before he was ultimately assassinated on Canadian soil, an Interpol Red Notice had been issued about him at the request of the government of India. And the government had also requested his extradition. And we know that there's a number of important circumstances that have been commented upon by the federal government in the wake of those revelations. And it's provoked a really important discussion around the risks of foreign interference. But it is certainly an example where we know that cooperation requests have been made in respect of someone who's quite literally and tragically at risk of loss of life.Nate Erskine-Smith14:57-16:07And when it comes to the, what we're really talking about is, you mentioned the Cloud Act. There's also, I got to go to the notes because it's so arcane, but the second additional protocol to the Budapest Convention. These are, in that case, it's a treaty that Canada would ratify. And then this piece of legislation would in some way create implementing authorities for. I didn't fully appreciate this until going through that. And I'd be interested in your thoughts just in terms of the details of these. And we can make it as wonky as you like in terms of the challenges that these treaties offer. I think you've already articulated the watering down of traditional human rights protections and privacy protections we would understand in Canadian law. But the transparency piece, I didn't fully appreciate either. And as a parliamentarian, I probably should have because there's... Until reading your paper, I didn't know that there was a policy on tabling of treaties That really directs a process for introducing treaty implementing legislation. And this process also gets that entirely backwards.Kate Robertson16:09-17:01That's right. And, you know, in researching and studying what to do with, you know, what I foresee is potentially quite a mess if we were to enter into a treaty that binds us to standards that are unconstitutional. You know, that is a diplomatic nightmare of sorts, but it's also one that would create, you know, a constitutional entanglement of that's really, I think, unprecedented in Canada. But nevertheless, that problem is foreseen if one or both of these were to go ahead. And I refer to that in the cloud agreement or the 2AP. But this policy, as I understand it, I believe it was tabled by then Foreign Affairs Minister Maxime Bernier, as he was at the time, by Prime Minister Harper's government.Nate Erskine-Smith17:02-17:04He's come a long way.Kate Robertson17:07-18:12I believe that the rationale for the policy was quite self-evident at the time. I mean, if you think about the discussions that are happening right now, for example, in Quebec around digital sovereignty and the types of entanglements that U.S. legal process might impact around Quebec privacy legislation. Other issues around the AI space in Ontario or our health sector in terms of technology companies in Ontario. These treaties really have profound implications at a much broader scale than the federal government and law enforcement. And that's not even getting to Indigenous sovereignty issues. And so the policy is really trying to give a greater voice to the range of perspectives that a federal government would consider before binding Canada internationally on behalf of all of these layers of decision making without perhaps even consulting with Parliament First.Nate Erskine-Smith18:12-19:15So this is, I guess, one struggle. There's the specific concerns around watering down protections, but just on process. This just bothered me in particular because we're going to undergo this process in the fall. And so I printed out the Strong Borders Act, Government of Canada Strengthens Border Security and the backgrounder to the law. And going through it, it's six pages when I print it out. And it doesn't make mention of the Budapest Convention. It doesn't make mention of the Cloud Act. It doesn't make mention of any number of rationales for this legislation. But it doesn't make mention that this is in part, at least, to help implement treaties that are under active negotiation. not only gets backwards the policy, but one would have thought, especially I took from your paper, that the Department has subsequently, the Justice Department has subsequently acknowledged that this would in fact help the government implement these treaties. So surely it shouldKate Robertson19:15-19:57be in the background. I would have thought so. As someone that has been studying these treaty frameworks very carefully, it was immediately apparent to me that they're at least relevant. It was put in the briefing as a question as to whether or not the actual intent of some of these new proposed powers is to put Canada in a position to ratify this treaty. And the answer at that time was yes, that that is the intent of them. And it was also stated that other cooperation frameworks were foreseeable.Nate Erskine-Smith19:59-20:57What next? So here I am, one member of parliament, and oftentimes through these processes, we're going to, there's the objective of the bill, and then there's the details of the bill, and we're going to get this bill to a committee process. I understand the intention is for it to be a pretty fulsome committee hearing, and it's an omnibus bill. So what should happen is the asylum components should get kicked to the immigration committee. The pieces around national security should obviously get kicked to public safety committee, and there should be different committees that deal with their different constituent elements that are relevant to those committees. I don't know if it will work that way, but that would be a more rational way of engaging with a really broad ranging bill. Is there a fix for this though? So are there amendments that could cure it or is it foundationally a problem that is incurable?Kate Robertson20:58-21:59Well, I mean, I think that for myself as someone studying this area, it's obvious to me that what agreements may be struck would profoundly alter the implications of pretty much every aspect of this legislation. And that stems in part from just how fundamental it would be if Canada were to cede its sovereignty to US law enforcement agencies and potentially even national security agencies as well. But obviously, the provisions themselves are quite relevant to these frameworks. And so it's clear that Parliament needs to have the opportunity to study how these provisions would actually be used. And I am still left on knowing how that would be possible without transparencyNate Erskine-Smith22:00-22:05about what is at stake in terms of potential agreements. Right. What have we agreed to? If thisKate Robertson22:05-24:57is implementing legislation what are we implementing certainly it's a significantly different proposition now even parking the international data sharing context the constitutional issues that are raised in the parts of the bill that i'm able to study within my realm of expertise which is in the context of omnibus legislation not the entire bill of course yeah um but it's hard to even know where to begin um the the the powers that are being put forward you know i kind of have to set the table a bit to understand to explain why the table is being flipped yeah yeah we're at a time where um you know a number of years ago i published about the growing use of algorithms and AI and surveillance systems in Canada and gaps in the law and the need to bring Canada's oversight into the 21st century. Those gaps now, even five years later, are growing into chasms. And we've also had multiple investigative reports by the Privacy Commissioner of Canada being sent to Parliament about difficulties it's had reviewing the activities of law enforcement agencies, difficulties it's had with private sector companies who've been non-compliant with privacy legislation, and cooperating at all with the regulator. And we now have powers being put forward that would essentially say, for greater certainty, it's finders keepers rules. Anything in the public domain can be obtained and used by police without warrant. And while this has been put forward as a balancing of constitutional norms, the Supreme Court has said the opposite. It's not an all or nothing field. And in the context of commercial data brokers that are harvesting and selling our data, including mental health care that we might seek online, AI-fueled surveillance tools that are otherwise unchecked in the Canadian domain. I think this is a frankly stunning response to the context of the threats that we face. And I really think it sends and creates really problematic questions around what law enforcement and other government agencies are expected to do in the context of future privacy reviews when essentially everything that's been happening is supposedly being green lit with this new completely un-nuanced power. I should note you are certainly not alone in theseNate Erskine-Smith24:57-27:07concerns. I mean, in addition to the paper that I was talking about at the outset that you've written as an analyst that alongside Ron Deaver in the Citizen Lab. But there's another open letter you've signed that's called for the withdrawal of C2, but it's led by open media. I mean, BCCLA, British Columbia Civil Liberties Association, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, the Canadian Council for Refugees, QP, International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group, Penn Canada, the Center for Free Expression, privacy experts like Colin Bennett, who I used be on the Privacy Committee and that were pretty regular witnesses. You mentioned the Privacy Commissioner has not signed the open letter, but the Privacy Commissioner of both Canada and the Information Commissioner of Ontario, who's also responsible for privacy. In the context of the treaties that you were mentioning, the Budapest Convention in particular, they had highlighted concerns absent updated, modernized legislation. And at the federal level, we have had in fits and starts attempts to modernize our private sector privacy legislation. But apart from a consultation paper at one point around the Privacy Act, which would apply to public sector organizations, there's really been no serious effort to table legislation or otherwise modernize that. So am I right to say, you know, we are creating a myriad number of problems with respect to watering down privacy and human rights protections domestically and especially in relation to foreign governments with relation to data of our citizens here. And we could potentially cure those problems, at least in part, if we modernize our privacy legislation and our privacy protections and human rights protections here at home. But we are, as you say, a gap to chasm. We are so woefully behind in that conversation. It's a bit of an odd thing to pass the open-ended data sharing and surveillance piece before you even have a conversation around updating your privacy protections.Kate Robertson27:07-28:13Yeah, I mean, frankly, odd, I would use the word irresponsible. We know that these tools, it's becoming increasingly well documented how impactful they are for communities and individuals, whether it's wrongful arrests, whether it's discriminatory algorithms. really fraught tools to say the least. And it's not as if Parliament does not have a critical role here. You know, in decades past, to use the example of surveillance within Quebec, which was ultimately found to have involved, you know, years of illegal activity and surveillance activities focused on political organizing in Quebec. And that led to Parliament striking an inquiry and ultimately overhauling the mandate of the RCMP. There were recommendations made that the RCMP needs to follow the law. That was an actual recommendation.Nate Erskine-Smith28:14-28:16I'm sorry that it needs to be said, but yeah.Kate Robertson28:16-29:05The safeguards around surveillance are about ensuring that when we use these powers, they're being used appropriately. And, you know, there isn't even, frankly, a guarantee that judicial oversight will enable this to happen. And it certainly provides comfort to many Canadians. But we know, for example, that there were phones being watched of journalists in Montreal with, unfortunately, judicial oversight not even that many years ago. So this is something that certainly is capable of leading to more abuses in Canada around political speech and online activity. And it's something that we need to be protective against and forward thinking about.Nate Erskine-Smith29:05-29:58Yeah, and the conversation has to hold at the same time considerations of public safety, of course, but also considerations for due process and privacy and human rights protections. These things, we have to do both. If we don't do both, then we're not the democratic society we hold ourselves out as. I said odd, you said irresponsible. You were forceful in your commentary, but the open letter that had a number of civil society organizations, I mentioned a few, was pretty clear to say the proposed legislation reflects little more than shameful appeasement of the dangerous rhetoric and false claims about our country emanating from the United States. It's a multi-pronged assault on the basic human rights and freedoms Canada holds dear. Got anything else to add?Kate Robertson30:00-30:56I mean, the elephant in the room is the context in which the legislation has been tabled within. And I do think that we're at a time where we are seeing democratic backsliding around the world, of course, and rising digital authoritarianism. And these standards really don't come out of the air. They're ones that need to be protected. And I do find myself, when I look at some of the really un-nuanced powers that are being put forward, I do find myself asking whether or not those risks are really front and center when we're proposing to move forward in this way. And I can only defer to experts from, as you said, hundreds of organizations that have called attention towards pretty much every aspect of this legislation.Nate Erskine-Smith30:57-31:44And I will have the benefit of engaging folks on the privacy side around lawful access and around concerns around changes to the asylum claim and due process from the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers. But as we do see this move its way through Parliament, if we see it move its way through Parliament in the fall, if they're recognizing that the call was for withdrawal, but also recognizing a political reality where if it is to pass, we want to make sure we are improving it as much as possible. If there are amendments along the way, if there are other people you think that I should engage with, please do let me know because this is before us. It's an important piece of legislation. And if it's not to be withdrawn, we better improve it as much as possible.Kate Robertson31:46-32:02I appreciate that offer and really commend you for covering the issue carefully. And I really look forward to more engagement from yourself and other colleagues in parliament as legislation is considered further. I expect you will be a witness at committee,Nate Erskine-Smith32:02-32:06but thanks very much for the time. I really appreciate it. Thanks for having me.Part 2: Adam SadinskyChapters:33:33 Concerns Over Asylum Eligibility in Canada36:30 Government Goals and Fairness for Refugee Claimants39:00 Changing Country Conditions and New Risks41:30 The Niagara Falls Example & Other Unfair Exclusions44:00 Frivolous vs. Legitimate Claims in the Refugee System47:00 Clearing the Backlog with Fair Pathways50:00 Broad Powers Granted to the Government52:00 Privacy Concerns and Closing ReflectionsNate Erskine-Smith33:33-33:35Adam, thanks for joining me.Adam Sadinsky33:35-33:36Thanks for having me, Nate.Nate Erskine-Smith33:36-33:57We've had a brief discussion about this, by way of my role as an MP, but, for those who are listening in, they'll have just heard a rundown of all the concerns that the Citizen Lab has with data surveillance and data sharing with law enforcement around the world. You've got different concerns about C2 and you represent the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers. What are your concerns here?Adam Sadinsky33:57-35:31I mean, our biggest concern with this bill is new provisions that create additional categories of folks ineligible to claim asylum in Canada. And specifically to have their hearings heard at the Immigration and Refugee Board. The biggest one of those categories is definitely, a bar on individuals making refugee claims in Canada one year after they have arrived in Canada, and that's one year, whether they have been in Canada for that whole year or they left at some point and came back. Those folks who have been here, who came more than a year ago, if they now fear persecution and want to make a claim for refugee protection, this bill would shunt them into an inferior system where rather than having a full hearing in their day in court.Their application will be decided by an officer of immigration, alone, sitting in the cubicle, probably, with some papers in front of them. That person is going to make an enormous decision about whether to send that person back home where they feared persecution, torture, death. Our position is that this new form of ineligibility. Is unfair. it doesn't meet the government's goals, as we understand them, and we share, we share the views of organizations like, Citizen Lab, that the bill should be withdrawn. There are other ways to do this, but this bill is fundamentally flawed.Nate Erskine-Smith35:31-35:57Let's talk about government goals. Those looking at the influx of temporary residents in Canada specifically, and I don't, and I don't wanna pick on international students, but we've seen a huge influx of international students just as one category example. And they've said, well, if someone's been here for a year and they didn't claim right away, they didn't come here to claim asylum. Because they would've claimed within that first year, presumably, you know, what's the problem with, uh, with a rule that is really trying to tackle this problem.Adam Sadinsky35:57-38:33The issue is, I mean, Nate, you had mentioned, you know, people who had come to Canada, they didn't initially claim and it didn't initially claim asylum, temporary residents. What do we do about it? I wanna give a couple of examples of people who would be caught by this provision, who fall into that category. But there's legitimate reasons why they might claim more than a year after arriving in Canada. The first is someone who came to Canada, student worker, whatever. At the time they came to Canada, they would've been safe going back home they didn't have a fear of returning back home. But country conditions change and they can change quickly. The Taliban takeover of Afghanistan in 2021, was a stark example there may have been people who came to Canada as students planning to go back to Afghanistan and rebuild their country. As the bill is currently written. If there were to be a situation like that, and there will be some other Afghanistan, there will be some other situation down the line. Those people who weren't afraid when they originally came to Canada and now have a legitimate claim, will have an inferior, process that they go through, one that is riddled with issues, examples of unfairness compared to the refugee, the regular refugee system, and a lack of protection from deportation, pending any appeal.So that's one category. A second category is people who were afraid of going back home when they came to Canada but didn't need to claim asylum because they had another avenue to remain in Canada. So the government advertised, Minister Frazier was saying this often come to Canada, come as a student and there's a well-established pathway. You'll have a study permit, you'll get a post-graduation work permit. This is what the government wanted. The rug has been pulled out from under many of those people. Towards the end of last year when Canada said, okay, it's enough, too many temporary residents. But what about the temporary residents who had a fear of returning home when they came? They went through the system the “right way,” quote unquote. They didn't go to the asylum system. they went through another path. And now they're looking at it. They say, well, you know, I came to Canada to study, but also I'm gay and I'm from a country where, if people know about that, you know, I'll be tortured. Maybe since they've been in Canada, that person in that example, they've been in a relationship, they've been posting on social media with their partner. It is very dangerous so why, why shouldn't that person claim refugee protection through regular means?Nate Erskine-Smith38:33-39:06Is this right on your read of the law as it is written right now, if someone were to come with their family when they're a kid and they were to be in Canada for over a year and then their family were to move back to either the home country or to a different country, and, they wake up as a teenager many years later, they wake up as an adult many years later and their country's falling apart, and they were to flee and come to Canada. By virtue of the fact they've been here for a year as a kid, would that preclude them from making a claim?Adam Sadinsky39:06-39:10It's even worse than that, Nate.Nate Erskine-Smith39:09-39:10Oh, great.Adam Sadinsky39:10-39:47In your example, the family stayed in Canada for more than a year. Yes, absolutely. That person is caught by this provision. But here's who else would be someone comes when they're five years old with their family, on a trip to the United States. during that trip, they decide we want to see the Canadian side of Niagara Falls. They either have a visa or get whatever visa they need, or don't need one. They visit the falls, and at that point that they enter Canada, a clock starts ticking. That never stops ticking. So maybe they came to Canada for two hours.Nate Erskine-Smith39:44-39:45Two hours and you're outta luck.Adam Sadinsky39:45-39:47They go back to the USNate Erskine-Smith39:47-39:47Oh man.Adam Sadinsky39:47-40:09They never come back to Canada again. The way that the bill is written, that clock never stops ticking, right? Their country falls apart. They come back 15 years later. That person is going to have a very different kind of process that they go through, to get protection in Canada, than someone who wouldn't be caught by this bill.Nate Erskine-Smith40:09-40:34Say those are the facts as they are, that's one category. There's another category where I've come as a student, I thought there would be a pathway. I don't really fear persecution in my home country, but I want to stay in Canada we see in this constituency office, as other constituency offices do people come with immigration help or they've got legitimate claims. We see some people come with help with illegitimate claimsAdam Sadinsky40:34-42:46We have to be very careful when we talk about categorizing claims as frivolous. There is no question people make refugee claims in Canada that have no merit. You'll not hear from me, you'll not hear from our organization saying that every 100% of refugee claims made in Canada, are with merit. The issue is how we determine. At that initial stage that you're saying, oh, let's, let's deal quickly with frivolous claims. How do you determine if a claim is frivolous? What if someone, you know, I do a lot of appeal work, we get appeals of claims prepared by immigration consultants, or not even immigration consultants. And, you know, there's a core of a very strong refugee claim there that wasn't prepared properly.Nate Erskine-Smith42:46-42:46Yeah, we see it too. That's a good point.Adam Sadinsky42:46-42:46How that claim was prepared has nothing to do with what the person actually faces back home. We have to be very careful in terms of, quick negative claims, and clearing the decks of what some might think are frivolous claims. But there may be some legitimate and very strong core there. What could be done, and you alluded to this, is there are significant claims in the refugee board's backlog that are very, very strong just based on the countries they come from or the profiles of the individuals who have made those claims, where there are countries that have 99% success rate. And that's not because the board is super generous. It's because the conditions in those countries are very, very bad. And so the government could implement policies and this would be done without legislation to grant pathways for folks from, for example, Eritrea 99ish percent success rate. However, the government wants to deal with that in terms of numbers, but there's no need for the board to spend time determining whether this claim is in the 1%, that doesn't deserve to be accepted. Our view is that 1% being accepted is, a trade off for, a more efficient system.Nate Erskine-Smith42:46-43:30Similarly though, individuals who come into my office and they've been here for more than five years. They have been strong contributors to the community. They have jobs. They're oftentimes connected to a faith organization. They're certainly connected to a community based organization that is going to bat for them. There's, you know, obviously no criminal record in many cases they have other family here. And they've gone through so many appeals at different times. I look at that and I go, throughout Canadian history, there have been different regularization programs. Couldn't you kick a ton of people not a country specific basis, but a category specific basis of over five years, economic contributions, community contributions, no criminal record, you're approved.Adam Sadinsky43:30-44:20Yeah, I'd add to your list of categories, folks who are working in, professions, that Canada needs workers in. give the example of construction. We are facing a housing crisis. So many construction workers are not Canadian. Many of my clients who are refugee claimants waiting for their hearings are working in the construction industry. And the government did that, back in the COVID pandemic, creating what was, what became known as the Guardian Angels Program, where folks who were working in the healthcare sector, on the front lines, combating the pandemic, supporting, folks who needed it, that they were allowed to be taken again out of the refugee queue with a designated, pathway to permanent residents on the basis of the work and the contribution they were doing. All of these could be done.Adam Sadinsky44:20-45:05The refugee system is built on Canada's international obligations under the refugee convention, to claim refugee protection, to claim asylum is a human right. Every person in the world has the right to claim asylum. Individuals who are claiming asylum in Canada are exercising that right. Each individual has their own claim, and that's the real value that the refugee board brings to bear and why Canada has had a gold standard. The refugee system, replicated, around the world, every individual has their day in court, to explain to an expert tribunal why they face persecution. This bill would take that away.Nate Erskine-Smith45:05-46:18Yeah, I can't put my finger on what the other rationale would be though, because why the, why this change now? Well, we have right now, a huge number over a million people who are going to eventually be without status because they're not gonna have a pathway that was originally, that they originally thought would be there. The one frustration I have sometimes in the system is there are people who have come into my office with, the original claim, being unfounded. But then I look at it, and they've been here partly because the process took so long, they've been here for over five years. If you've been here for over five years and you're contributing and you're a member of the community, and now we're gonna kick you out. Like your original claim might have been unfounded, but this is insane. Now you're contributing to this country, and what a broken system. So I guess I'm sympathetic to the need for speed at the front end to ensure that unfounded claims are deemed unfounded and people are deported and legitimate claims are deemed founded, and they can be welcomed. So cases don't continue to come into my office that are over five or over six years long where I go, I don't even care if it was originally unfounded or not. Welcome to Canada. You've been contributing here for six years anyway.Adam Sadinsky46:18-46:33But if I can interject? Even if the bill passes as written, each of these individuals is still going to have what's called a pre-removal risk assessment.Nate Erskine-Smith46:31-46:33They're still gonna have a process. Yeah, exactly.Adam Sadinsky46:33-46:55They're still gonna have a process, and they're still going to wait time. All these people are still in the system. The bill is a bit of a shell game where folks are being just transferred from one process to another and say, oh, wow. Great. Look, we've reduced the backlog at the IRB by however many thousand claims,Nate Erskine-Smith46:53-46:55And we've increased the backlog in the process.Adam Sadinsky46:55-48:25Oh, look at the wait time at IRCC, and I'm sure you have constituents who come into your office and say, I filed a spousal sponsorship application two and a half years ago. I'm waiting for my spouse to come and it's taking so long. IRCC is not immune from processing delays. There doesn't seem to be, along with this bill, a corresponding hiring of hundreds and hundreds more pro officers. So, this backlog and this number of claims is shifting from one place to another. And another point I mentioned earlier within the refugee system within the board, when a person appeals a negative decision, right? Because, humans make decisions and humans make mistakes. And that's why we have legislative appeal processes in the system to allow for mistakes to be corrected. That appeal process happens within the board, and a person is protected from deportation while they're appealing with a pro. With this other system, it's different. The moment that an officer makes a negative decision on a pro that person is now eligible to be deported. CBSA can ask them to show up the next day and get on a plane and go home. Yes, a person can apply for judicial review in the federal court that does not stop their deportation. If they can bring a motion to the court for a stay of removal.Nate Erskine-Smith48:19-48:25You're gonna see a ton of new work for the federal court. You are gonna see double the work for the federal courtAdam Sadinsky48:25-48:39Which is already overburdened. So unless the government is also appointing many, many new judges, and probably hiring more Council Department of Justice, this backlog is going to move from one place to another.Nate Erskine-Smith48:39-48:41It's just gonna be industry whack-a-mole with the backlog.Adam Sadinsky48:41-48:52The only way to clear the backlog is to clear people out of it. There's no fair way to clear folks out of it in a negative way. So the only way to do that is positively.Nate Erskine-Smith48:52-49:37In the limited time we got left, the bill also empowers the governor and council of the cabinet to cancel documents, to suspend documents. And just so I've got this clearer in my mind, so if, for example: say one is a say, one is a student on campus, or say one is on a, on a work permit and one is involved in a protest, and that protest the government deems to be something they don't like. The government could cancel the student's permit on the basis that they were involved in the protest. Is that right? The law? Not to say that this government would do that. But this would allow the government to legally do just that. Am I reading it wrong?Adam Sadinsky49:37-50:46The bill gives broad powers to the government to cancel documents. I think you're reading it correctly. To me, when I read the bill, I don't particularly understand exactly what is envisioned. Where it would, where the government would do this, why a government would want to put this in. But you are right. I would hope this government would not do that, but this government is not going to be in power forever. When you put laws on the books, they can be used by whomever for whatever reason they can they want, that's within how that law is drafted. You know, we saw down south, you know, the secretary of State a few months ago said, okay, we're gonna cancel the permits of everyone from South Sudan, in the US because they're not taking back people being deported. It's hugely problematic. It's a complete overreach. It seems like there could be regulations that are brought in. But the power is so broad as written in this law, that it could definitely be used, for purposes most Canadians would not support.Nate Erskine-Smith50:46-51:07And, obviously that's a worst case scenario when we think about the United States in today's political climate. But, it's not clear to your point what the powers are necessary for. If we are to provide additional powers, we should only provide power as much as necessary and proportionate to the goal we want to achieve. Is there anything else you want to add?Adam Sadinsky51:07-51:43I just wanna touch, and I'm sure you got into a lot of these issues, on the privacy side but. The privacy issues in this bill bleed over into the refugee system with broad search powers, um, particularly requiring service providers to provide information, we are concerned these powers could be used by CBSA, for example, to ask a women's shelter, to hand over information about a woman claiming refugee protection or who's undocumented, living in a shelter, we have huge concerns that, you know, these powers will not just be used by police, but also by Canada Border Services and immigration enforcement. I'm not the expert on privacy issues, but we see it we see the specter of those issues as well.Nate Erskine-Smith51:43-52:22That's all the time we got, but in terms of what would help me to inform my own advocacy going forward is, this bill is gonna get to committee. I'm gonna support the bill in committee and see if we can amend it. I know, the position of CARL is withdraw. The position of a number of civil society organizations is to withdraw it. I think it's constructive to have your voice and others at committee, and to make the same arguments you made today with me. Where you have. I know your argument's gonna be withdrawn, you'll say then in the alternative, here are changes that should be made. When you've got a list of those changes in detailed, legislative amendment form, flip them to me and I'll share the ideas around the ministry and around with colleagues, and I appreciate the time. Appreciate the advocacy.Adam Sadinsky52:22-52:24Absolutely. Thank you. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.uncommons.ca

This week on Hull on Estates, Natalia Angelini and Shawnee Matinnia explore what happens when a testator's intentions collide with the estate's liabilities. They discuss the recent Ontario Court of Appeal decision of Stewart Estate v. Stewart, 2025 ONCA 575, where the court confirmed a fundamental principle: executors must satisfy liabilities before distributing assets, even if doing so undermines the testator's intentions.

This week on Hull on Estates, Jonathon Kappy and Mark Lahn discuss the scope of relief from forfeiture and how this equitable remedy can be applied in the context of estate settlements.  Cases discussed: Saskatchewan River Bungalows Ltd. v. Maritime Life Assurance Co., 1994 CanLII 100 (SCC) - Redstone Enterprises Ltd. v. Simple Technology Inc., 2017 ONCA 282 -

Sponsored by EasyDNS https://easydns.com/NotOnRecord In Episode 179 of Not On Record, Joseph Neuberger, Michael Bury, and Diana Davison examine a recent Ontario Court of Appeal case that highlights how dates and times are treated in sexual assault trials. They explain the “golden rule” — that the accused must know the case to meet — and why courts allow flexibility on timing, especially in sexual offence cases. The conversation unpacks the limits and risks of alibi defences, the myth of “getting off on a technicality,” and how credibility, reliability, and fairness are balanced in Canadian courts. Website: http://www.NotOnRecordpodcast.com Sign up to our email list - http://eepurl.com/hw3g99 Social Media Links Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/NotonRecord Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/notonrecordpodcast/ TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@notonrecordpodcast Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/notonrecord Telegram: https://t.me/NotOnRecord Minds: http://www.minds.com/notonrecord Audio Platforms Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/4F2ssnX7ktfGH8OzH4QsuX Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/not-on-record-podcast/id1565405753 SoundCloud: https://soundcloud.com/notonrecord Rumble: https://rumble.com/c/c-842207 For more information on criminal law issues go to Neuberger & Partners LLP http://www.nrlawyers.com. Produced by Possibly Correct Media www.PossiblyCorrect.com The Queen v. Côté, 1977 CanLII 1 (SCC), [1978] 1 SCR 8 - https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1977/1977canlii1/1977canlii1.html?resultId=1b21ef34bb73458fb23415832c0eeaef&searchId=2025-08-20T20:26:40:242/a4197a1fffd24722a6cca4d60486dbb9 R. v. G.G., 2025 ONCA 574 - https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2025/2025onca574/2025onca574.html?resultId=a70e818ebbf54388866bd00624ff9bad&searchId=2025-08-20T20:28:52:797/6bea406567054c48b5b9ec262f8741d7 R. v. Hill, 1995 CanLII 271 (ON CA) - https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/1995/1995canlii271/1995canlii271.html?resultId=94b44955502e429d9940e3047f99335d&searchId=2025-08-20T20:30:23:866/a0b997e5fed84ec1b024dae3ce9c65bb R. v. P. (M.B.), 1994 CanLII 125 (SCC), [1994] 1 SCR 555 - https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1994/1994canlii125/1994canlii125.html?resultId=c3ede941bd8b4047a29289d122da4fe8&searchId=2025-08-20T20:32:03:661/89ca3c5b3b6548b9a7ae2efa277b1413 R. v. Tarnovsky, 1995 CanLII 381 (ON CA) - https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/1995/1995canlii381/1995canlii381.html?resultId=80d3a23558a242c0b7889d2486a08552&searchId=2025-08-20T20:34:09:122/eb1a8d3416a344abbf0c5edc0035fc59

Gitmiyor gibi giden, nereye geldiğini nasıl anlayacak? İlk zamanlar, gitmiyor gibi giden olarak GELENLERin dünyasına ziyadesiyle yabancı kaldım. Ama zaman içinde GELENLERin çoktan gittiğini, kendinden bile başka yere gittiğini gördüm. Eski sosyalistler buradan gidince yeni ulusalcı kimlikleri ile en yakınlarını bile şaşırtacak. Aileleri bile inanmayacak belki de yaşadıkları değişime. Onca hümanist duygularla gelenler, torba torba öfke biriktiriyor.

On Episode 97, we tell you about some of the arguments we intend to make when we challenge Nova Scotia Premier Tim Houston's ban on walking in the woods. Plus we tell you about a decision that found first-past-the-post voting is not unconstitutionally racist or sexist. Stories and cases discussed in this week's episode: CCF Petition: Tell Premier Houston to Re-open Nova Scotia Trails The critics of Nova Scotia's ban on accessing the woods don't understand our cultureFair Voting BC v. Canada (Attorney General), 2025 ONCA 581 Access restrictions on wooded areas in N.S., N.B., during heightened wildfire risk face oppositionCourt gets it right in appeal of challenge to constitutionality of first-past-the-post voting systemNot Reserving Judgment is a podcast about Canadian constitutional law hosted by Josh Dehaas, Joanna Baron, and Christine Van Geyn. The show is brought to you by the Canadian Constitution Foundation, a non-partisan legal charity dedicated to defending rights and freedoms. To support our work, visit theccf.ca/donate.

Provide your feedback here. Anonymously send me a text message. In this episode, Mike discusses the Ontario Court of Appeal decision R. v. Thompson, 2025 ONCA 500 where a man was arrested in relation to a serious drug investigation and later strip searched after being booked into cells. Police delayed advising the man of his s. 10(b) Charter right to counsel for 20 minutes following his arrest, and did not re-advise him of his right to a lawyer before conducting the strip search many hours later and after he had already spoken to duty counsel. Was the 20 minute delay justified and were the police required to provide a second s. 10(b) advisement before conducting the strip search incident to arrest? What you might learn may change the way you do business! Additional cases referenced:R. v. Thompson, 2022 ONSC 6173R. v. West, 2020 BCSC 1780R. v. Kikiantonis, 2025 ONCJ 399Toronto Police Policy — 01-02 Search of PersonsR. v. Sinclair, 2010 SCC 35R. v. Golden, 2001 SCC 83R. v. Suberu, 2004 SCC 33R. v. Ali, 2022 SCC 1R. v. Taylor, 2014 SCC 50Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at legalissuesinpolicing@gmail.com

Bir hayalim var. Bir vizyon. Şimdiye dek gerçekleşmemiş ama artık düşünülmesi, konuşulması ve çalışılması gereken bir hedef: bir Müslümanın Birleşmiş Milletler Genel Sekreteri olması. Bu ülke bugüne değin kariyer alanlarının en zirvesine çıkardı onca kişiyi ama gidip kendi karşılıklarını dünyada arayacak bir vizyon gösteremediler. Abdullah Gül boşta mesela. Onca bakan, bürokrat, diplomat, temsilci, genel müdür, banka genel müdürü, sigorta yöneticisi, rektör, başhekim vesaire vesaireden hiçbiri bir adım sonraya geçemedi. Misyonları bitince bir altta kendilerine verilene razı oldular hep.

Bu sefer Trabzon'daydı Özgür Özel. CHP Genel Başkanı yine esti gürledi. Yine Türkiye'de şu sıra bir darbenin olduğundan söz etti. Trabzon'un iyi niyetli insanlarını tahrik etmek için siyasi retorik dilinin her unsurunu kullandı. Onca suistimal, irtikap, rüşvet ve her türden menfaat sağlamak için uyguladıkları usulsüzlükle suçlanan, bizzat CHP'li kadrolarca ihbar edilen başta Ekrem İmamoğlu olmak üzere tüm belediye başkanlarına dibine kadar sahip çıktı.

Provide your feedback here. Anonymously send me a text message. In this episode, Mike discusses the BC Supreme Court decision R. v. Dodd, 2025 BCSC 591 where police executed a search warrant at an apartment located in a 50 unit building. The warrant did not expressly authorize the police to move through the common areas inside the building to get to the door of the apartment, nor was permission sought from building management or another resident to enter. Did the police conduct amount to an unlawful search — thereby breaching the accused's s. 8 Charter right — when they walked through the lobby, stairwell and hallway to arrive at the target suite's door to execute the warrant? What the judge ruled might shock you!s. 24(2) ruling (2025 BCSC 592)Other cases mentioned: R. v. White, 2015 ONCA 508; R. v. Webster, 2015 BCCA 286; R. v. Unrau, 2025 ABCA 239; R. v. Evans, [1996] 1 SCR 8.Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at legalissuesinpolicing@gmail.com

Osmanlı devrinde yetişen büyük veli ve Hanefî mezhebi fıkıh âlimi. Bursa'da Molla Fenârî'den ilim öğrenip icâzet aldı. Bursa'da çeşitli medreselerde müderrislik yaptı. Molla Fenârî'nin vefâtından sonra, başmüderris ve Bursa kâdısı oldu. Sultan 2. Murâd Han, bu kıymetli ilim adamını çok severdi. Ona sık sık ihsân ve iltifâtlarda bulunur, nasîhatlerini dinlerdi. Hattâ Molla Fenârî'den sonra onu Osmanlı Şeyhülislâmlığına tâyin ettiği söylenir. Buna göre Molla Yegân Osmanlı Devletinin üçüncü şeyhülislâmı olmaktadır.Molla Yegân'la Sultan 2. Murâd arasındaki yakınlığa en güzel örnek Molla Gürânî'nin Bursa'ya getirilmesi hâdisesidir. Bu hâdise şöyle olmuştu: Molla Yegân hacca gittiğinde o mübarek topraklarda, Molla Gürânî ile tanıştı. Ondaki eşsiz ilmi, dînindeki olgunluğu ve güzel ahlâkını gören Molla Yegân, böyle bir âlimin ancak Osmanlı mülkünde kıymet bulacağını ifâde edip, Molla Gürânî'yi Bursa'ya davet etti. Berâberce Bursa'ya geldiler. Molla Yegân, Sultan Murâd Hanın huzûruna varınca, Sultan; “Onca yer gezip, gördün, bize ne hediye getirdin?” diye suâl etti. Molla Yegân da; “Tefsîr ve hadîs ilimlerinde yetişmiş bir âlim getirdim.” cevâbını verdi. Molla Gürânî'yi getirip, Pâdişâh'a takdim etti. Pâdişâh da onun ilmini takdîr edip, Hüdâvendigâr Gâzî Medresesi müderrisliğine tâyin etti. Sonra Manisa'da bulunan Şehzâde Mehmed'e (Fâtih'e) hoca tâyin edildi.Herkesin sevgisine mazhâr olan Molla Yegân, keskin zekâlı ve yumuşak huylu bir zât-ı muhteremdi. Ömrünü, ilim öğrenmek ve öğretmekle, Allâhü Teâlâ'ya ibâdet etmekle geçiren Molla Yegân, pekçok talebe yetiştirdi. 1453 (H.857) târihinde Bursa'da vefât etti. Allâh (c.c.) şefaatlerine nail etsin hepimizi.(Evliyalar Ansiklopedisi, s.2008)

Provide your feedback here. Anonymously send me a text message. In this episode, Mike discusses the Ontario Court of Appeal decision Shanthakumar Estate v. Canada Border Services Agency, 2025 ONCA 422 where a police officer continued an arrest made by CBSA of two seniors for breaching an undertaking condition based on a CPIC entry. Unfortunately, the charge related to the undertaking had been stayed but the CPIC entry had not been updated. It was only later learned, after the seniors had been transported to jail, that the undertaking had been vacated and the conditions were no longer in effect. The seniors — now plaintiffs in a civil action — sued the RCMP, CBSA & the police for negligence and arbitrary detention (under s. 9 of the Charter). Did the seniors have a case? Were their arrests unlawful? Did the police breach the standard of care expected of a reasonable officer in similar circumstances? Learning answers to these questions may help you with your decision making in like situations. Lower court ruling (2023 ONSC 3180).Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at legalissuesinpolicing@gmail.com

Provide your feedback here. Anonymously send me a text message. In this episode, Mike uses R. v. Cameron, 2025 ONSC 2621 as a springboard to take a deep dive into the topic of inventory searches. In Cameron, the police were found to be using the inventory search authority as a pretext for a criminal investigation tainted by racial bias. Listen to learn some tips about how you can Charter-proof your conduct in this area.Other cases referenced: Hunter v. Southam, [1984] 2 SCR 145; R. v. Collins, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 265; R. v. Caslake, [1998] 1 SCR 51; R. v. Nicolosi, (1998) 127 C.C.C. (3d) 176; R. v. Wint, 2009 ONCA 52 leave to appeal refused [2009] S.C.C.A. No. 164; R. v. Strilec, 2010 BCCA 198; R. v. Nolet, 2010 SCC 24; R. v. Harflett, 2016 ONCA 248; R. v. Dunkley, 2016 ONCA 597; R. v. Ellis, 2016 ONCA 598; R. v. Cuff, 2018 ONCA 276; R. v. Russell, 2018 BCCA 330; R. v. Knott, 2019 MBCA 97 leave to appeal refused 2020 CanLII 27701 (SCC); R. v. Meyers, 2022 NSCA 69; R. v. Arsenault, 2023 NSCA 10; R. v. Morrison, 2024 NBCA 35; R. v. Donovan, 2024 BCCA 213; R. v. Cooper, 2016 BCPC 259; R. v. Opikokew, 2022 SKPC 14; R. v. Russell, 2017 BCPC 60.Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at legalissuesinpolicing@gmail.com

Erbakan Hoca'nın öngörüleri ve duruşu Türk siyasetine yol gösterecek kadar çığır açıcı olmuştur. Bunlardan en başta geleni, küresel sistemin Siyonistler tarafından kontrol edildiğine dikkat çekmesiydi Hoca'nın. Onca kınanmaya, itilip kakılmaya aldırış etmeden dünyayı küçük bir Siyonist kartelin / şebekenin yönettiğini haykırmıştı.

Episode 370: In this episode, we journey into the chilling case of Jesse Imeson—a man whose troubled past and violent crimes left a deep scar on Southwestern Ontario. In the summer of 2007, Imeson's name became synonymous with fear as he embarked on a deadly spree, taking three innocent lives. The victims were Carlos Rivera, 25, of Windsor and Helene Regier, 72, and her husband, Bill Regier, 73, near the community of Grand Bend. The discovery of the murders sparked a 12-day nationwide manhunt and led to the capture of the killer in Portage-du-Forte, Quebec, near the Ontario border. However, behind the headlines lies a story of trauma, addiction, and claims of childhood abuse that may have shaped the path to his horrific acts. Sources: ⁠Man who killed elderly couple and bartender has appeal rejected by Supreme Court | CBC News⁠⁠ Carlos Rivera - Search - Newspapers.com™ ⁠⁠Family of victims lash out as smirking killer gets life sentence⁠⁠ Supreme Court of Canada | 38467⁠⁠ Windsor murderer's claim of sexual abuse hits legal setback⁠⁠ 2021 ONSC 5289 (CanLII) | Imeson v. Maryvale | CanLII⁠⁠ 2018 ONCA 888 (CanLII) | Imeson v. Maryvale (Maryvale Adolescent and Family Services) | CanLII⁠⁠ 2017 ONSC 1906 (CanLII) | Imeson v. Maryvale | CanLII⁠⁠2016 ONSC 6020 (CanLII) | Imeson v Maryvale | CanLII⁠⁠ Murder suspect Jesse Imeson captured in Quebec⁠⁠Suspect in 3 Ontario slayings appears in Windsor court | CBC News⁠⁠ Ont. man pleads guilty in 3 'savage' slayings, sentenced to life | CBC News⁠⁠ LFP Archives: The hunt for, and truth about, spree killer Jesse Imeson⁠⁠ Inadmissible evidence could lead to new trial⁠⁠ Obituary of Helene Marie Regier | T. Harry Hoffman & Sons Funeral Home⁠⁠ So, why did he do it? - Grand Bend Strip community newspaper⁠⁠ America's Most Wanted joins hunt for Ontario fugitive | CBC News⁠ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this podcast episode of Integrative Cancer Solutions Dr. Karlfeldt interviews Dr. Chris Apfel about his integrative approaches to cancer treatment. Dr. Apfel shares his journey from traditional medicine to integrative oncology, sparked by his father's lung cancer diagnosis. This personal experience led him to question conventional cancer treatments after learning about their low success rates, particularly for stage four lung cancer. Dr. Apfel discusses his development of the Onca test, which can identify effective cancer therapies within a week by culturing tumor fragments. This test evaluates a wide range of treatments including chemotherapies, targeted therapies, and repurposed drugs. He emphasizes the importance of avoiding ineffective treatments that can harm the immune system and diminish quality of life, while highlighting the potential of repurposed drugs like statins, Metformin, and Itraconazole. The conversation addresses tumor heterogeneity and the need for representative biopsy samples, particularly from metastatic sites. Dr. Apfel explains that the Onca test is commercially available, with discounts offered to patients willing to share their data for research purposes. He discusses various methods for obtaining tumor samples and the importance of timing in the collection process.Dr. Apfel emphasizes patient advocacy and the need for patients to be informed about their treatment options. He notes that the Onca test can double the odds of a positive tumor response and significantly increase median survival rates. The podcast concludes with Dr. Apfel expressing interest in collaborating with Dr. Folt's center to help more cancer patients through this innovative approach to personalized cancer treatment.About Dr Chris Apfel:Chris Apfel, MD, PhD, MBA is a physician and clinical researcher with over 100 published papers, including a six-factor clinical prediction model published in NEJM that led to the development of The Apfel Score, a clinical calculator used universally to predict the risk of postoperative nausea and vomiting, and Dr Apfel's ultimate recruitment to the US and the University of California, San Francisco.Dr. Apfel was driven to revolutionize the field of cancer patient treatment after losing his mother to a long battle with ovarian cancer and his father to lung cancer. Witnessing their suffering inspired him leave the clinical department at UCSF to develop more efficient ways to identify the best treatment plans for cancer patients.Dr Apfel received his MD and PhD from the University of Giessen in Germany and his MBA from Wharton at the University of Pennsylvania. He is the founder and CEO of SageMedic.Dr. Apfel developed the Onca test, which can identify effective cancer therapies within a week by culturing tumor fragments, potentially doubling the odds of positive tumor response.Personal experience with his father's lung cancer led Dr. Apfel to question conventional treatments after discovering their low success rates for advanced cancers.The Onca test evaluates chemotherapies, targeted therapies, and repurposed drugs like statins and Metformin, which have shown promising results in cancer treatment.Tumor heterogeneity makes it crucial to obtain representative biopsy samples, particularly from metastatic sites, to avoid ineffective treatments.Patient advocacy is essential in cancer treatment, as patients need to make informed decisions about tissue handling before surgery and find oncologists willing to consider alternative treatments based on test results.----Grab my book A Better Way to Treat Cancer: A Comprehensive Guide to Understanding, Preventing and Most Effectively Treating Our Biggest Health Threat - https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0CM1KKD9X?ref_=pe_3052080_397514860 Unleashing 10X Power: A Revolutionary Approach to Conquering Cancerhttps://store.thekarlfeldtcenter.com/products/unleashing-10x-power-Price: $24.99-100% Off Discount Code: CANCERPODCAST1Healing Within: Unraveling the Emotional Roots of Cancerhttps://store.thekarlfeldtcenter.com/products/healing-within-Price: $24.99-100% Off Discount Code: CANCERPODCAST2----Integrative Cancer Solutions was created to instill hope and empowerment. Other people have been where you are right now and have already done the research for you. Listen to their stories and journeys and apply what they learned to achieve similar outcomes as they have, cancer remission and an even more fullness of life than before the diagnosis. Guests will discuss what therapies, supplements, and practitioners they relied on to beat cancer. Once diagnosed, time is of the essence. This podcast will dramatically reduce your learning curve as you search for your own solution to cancer. To learn more about the cutting-edge integrative cancer therapies Dr. Karlfeldt offer at his center, please visit www.TheKarlfeldtCenter.com

Provide your feedback here. Anonymously send me a text message. In this episode, Mike discusses the Ontario Court of Appeal decision R. v. Asante, 2025 ONCA 387 where police arrested a man, finding cocaine, meth and fentanyl in the vehicle he was driving. Charged with three counts of PPT, the issue for the trial judge was to first determine whether the police had sufficient grounds to make the arrest. Find out what the Court of Appeal had to say about the trial judge's ruling. You might also learn a thing or two to help you in the future with making your own arrest decisions.  Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at legalissuesinpolicing@gmail.com

Provide your feedback here. Anonymously send me a text message. In this episode, Mike discusses the Ontario Court of Appeal decision R. v. Brown, 2024 ONCA 763 where  police postponed providing an arrestee access to counsel for about an hour and a half until he was transported to the police station. Was this delay justified in the circumstances? Does a "calm" and under control situation necessarily equate to a "safe" one? What are a police officer's obligations under s. 10(b) of the Charter?s. 10(b) Charter — "Everyone has the right on arrest or detention … to retain and instruct counsel without delay and to be informed of that right."Supreme Court of Canada dismissal of leave application. Trial decision on s. 10(b) application. (2022 ONCJ 678)Decision on sentence. (2022 ONCJ 679)Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at legalissuesinpolicing@gmail.com

Sponsored by EasyDNS https://easydns.com/NotOnRecord In episode 165 of Not on Record, hosts Joseph, Michael and Diana dissect a complex legal scenario stemming from the case of R v. PPONCO, 2025 ONCA 243. The episode begins with a hypothetical law school question: What happens when a judge, after hearing submissions, privately re-examines audio or video evidence and arrives at a different conclusion than what was presented in court? They then transition into discussing the actual case, highlighting errors made by the trial judge, including making sweeping generalizations about an arranged marriage and misinterpreting a defendant's statement. The hosts emphasize the fundamental principle that an accused person has the right to know the case they must meet and the evidence being used against them. The episode also features a sponsorship from Easy DNS, a domain name registrar and web hosting service. Website: http://www.NotOnRecordpodcast.com Sign up to our email list - http://eepurl.com/hw3g99 Social Media Links Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/NotonRecord Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/notonrecordpodcast/ TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@notonrecordpodcast Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/notonrecord Telegram: https://t.me/NotOnRecord Minds: http://www.minds.com/notonrecord Audio Platforms Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/4F2ssnX7ktfGH8OzH4QsuX Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/not-on-record-podcast/id1565405753 SoundCloud: https://soundcloud.com/notonrecord Rumble: https://rumble.com/c/c-842207 For more information on criminal law issues go to Neuberger & Partners LLP http://www.nrlawyers.com. Produced by Possibly Correct Media www.PossiblyCorrect.com

This week on Hull on Estates, Stuart Clark and Aleida Prinzen discuss the Ontario Court of Appeal decision of Beirat v. Khiyal, 2024 ONCA 790, where the Court examines the issue of standing as it relates to claims being brought on behalf of an estate. See also David M. Smith's recent blog on the case . Beirat v. Khiyal, 2024 ONCA 790 (CanLII),

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

Provide your feedback here. Anonymously send me a text message. In this episode, Mike discusses the Ontario Court of Appeal decision R. v. Kostuk, 2025 ONCA 195 where police arrested a man in the stabbing death of his friend. The man — who claimed he was suffering from schizophrenia and had not taken his medication — argued the police breached his s. 10(b) Charter right to counsel because they (1) took no steps to address his mental health issues before he spoke with his lawyer and (2) did not give him another opportunity to speak with his lawyer after he had taken his medication. Were the police required to take the man to the hospital as he requested? Was a second advisement about the right to counsel required after the man received his medication? What is the test for assessing cognitive capacity in the s. 10(b) context? And just how did the Court of Appeal address these questions. Lower court rulingLower court sentencingThanks for listening! Feedback welcome at legalissuesinpolicing@gmail.com

Provide your feedback here. Anonymously send me a text message. In this episode, Mike discusses the Ontario Court of Appeal decision R. v. Plummer, 2011 ONCA 350 where police saw a man seated in a vehicle illegally parked near an apartment door where people would buy drugs. As the police  passed by, the man appeared shocked or surprised and moved forward while slouching down as if to conceal something. When the man provided his name, the police recognized him as being associated to an officer safety alert describing him as possibly armed with a handgun. The man was asked to exit the vehicle and — when patted down — police found he was wearing a bullet proof vest. As police moved in to search the car, the man fled. Police discovered a loaded handgun in an overnight bag that was near where the man had been sitting. Was the man's detention lawful? And, if he had standing to challenge the searches, was the vehicle and bag search valid as an incident to investigative detention? Or is this common law power limited only to a pat-down of the detainee?  Lower court rulingThanks for listening! Feedback welcome at legalissuesinpolicing@gmail.com

On Episode 76, we explain what happened in an appeal of Mississauga's decision to mow down a man's naturalized garden; we update you on our Calgary anti-protest bylaw challenge; and we tell you about a teacher bragging about keeping kids from reading about Elon Musk.Stories and cases discussed in this week's episode:Ruck v. Mississauga (City), 2025 ONCA 147 (CanLII)Ruck v. City of Mississauga, 2024 ONSC 2579 (CanLII)Teacher-Librarian trashes Elon Musk bookOntario Court of Appeal sends decision on homeowner's naturalized garden back to lower courtLegal challenge over Calgary's protest bylaw heads to courtNot Reserving Judgment is a podcast about Canadian constitutional law hosted by Josh Dehaas, Joanna Baron, and Christine Van Geyn.The show is brought to you by the Canadian Constitution Foundation, a non-partisan legal charity dedicated to defending rights and freedoms. To support our work, visit theccf.ca/donate.

This week on Hull on Estates, Stuart Clark and Aleida Prinzen discuss the recent Ontario Court of Appeal decision of Jackson v. Rosenberg, 2025 ONCA 48, which deals with joint tenancy, the presumption of resulting trust, and the implications of severing a joint tenancy during the transferor's lifetime. Jackson v. Rosenberg, 2025 ONCA 48 (CanLII),

This week on Hull on Estates, Doreen So and Doug Higgins further discuss the decision of Gomes v. Da Silva, 2024 ONCA 792 as part of our recent series of discussions regarding the confluence of different statutory limitations periods, and how limitations statutes are being considered in Ontario. Gomes v. Da Silva, 2024 ONCA 792

This week on Hull on Estates, Stuart Clark and Aaron Chan discuss the decision of Gomes v. Da Silva, 2024 ONCA 792, a case that concerns the 10-year limitation period under s. 4 of the Real Property Limitations Act. Gomes v. Da Silva, 2024 ONCA 792 (CanLII), 

Neste #vAPODN trazemos o episódio em que a Dra. Miriam Perilli conversou com o grande Dr. Peter Crawshaw (in memoriam) sobre as fascinantes onças-pintadas!

On Episode 60, we discuss the sentencing William Adamson Skelly, who was convicted for operating a BBQ business without a license during COVID-19; we explain the constitutional challenge to Ontario's climate targets; and we discuss chilling new details about MAID. Stories and cases discussed in this week's episode:Toronto (City) v. Adamson Barbecue Ltd., 2024 ONCJ 525 (CanLII)Yuan Yi Zhu: Debunking the myth of the Persons CaseRestaurant owner who fought COVID lockdown guilty of operating without a licence Private forums show Canadian doctors struggle with euthanizing vulnerable patientsWhat Ontario's highest court did — and did not — say about climate rights this weekMathur v. Ontario, 2024 ONCA 762 (CanLII)U.K. police tell woman it's a crime to say 'God bless you' to someoneNot Reserving Judgment is a podcast about Canadian constitutional law hosted by Josh Dehaas, Joanna Baron, and Christine Van Geyn.The show is brought to you by the Canadian Constitution Foundation, a non-partisan legal charity dedicated to defending rights and freedoms. To support our work, visit theccf.ca/donate.

This Week on Hull on Estates, Jonathon Kappy and Darien Murray follow up on the conversation started by Natalia Angelini and Diana McBey in Episode 701 where they discussed the Ontario Court of Appeal's decision in Ingram v Kulynych Estate. Jonathon and Darien examine the evolution of the law surrounding limitation periods that set the stage for this decision.   Source: Ingram v Kulynych Estate, 2024 ONCA 678   Could you please hyperlink the case name after “Source:” with the following:  

In this week's episode, Natalia and Diana discuss Ontario Court of Appeals case Ingram v. Kulynych Estate, 2024 ONCA 678 (CanLII).

Döndük, hem de dönmek üzerine konuşarak! Eylül Görmüş ve Tuğçe Arslan Üçer, yeni sezonun ilk bölümünde "dönmek" meselesi üzerine söyleşiyor. Geri dönmek, eve dönmek, içe dönmek, kendine dönmek... Dönmenin pek çok farklı biçimini ve onlara eşlik eden duyguları didikliyor, akıl yürütüyoruz: pek tabii kitaplar ve filmlerden aldığımız ipuçları ile. Bölümde adı geçen tüm kitap ve filmlerin listesini ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠@1kitap1film.us⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ instagram hesabımızda bulabileceğinizi hatırlatalım. Bu bölüme sponsor olarak bizi destekleyen ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Doku Clinic⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠'e katkılarından ötürü sonsuz teşekkür ederiz. Podcast kapağı için seçtiğimiz Stallman eserinin de kendilerinin koleksiyonundan olduğunu belirtelim. Geri dönmüş olmak pek güzel - dileriz ki siz de bizi özlemişsinizdir!

On Episode 51, we update you on Jordan Peterson's fight for freedom of expression; we tell you why the new commissioner of the Canadian Human Rights Commission stepped down; and we walk you through a decision on when phones & laptops can be searched at the border.*Are you a regular listener? Give us feedback by filling out this short survey!*Stories and cases discussed in this week's episode:Peterson v. College of Psychologists of Ontario, 2023 ONSC 4685 (CanLII)Jordan Peterson v. College of Psychologists of Ontario, 2024 CanLII 74731 (SCC)Jordan Peterson: I will see this contemptible 're-education' process through to its absurd endAnnapolis Group Inc. v. Halifax Regional Municipality, 2022 SCC 36 R v Pike, 2024 ONCA 608 B.C. Civil Liberties Association leader resigns after controversial social media post'THE NEW SWASTIKA:' Calls grow to ban red triangle as hate symbolNew human rights commissioner resigns before starting roleNot Reserving Judgment is a podcast about Canadian constitutional law hosted by Josh Dehaas, Joanna Baron, and Christine Van Geyn.The show is brought to you by the Canadian Constitution Foundation, a non-partisan legal charity dedicated to defending rights and freedoms. To support our work, visit theccf.ca/donate.

Episode 328: On June 30, 2009, the serene waters of the Rideau Canal in Kingston, Ontario, revealed a dark and tragic secret. A submerged car discovered that day contained the bodies of three teenage sisters—Zainab (19), Sahar (17), and Geeti (13) Shafia—along with their father's first wife, Rona Muhammad Amir (52). What initially appeared to be a tragic accident soon unravelled into a chilling tale of premeditated murder. The perpetrators, Mohammad Shafia, his second wife, Tooba Mohammad Yahya, and their son, Hamed, were arrested on July 23, 2009, and later convicted of first-degree murder and conspiracy to commit murder. Shockingly, the victims were Mohammad Shafia's daughters and his first wife. This heinous act, driven by twisted notions of family honour, shocked the nation and highlighted the grim reality of honour-based violence. Join us as we delve into the harrowing details of the Shafia family murders, a case that not only captivated Canada but also sparked crucial conversations about domestic violence and the challenges faced by immigrant families in preserving their cultural values while integrating into a new society. Sources: 2016 ONCA 812 (CanLII) | R. v. Shafia | CanLII 2013 ONCA 248 (CanLII) | R. v. Kailayapillai | CanLII 2004 BCSC 998 (CanLII) | R. v. Atwal | CanLII 2002 BCSC 928 (CanLII) | R. v. Nahar | CanLII 2004 BCCA 77 (CanLII) | R. v. Nahar | CanLII Chronology of events in the Shafia murders Inside the Shafia killings that shocked a nation Portrait of Hamed Shafia, a young 'honour killer' The Shafia case's abandoned minivan, submerged car and damaged SUV Honour based Violence – Indo Canadian Women's Association Apparent Modern-Day Incidence in Canada - Preliminary Examination of so-called Honour Killings in Canada Man who murdered family in 'honour killing' became jailhouse religious tyrant Preliminary Examination of so-called “Honour Killings” in Canada - Open Government Portal Gendered Violence, Cultural Otherness, and Honour Crimes in Canadian National Logics on JSTOR Honour-based violence | Royal Canadian Mounted Police Domestic Violence Resources | Canadian Association of Social Workers Honour Killings | Canada Commons Types of Femicide | Femicide in Canada Honour Based Violence & Forced Marriage – Canadian Police Knowledge Network Problematizing “Honour Crimes” within the Canadian Context Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This Week on Hull on Estates, Nick Esterbauer and Darien Murray discuss costs consequences in estate litigation. They consider the modern approach to costs and review a recent example of its application in the Ontario Court of Appeal's decision in Westover Estate v Jolicouer, 2024 ONCA 81.    

Abby Drover was kidnapped in March 10th,1976 and held her prisoner for 181 days in an underground pit, made from an old bomb shelter.    -K&O   Rate, Review and Subscribe on the platforms of your choice. Check us out on Instagram to join in the discussions about the case! Comment on the case related post, we can't wait to hear your thoughts. @podcastbyproxy   Intro music made by: https://soundcloud.com/aiakos    Sources:   Retired Toronto detective who cracked 'girl in the suitcase murder' reveals what led to arrest | CTV News ‘Suitcase murder': Toronto Police to exhume Dwayne Biddersingh's body (thestar.com) Melonie Biddersingh's death should shame us all: James (thestar.com) 'Her story haunts me every day': Former homicide detective turned reporter reflects on 'suitcase murder' (ctvnews.ca) Melonie Biddersingh cold case: Police identify remains of teen found in burning suitcase 18 years later | National Post Melonie Biddersingh's brother tells sentencing hearing of ‘extreme guilt' over abuse he witnessed (thestar.com) Melonie Biddersingh's mother tells court she never stopped searching for daughter after disappearance (thestar.com) Melonie Biddersingh's half-brother testifies about father's abuse at trial | CBC News Father, stepmother charged in 1994 suitcase slaying | CBC News Melonie's killer stepmom screams obscenities at sentencing | Toronto Sun Jury finds stepmom guilty in 1994 'suitcase' murder of Melonie Biddersingh, 17 | CP24.com Elaine Biddersingh sentenced to life with no parole for 16 years in stepdaughter's death - Toronto | Globalnews.ca 2020 ONCA 241 (CanLII) | R. v. Biddersingh | CanLII 2016 ONSC 5663 (CanLII) | R. v Elaine Biddersingh | CanLII Everton Biddersingh convicted of first degree murder of abused daughter | National Post Everton Biddersingh's 'reign of terror' killed daughter, Crown argues | CBC News Father told half-brother that Melonie Biddersingh ran away | CBC News Here's what the jury didn't hear in the Biddersingh suitcase murder trial | CBC News Melonie Biddersingh was 'progressively deteriorating' before death, pathologist testifies (yahoo.com) Everton Biddersingh found guilty in daughter Melonie's death (thestar.com) Elaine Biddersingh, who confined stepdaughter, denied her food, found guilty of second-degree murder | National Post Suitcase murder: Dad, stepmom charged in 1994 slaying of 17-year-old Toronto girl (thestar.com) Pastor tells second Biddersingh trial of confession that led to break in case | CBC News Everton Biddersingh sentenced to life in prison for murder of daughter Melonie | CBC News Melonie Biddersingh's stepmother guilty of second-degree murder (thestar.com) Court upholds Biddersingh's murder conviction in death of 17-year-old stepdaughter | CTV News Ontario court upholds murder conviction in death of girl found in burning suitcase | CBC News    

Melonie Biddersingh was a teenage Jamaican immigrant who met a tragic fate in 1994. Her life was cut short by the very people who should have protected her: her father and stepmother. Her case is considered one of the worst child abuse cases in Canadian history.   -K&O   Rate, Review and Subscribe on the platforms of your choice. Check us out on Instagram to join in the discussions about the case! Comment on the case related post, we can't wait to hear your thoughts. @podcastbyproxy   Intro music made by: https://soundcloud.com/aiakos    Sources:   Retired Toronto detective who cracked 'girl in the suitcase murder' reveals what led to arrest | CTV News ‘Suitcase murder': Toronto Police to exhume Dwayne Biddersingh's body (thestar.com) Melonie Biddersingh's death should shame us all: James (thestar.com) 'Her story haunts me every day': Former homicide detective turned reporter reflects on 'suitcase murder' (ctvnews.ca) Melonie Biddersingh cold case: Police identify remains of teen found in burning suitcase 18 years later | National Post Melonie Biddersingh's brother tells sentencing hearing of ‘extreme guilt' over abuse he witnessed (thestar.com) Melonie Biddersingh's mother tells court she never stopped searching for daughter after disappearance (thestar.com) Melonie Biddersingh's half-brother testifies about father's abuse at trial | CBC News Father, stepmother charged in 1994 suitcase slaying | CBC News Melonie's killer stepmom screams obscenities at sentencing | Toronto Sun Jury finds stepmom guilty in 1994 'suitcase' murder of Melonie Biddersingh, 17 | CP24.com Elaine Biddersingh sentenced to life with no parole for 16 years in stepdaughter's death - Toronto | Globalnews.ca 2020 ONCA 241 (CanLII) | R. v. Biddersingh | CanLII 2016 ONSC 5663 (CanLII) | R. v Elaine Biddersingh | CanLII Everton Biddersingh convicted of first degree murder of abused daughter | National Post Everton Biddersingh's 'reign of terror' killed daughter, Crown argues | CBC News Father told half-brother that Melonie Biddersingh ran away | CBC News Here's what the jury didn't hear in the Biddersingh suitcase murder trial | CBC News Melonie Biddersingh was 'progressively deteriorating' before death, pathologist testifies (yahoo.com) Everton Biddersingh found guilty in daughter Melonie's death (thestar.com) Elaine Biddersingh, who confined stepdaughter, denied her food, found guilty of second-degree murder | National Post Suitcase murder: Dad, stepmom charged in 1994 slaying of 17-year-old Toronto girl (thestar.com) Pastor tells second Biddersingh trial of confession that led to break in case | CBC News Everton Biddersingh sentenced to life in prison for murder of daughter Melonie | CBC News Melonie Biddersingh's stepmother guilty of second-degree murder (thestar.com) Court upholds Biddersingh's murder conviction in death of 17-year-old stepdaughter | CTV News Ontario court upholds murder conviction in death of girl found in burning suitcase | CBC News  

Melonie Biddersingh was a teenage Jamaican immigrant who met a tragic fate in 1994. Her life was cut short by the very people who should have protected her: her father and stepmother. Her case is considered one of the worst child abuse cases in Canadian history.   -K&O   Rate, Review and Subscribe on the platforms of your choice. Check us out on Instagram to join in the discussions about the case! Comment on the case related post, we can't wait to hear your thoughts. @podcastbyproxy   Intro music made by: https://soundcloud.com/aiakos    Sources:   Retired Toronto detective who cracked 'girl in the suitcase murder' reveals what led to arrest | CTV News ‘Suitcase murder': Toronto Police to exhume Dwayne Biddersingh's body (thestar.com) Melonie Biddersingh's death should shame us all: James (thestar.com) 'Her story haunts me every day': Former homicide detective turned reporter reflects on 'suitcase murder' (ctvnews.ca) Melonie Biddersingh cold case: Police identify remains of teen found in burning suitcase 18 years later | National Post Melonie Biddersingh's brother tells sentencing hearing of ‘extreme guilt' over abuse he witnessed (thestar.com) Melonie Biddersingh's mother tells court she never stopped searching for daughter after disappearance (thestar.com) Melonie Biddersingh's half-brother testifies about father's abuse at trial | CBC News Father, stepmother charged in 1994 suitcase slaying | CBC News Melonie's killer stepmom screams obscenities at sentencing | Toronto Sun Jury finds stepmom guilty in 1994 'suitcase' murder of Melonie Biddersingh, 17 | CP24.com Elaine Biddersingh sentenced to life with no parole for 16 years in stepdaughter's death - Toronto | Globalnews.ca 2020 ONCA 241 (CanLII) | R. v. Biddersingh | CanLII 2016 ONSC 5663 (CanLII) | R. v Elaine Biddersingh | CanLII Everton Biddersingh convicted of first degree murder of abused daughter | National Post Everton Biddersingh's 'reign of terror' killed daughter, Crown argues | CBC News Father told half-brother that Melonie Biddersingh ran away | CBC News Here's what the jury didn't hear in the Biddersingh suitcase murder trial | CBC News Melonie Biddersingh was 'progressively deteriorating' before death, pathologist testifies (yahoo.com) Everton Biddersingh found guilty in daughter Melonie's death (thestar.com) Elaine Biddersingh, who confined stepdaughter, denied her food, found guilty of second-degree murder | National Post Suitcase murder: Dad, stepmom charged in 1994 slaying of 17-year-old Toronto girl (thestar.com) Pastor tells second Biddersingh trial of confession that led to break in case | CBC News Everton Biddersingh sentenced to life in prison for murder of daughter Melonie | CBC News Melonie Biddersingh's stepmother guilty of second-degree murder (thestar.com) Court upholds Biddersingh's murder conviction in death of 17-year-old stepdaughter | CTV News Ontario court upholds murder conviction in death of girl found in burning suitcase | CBC News  

“Do you like the wild beast-man Krampus? Do you like the giant Yule Cat of Iceland?  The deep of midwinter invites you to settle down by the fire with a seasonal beverage and this darkly folky oracle deck.” Then do we have an oracle deck for you! The Yultide Monsters Oracle by Madame Onca O'Leary. Joining me on this episode is the amazing and superbly talented Madame Onca.  Madame Onca is an artist, writer, and entertainer. She is co-author of the World Spirit Tarot (a RWS-style deck with a focus on inclusivity and empowerment), the Yuletide Monsters Advent Calendar, and other products associated with the world of Krampus.  For the winter season this year, Madame Onca has created the Yuletide Monsters Oracle for Yule-tide/Krampus season. It is currently a Kickstarter project (open until Oct 22, 2023) which is FULLY funded and ready to print.  After Oct. 22, the deck can be ordered at Madame Onca Studios on Etsy. Find out a lot of background about the characters, how the deck works, how the art was created, and more.  An interesting discussion about a really cool deck.  Find Madame Onca on Facebook and Instagram: @madamonca Website: https://theworldspirittarot.com/ For information on the Folly Cove Designers, internet search the term. Here are a couple of starting points: Cape Ann Historical Museum and Virginia Lee Burton the Film   Follow my channel on Instagram: @wyrdgifts1 Facebook: @GiftsoftheWyrd Email: giftsofthwyrd@gmail.com  Order The Christmast Oracle Deck created by me and artist Vinnora at https://feniksshop.etsy.com follow FB/IG: @thechristmasoracle Please leave feedback on Apple and other podcast providers. This helps the podcast to be found easier. Music.  Intro: Cooking with the Italians. Outgoing: Commercial Bliss.  Royalty free music from https://www.fesliyanstudios.com  Please do not add this audio content to the YouTube Content ID System. I have used background music which is owned by FesliyanStudios. Logo Created by Xan Folmer.  Logo based on the Vanic boar created by Vanatru Priestess Ember of the Vanic Conspiracy. Studio recordings by Zencastr and Audacity.

Son dönemde şahit olduğumuz çekmeler, ızdıraplar, tehcirler, tehditler, tenkiller, ibadeler, mahkûmiyetler, mağduriyetler, mazlumiyetler, mevkufiyetler, mustantakiyetler… Bütün bunlar bizi üzebilir. Bunları da şefkat tokadı veya kulak çekilmesi şeklinde mülahazaya almak lazımdır. İhtimal ki biz yürüdüğümüz bu yolda yolun âdâbına tam uyamadık; Hazreti Mevlâ da kulağımızdan hafif tuttu ve çekti. Onca eltaf-ı İlahiye karşısında hukuka riayet etmek, istikameti korumak, dimdik durmak ve sarsılmadan meseleyi götürmek gerekirken bazen bunlar gereğince gözetilmemişse, bu, hafif bir kulak çekilmesine sebebiyet vermiş olabilir. Hadiselere böyle bakarsak, Allah'ın izni ve inayetiyle, o da bizi tevbe, inâbe ve evbeye sevkeder. Rabbimizin razı olmadığı ve sevmediği ne varsa, hepsinden dolayı “Estağfirullah” deriz. İstiğfar da O'na teveccühün, tevbenin, inâbenin ve evbenin mebdeidir. Tarihin sayfalarına kapkara lekeler halinde yazılacak kimselere sadece acınır!.. *Böyle bir bakış aynı zamanda bizi kin ve nefretten de uzak tutar. Hizmet'e zulmü reva gören, uğradığı her yerde efkârı aleyhimize çevirmeye çalışan ve “Kapatın bu okulları; kapatamıyorsanız yıkın!..” diyen kimselere karşı bakışımızı tadil eder. Meseleye bir yönüyle bizim istihkakımız nazarıyla bakacak olursak; onları da musallat olmuş birer kılıç gibi görür ve Allah'ın onlarla gözlerimizi açtığına, bizi tedip ettiğine ve istiğfara, tevbeye, inâbeye, evbeye yönlendirdiğine inanırsak, onlar hakkındaki mülahazamız da birdenbire kinden, nefretten, misliyle mukabele düşüncesinden sıyrılarak şefkate ve acımaya döner. Acırız onlara; çünkü tarihin sayfalarına birer leke halinde kaydedilecekler. Evet, hizmetinizle alakalı menfi propaganda yapan kimselere sadece acıma duygusuyla bakmak lazım. Bu video 23/08/2015 tarihinde yayınlanan “Hal ve Ümit” isimli bamtelinden alınmıştır. Tamamı burada: https://www.herkul.org/bamteli/bamtel...

Ye'se düşmek de ne demek?!. *Acz, fakr, şevk ve şükür! Kendini aciz görme; adeta eli hiçbir şeye yetmeyen ve hiçbir şeye sahip bulunmayan biri olarak kabul etme. Genel kabulümüz ve genel durumumuz odur. Bu düşüncemiz bir yönüyle kendi konumumuzu çok iyi bilme sayılır; diğer yandan da şevk ve şükür vesilesi olur: Cenâb-ı Hakk'ın sağanak sağanak lütufları geliyor. Her şey O'ndan geldiğine göre hiç ye'se düşmemek ve sürekli şevk içinde olmak lazım! Madem O'ndan geliyor ne diye ye'se düşeceğim?!. Şayet yolu açan O ise, güzergâhı gösteren O ise, güzergâh emniyetini sağlayan O ise ve yol boyunca gulyabânileri bertaraf edecek O ise, niye ye'se düşeyim ki?!. *Meseleye şu şekilde bakılsa mahzuru yok: “Allah Allah, kaderî bir plan var, senaryo gibi. Bizi hiç farkına varmadan birer figür, birer ırgat, birer amele gibi sahneye sürüyor; ‘Bu şeyi tamir etmede, onarmada sizi çalıştırıyorum!' diyor.” Böyle bakarsanız, “Ona binlerce hamd ü sena olsun. Bizi böyle güzel işlerde koşturuyor. Acaba işin hakkını tam verebiliyor muyuz? Acaba konumumuzu rantabl olarak değerlendirebiliyor muyuz? Fakat ona binlerce hamd ü sena olsun, her şeye rağmen bizi güzel işlerde istihdam ediyor!” dersiniz. Zalim, Allah'ın kılıcıdır; mazlumiyet de bazen şefkat tokadıdır!.. *Fakat bazen farkına varmadan zikzaklar olabilir. Doğru yolda doğru yürüme hususiyetlerini koruyamayabiliriz; hafizanallah, kaymalar yaşayabiliriz. Ondan dolayı da şefkat tokatlarına ve kulak çekmelerine maruz kalabiliriz. Allah, birilerini musallat edebilir. Ümmet-i Muhammed (aleyhissalatü vesselam) cezalandırılmayı hak ettiğinde Allah (celle celâluhu), onlara karşı tedip unsuru olarak bir kısım zalimleri kullanır. Zalim, Allah'ın kılıcıdır. Allah, önce onunla intikam alır; sonra da döner ondan intikam alır. *Son dönemde şahit olduğumuz çekmeler, ızdıraplar, tehcirler, tehditler, tenkiller, ibadeler, mahkûmiyetler, mağduriyetler, mazlumiyetler, mevkufiyetler, mustantakiyetler… Bütün bunlar bizi üzebilir. Bunları da şefkat tokadı veya kulak çekilmesi şeklinde mülahazaya almak lazımdır. İhtimal ki biz yürüdüğümüz bu yolda yolun âdâbına tam uyamadık; Hazreti Mevlâ da kulağımızdan hafif tuttu ve çekti. Onca eltaf-ı İlahiye karşısında hukuka riayet etmek, istikameti korumak, dimdik durmak ve sarsılmadan meseleyi götürmek gerekirken bazen bunlar gereğince gözetilmemişse, bu, hafif bir kulak çekilmesine sebebiyet vermiş olabilir. Hadiselere böyle bakarsak, Allah'ın izni ve inayetiyle, o da bizi tevbe, inâbe ve evbeye sevkeder. Rabbimizin razı olmadığı ve sevmediği ne varsa, hepsinden dolayı “Estağfirullah” deriz. İstiğfar da O'na teveccühün, tevbenin, inâbenin ve evbenin mebdeidir. Bu video 23/08/2015 tarihinde yayınlanan “Hal ve Ümit” isimli bamtelinden alınmıştır. Tamamı burada: https://www.herkul.org/bamteli/bamtel...

Episode 283: In this episode, we venture into a controversial and tragic chapter of Canada's legal history. It intertwines public health, personal relationships, and the weight of the law. We're talking about the history of HIV non-disclosure cases in Canada. Part of our journey takes us to the early 2000s, zeroing in on Johnson Aziga, a Ugandan-born Canadian resident. His name would soon become synonymous with a landmark legal battle challenging the boundaries of consent, deception, and responsibility. Aziga was diagnosed with HIV in 1996, but his numerous subsequent relationships would cast him into the national spotlight. Two women, specifically, would become central to his story: both entered into relationships with Aziga, and HIV-related complications tragically took both. The women's names are protected under publication bans, so we cannot speak to their biographies. Regardless, their untimely deaths would raise a storm of questions about trust, disclosure, and the duty one owes to their intimate partners. Aziga was convicted of murder and deemed a dangerous offender, but argued that his race and status as an immigrant weighed against him. In 2023, the murder convictions were overturned and replaced with manslaughter charges substituted in their place. NOTE: In this podcast, the names of survivors will be kept confidential, and initials or aliases will be used instead. Sources: A history of HIV/AIDS HIV 101: The History of HIV & AIDS in Canada - Freddie Magazine The legacy of the HIV/AIDS fight in Canada R v Cuerrier After Cuerrier | Publications - Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network African immigrant damnation syndrome: The case of Charles Ssenyonga 2006 CanLII 42798 (ON SC) | R. v. Aziga | CanLII 2007 CanLII 38 (ON SC) | R. v. Aziga | CanLII 2011 ONSC 4592 (CanLII) | R. v. Aziga | CanLII Canada: HIV “murderer” Aziga now also a “dangerous offender,” locked up for life HIV-positive man convicted of murder apologizes to victims 2014 HRTO 144 (CanLII) | Aziga v. Ontario (Community Safety and Correctional Services) | CanLII 2014 HRTO 1465 (CanLII) | Aziga v. Ontario (Community Safety and Correctional Services) | CanLII Court overturns murder convictions against Ontario man who gave two women HIV, killing them 2023 ONCA 12 (CanLII) | R. v. Aziga | CanLII Update — Canada: Murder convictions for HIV transmission reduced to manslaughter HIV Criminalization Criminal HIV Transmission Canada: Ontario leads the world in the over-criminalization of HIV non-disclosure Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Dar zihinli, kara bakışlı insanlar ufkunuzu karartmasın; dünya, aydınlığı sizin yolunuzda arıyor!.. *Müslümanlar olarak, yitirdiğimiz değerlerin yerlerini başka şeylerle doldurmaya kalktığımızdan dolayı çelişkilerden kurtulamamışız. Bir taraftan ilâhî nizamlar mecmuasını başta oryantalistler olmak üzere insanlara çirkin göstermişiz. Diğer taraftan arkadan gelen teröristler de Müslümanlığın dırahşan çehresini bütün bütün karartmışlar, karartıyorlar. *Cenâb-ı Hak sizlere dünyanın değişik yerlerine açılma ve meselelerin doğrusunu gösterme fırsatı verdi. Beraber oturur kalkarsanız, evinize çağırırsanız, evlerine çağrılma zemini hazırlarsanız ve elinizin altındaki çocukları iyi birer çırak olarak çıkarırsanız, yüksek hakikatleri insanlara duyurabilir ve evrensel değerler etrafında bir hâle teşkil edebilirsiniz. *Bunları ezbere bir kısım hülyalar ve kuruntular gibi görenler olabilir. Ama şu Türkçe Olimpiyatları'nda siyahın beyazla, beyazın siyahla nasıl sarmaş dolaş olduğunu hepiniz gördünüz. Bu bir araya getiricilik adeta evrensel bir mesele halini aldı ve dünya çapında bir ümit uyardı. O güzergâhta yürüyen ve o işe kendini vakfeden adanmış ruhlar, belli ölçüde şimdilik belki dar bir dairede dünya için ümit kaynağı oldu. *Bu açıdan lokal olarak bazı kimselerin bağışlayın salya atmaları, diş göstermeleri, farklı ad ve unvanlarla takbihe, tahkire kalkmaları sizi müteessir etmesin. Dar bir alanda, dar zihinli bazı kimseler, bakışlarındaki siyah görmeye bağlı olarak sizi kara görseler ve göstermeye çalışsalar bile bütün dünya, aydınlığı sizin etrafınızda arıyor. Onca ifsâdâta rağmen dünyada devrilen insan sayısı o kadar az oldu ki!.. Allah'ın lütuf ve inayetiyle, şimdiye kadar çok büyük insanların etrafında hâleler oluşturan kimseler içinde olduğu kadar dökülme olmadı. Zayıf bir kısım karakterler, alınıp satılabilecek mahlûklar; bir villaya, iki villaya, üç villaya veya bir mandaya, iki mandaya satılabilecek kimseler ise her zaman çıkagelmiştir. *Kendi ülkenizde bir kısım kimseler hasetlerinden, kıskançlıklarından ve yapamadıkları şeyleri siz yaptığınızdan, pek çok yerde Nam-ı Celîl-i İlâhî'nin duyulmasına ve Ruh-u Revân-ı Muhammedî'nin (sallallâhu aleyhi ve sellem) dünyanın dört bir yanında şehbal açmasına vesile olduğunuzdan dolayı hazımsızlık gösterdiler. Allah'ın inayetiyle ortaya koyduğunuz hizmetler onların yapamadıkları şeylerdi; hazmedemediler!.. Bir de kendilerine iğnenin ucuyla az dokunulunca, mesavîleri biraz deşilince, mesavî irinlerine bir çuvaldız batırılınca, irinleri dışarıya akınca kendi irinlerine kendi mideleri bozuldu. Dolayısıyla da istifra etmeye ve etrafı da istifra ile kirletmeye başladılar. Fakat zannediyorum, bu halleriyle onlar kamuoyunda kendilerini gülünç duruma düşürdüler. Bu video 20/09/2015 tarihinde yayınlanan “Yüce Hedefe Kilitli Ruhlar” isimli bamtelinden alınmıştır. Tamamı burada: https://www.herkul.org/bamteli/bamtel...

Episode 222: On Sunday, November 12,1988 beloved 36-year-old high school teacher named Byron Carr was found by his family dead in the bedroom of his home in Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island. He'd been strangled to death and stabbed. Byron's wallet had been stolen, and ominously on his wall, written in pen, were the words “I will kill again.” Investigators revealed that Byron was a closeted gay man, and had been involved in a consensual sexual encounter with an as yet unidentified man prior to his death. It is presumed that it was this man who killed Byron. No one has ever been brought to justice in Byron's death. Anyone with any information regarding this crime, no matter how insignificant it may seem, is asked to call the  Bell Aliant sponsored Byron Carr Hot Line 1-877-566-3952 or PEI Crime Stoppers 1-800-222-TIPS. Promo:Crimes from the East Sources: Homicides | Charlottetown Police Services PEI Crime Stoppers - Homicides Charlottetown police reopen 1980s murder case | CBC News Skimpy underwear connected to 1988 murder | CBC News Charlottetown police release sketch of possible Byron Carr killer | SaltWire Byron Carr murder accomplice identified by police | CBC News 2013, John Carr interview | CBC.ca ‘Give this family closure': Police still working to solve 30-year-old Byron Carr murder | CBC News Unsolved Case Files Canada: Murder of Byron Carr After Sexual Encounter With Another Male Cold case, warm memories: Byron Carr's friends, family want his 1988 P.E.I. murder solved | SaltWire On the hunt | SaltWire Brad MacConnell Named New Chief of Police | Charlottetown Police Services r/PEI: Byron Carr r/UnresolvedMysteries: Byron Carr CANADA — Canada — Byron Carr, 36, Schoolteacher — Nov' 88 | Websleuths Reader's Digest: Canada's Most Notorious Cold Cases Public Attitudes toward Homosexuality — Tom W. Smith TIMELINE | Same-sex rights in Canada | CBC News Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Rights in Canada | The Canadian Encyclopedia LGBT+ Pride 2021 Global Survey points to increasingly positive attitudes in Canada toward LGBT+ individuals | Ipsos R. v. MacDonald, 2004 CanLII 9284 (ON CA), Support the show: https://www.patreon.com/darkpoutine See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.