Podcasts about ontario court

Provide your feedback here. Anonymously send me a text message. In this episode, Mike highlights National Police Week (May 11-17, 2025) and discusses the Ontario Court of Justice decision R. v. Vernaza-Vinces, 2025 ONCJ 257 where police chased a man on foot until he entered a vehicle and fled. Even though the police never pursued the man's vehicle in a police car, the court had to determine whether a charge of flight from police under s. 320.17 of the Criminal Code applied. Or was an essential element of the crime a requirement that the police themselves be pursuing in a motor vehicle?  Order of Merit of the Police Forces Ceremony.Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at legalissuesinpolicing@gmail.com

LD NEWSBRIEF ~ 05/07/2025 Host Andrew DeBartolo brings you a weekly summary of Canadian News from a Conservative Christian perspective. Liberty Dispatch Substack is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber: ldcanada.substack.com  CHAPTERS: 00:00 Opening 00:48 Private Internet Access AD 03:05 Segment 1 - The Ontario Court of Appalling 05:02 Segment 2 - Vet. Affairs Assisting Veterans in…DYING!?!? 06:39 Bull Bitcoin AD 08:19 Segment 3 - Ontario Tech Taken to Tribunal 10:26 Segment 4 - Covid Clean-up 15:41 Conclusion 16:15 Outro Segment 1 - The Ontario Court of Appalling: "OhIP to cover penis-sparing vaginoplasty" | National Post: https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/ohip-coverage-penis-sparing-vaginoplasty; Segment 2 - Vet. Affairs Assisting Veterans in…DYING!?!?: "Another combat veteran offered medical suicide" | Toronto Sun: https://torontosun.com/news/national/another-combat-veteran-offered-medical-suicide; Segment 3 - Ontario Tech Taken to Tribunal: "Student takes Ontario Tech University to Human Rights Tribunal over denied religious vaccine exemption" | Rebel News: https://www.rebelnews.com/student_takes_ontario_tech_university_to_human_rights_tribunal_over_denied_religious_vaccine_exemption; Segment 4 - Covid Clean-up: "COVID virus, vaccines are driving explosion in cancer, billionaire scientist tells Tucker Carlson" | LifeSiteNews: https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/covid-virus-vaccines-are-driving-explosion-in-cancer-billionaire-scientist-tells-tucker-carlson; "COVID-vaccinated women record 1,000% spike in breast cancer" | Slay News: https://slaynews.com/news/covid-vaccinated-women-record-1000-spike-breast-cancer; "Post-acute sequelae of COVID-19 infection and vaccination" | ScienceDirect: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1878929325000015; SHOW SPONSORS: Invest with Rocklinc: info@rocklinc.com or call them at 905-631-546; Diversify Your Money with Bull Bitcoin: https://mission.bullbitcoin.com/dispatch; Private Internet Access: https://www.privateinternetaccess.com/offer/recommended?coupon=2Y4M&channel=Liberty%20Dispatch&channel_platform=pc&aff_id=24735&source=video1; BarterPay: https://barterpay.ca/; Barter It: https://www.barterit.ca/; Get freedom from Censorious CRMs by signing up for SalesNexus: https://www.salesnexus.com/; PLEXUS Worldwide: Reboot your health today! email them @ healthandliberty@proton.me or go to http://plexusworldwide.ca/healthandliberty; SUBSCRIBE TO OUR SHOWS/CHANNELS: LIBERTY DISPATCH PODCAST: https://libertydispatch.podbean.com; https://rumble.com/LDshow; CONTACT US: libertydispatch@pm.me STAY UP-TO-DATE ON ALL THINGS LD: Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/liberty_dispatch/; Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/LibertyDispatchCanada; X: @LDCanada - https://x.com/_LDCanada; Rumble: https://rumble.com/LDshow; YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@libertydispatch Please LIKE, SUBSCRIBE, RATE, & REVIEW, and SHARE it with others!

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),

Derek Fildebrandt talks to Randy Hillier, former MPP of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, on the recent Ontario Court of Appeal decision to overturn a lower court ruling that had dismissed his case.

On Episode 81, we discuss why we're taking UBC to court for its political activity, we walk you through an Ontario Court of Appeal decision that found Ontario's COVID-19 protest ban violated peaceful assembly, and we explain why McGill is breaking with its student union. Stories and cases discussed in this week's episode: WARMINGTON: Why punish guy trying to free Sir John A. Macdonald from a box?McGill cuts contractual relationship with student union following pro-Palestinian protestUBC professors taking school to court over 'political' actions by administrationCOVID-19 rules barring protests in 2021 were unconstitutional: Ontario's top courtHomeowners with treeless yards in Quebec town risk $200 'tree police' taxNot 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 Supreme Court of Canada decision R. v. Donawa, 2025 SCC 10 where police found a handgun in a driver's fanny pack during a roadside stop. The police sent the handgun for testing, but did not send the magazine or the ammunition found in it. A trial judge ruled the handgun was NOT a firearm — as defined under s. 2 of the Criminal Code — because it required special expertise, considerable time, and a part not readily available to make it operable. The Ontario Court of Appeal overturned the trial judge's decision, finding the gun was an operable firearm because it was capable of firing when loaded. The Supreme Court of Canada was then asked to weigh in. Listen and find out what their take on the issue was. Criminal Code (s. 2):"firearm means a barrelled weapon from which any shot, bullet or other projectile can be discharged and that is capable of causing serious bodily injury or death to a person, and includes any frame or receiver of such a barrelled weapon and anything that can be adapted for use as a firearm."Lower court rulingThanks for listening! Feedback welcome at legalissuesinpolicing@gmail.com

During a roadside stop, the police found a handgun in the fanny pack belonging to the appellant, Mr. Amari Donawa. The handgun was sent to the Centre of Forensic Sciences, but for reasons that were not explained, the police did not send the magazine or the ammunition.At trial, the expert testified that the handgun could not be fired easily without the magazine. The trial judge, Justice Edward of the Ontario Court of Justice, found that the handgun was not a firearm because making it operational, according to the expert, required special expertise, considerable time, and part not readily available. The Crown appealed Mr. Donawa's acquittals entered by the trial judge on the various firearm offences. The central issue in the appeal was whether the trial judge was correct in his finding that the handgun was not a firearm as defined in s. 2 of the Criminal Code. The Court of Appeal unanimously allowed the Crown's appeal and set aside the acquittals. It entered convictions on two counts (careless storage of a firearm and possession of a firearm with an altered serial number) and ordered a new trial on other counts. In its view, the trial judge made a number of errors in reaching his conclusion. He failed to consider whether the handgun, as found, was operable, based on the evidence. The failure to consider all of the evidence in relation to the ultimate issue of guilt or innocence was an error of law. Argued Date 2025-03-26 Keywords Criminal Law —Firearm — Definition of firearm in Criminal Code — Evidence — Assessment — Does the definition of a “firearm” under s. 2 of the Criminal Code always dispense with proof of the availability of a functional magazine? — Did the Court of Appeal for Ontario err in finding that the trial judge had failed to consider all of the evidence in relation to the ultimate issue of guilt or innocence? — Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, s. 2 “firearm”. Notes (Ontario) (Criminal) (As of Right) Language English Audio Disclaimers This podcast is created as a public service to promote public access and awareness of the workings of Canada's highest court. It is not affiliated with or endorsed by the Court. The original version of this hearing may be found on the Supreme Court of Canada's website. The above case summary was prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch).

Stephen and Claudette Emond lived in a home on the Ottawa River that was located in the catchment area of the Mississippi Valley Conservation Authority (“MVCA”). They had purchased a standard form residential homeowners' insurance policy from Trillium Mutual Insurance Company. The Emonds' home was deemed a total loss as a result of flooding in April 2019. Although the insurer acknowledged coverage for the loss under the policy, the parties could not agree on what, if any, costs of replacement of the insureds' home were excluded from coverage under the policy. The Emonds claimed that the Guaranteed Rebuilding Cost (“GRC”) coverage endorsement fully guaranteed their rebuilding costs. Trillium acknowledged that the GRC coverage applied to replace the insureds' home, but took the position that the costs to be incurred to comply with the MVCA's regulation policies and other by-laws and regulations enacted after the original building of the home were excluded from coverage by an exclusion in the policy. The application judge accepted the Emonds' position that the GRC coverage was intended to guarantee the costs of rebuilding their home, without any limitation of coverage resulting from the operation of any rule, regulation, by-law, or ordinance. The Ontario Court of Appeal allowed the insurer's appeal and concluded that the exclusion applied to exclude coverage for increased costs to comply with any law, including by-laws and regulations such as the MVCA regulation policies. Argued Date 2025-03-18 Keywords Insurance — Homeowner's insurance — Home deemed total loss as a result of flooding — Home insured through standard form residential homeowners' insurance policy including endorsement for guaranteed rebuilding cost — Policy containing exclusion for increased costs of replacement due to operation of any law regulating construction of buildings — Insurer disputing homeowners' claim for coverage for costs of complying with regulatory policies to rebuild home — Application judge concluding coverage included and Court of Appeal concluding coverage excluded — What is the correct interpretation of the guaranteed rebuilding cost endorsement? — Whether an exclusion clause in the basic policy can be used to deny expanded coverage granted by the guaranteed rebuilding cost endorsement. Notes (Ontario) (Civil) (By Leave) Language English Audio Disclaimers This podcast is created as a public service to promote public access and awareness of the workings of Canada's highest court. It is not affiliated with or endorsed by the Court. The original version of this hearing may be found on the Supreme Court of Canada's website. The above case summary was prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch).

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

In this episode of Not on Record, hosts Josephn and Diana discuss a recent Ontario Court of Appeal case that addresses concerns about expert evidence in sexual assault trials. They explore the admissibility of expert testimony on the neurobiology of trauma and its effects on memory, highlighting potential issues with such evidence. The hosts examine the legal framework for admitting expert evidence, including the Mohan test and subsequent case law. They emphasize the importance of scrutinizing expert testimony to prevent wrongful convictions and distinguish between hard and soft sciences in 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

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

Voice Of GO(r)D is proud to present a conversation with Guy Meister, a Nova Scotia trucker whose little daycab R Model Mack sat on Sussex Street in Downtown Ottawa during the Freedom Convoy.Guys act of peaceful protest, of standing around in Ottawa drinking coffee with his fellow countrymen, has now earned him the bizarre pursuit of the Canadian government, who have engaged in a capricious and Kafka-esque case of Lawfare against Guy that has now run for over three years, and has seen Guy make the 2000 mile round trip from his home in Nova Scotia back to Ottawa 16 times for court.So much for carbon emissions; as I type this, he is on trip number 17.I found out about Guy from my good friend Donna Laframboise, who has appeared on this show twice in discussion about The Convoy (links below), and who has just released her new book ‘Thank You, Truckers!', which exclusively profiles the regular working class Canadians who made up The Convoy or supported it. Not the politicians or the organizers or big names, just the everyday people you never hear about, who go humbly about the work of keeping society functioning, and patriotically rose up to meet the challenge of a government gone astray.Guy's story is pretty incredible, and he represents, in an understated way, the best of the Canadian everyman - humble, hardworking, and totally apolitical until the Covid Regime came along and turned our world upside down.As mentioned in the intro, you can meet Guy and Donna this upcoming Sunday, March 16, at 630 pm, at the Biker's Church of Ottawa, 155 Carillon Street.Here is their website - https://www.bikerschurch.com/Guy is back in Ottawa to continue fighting the bastards, and he has court dates scheduled for March 18, 19, and 24, all at 10am at the Ontario Court of ‘Justice' in Ottawa, 161 Elgin Street.If you are around and can make it, I'm sure he would love a show of support.https://www.ontariocourts.ca/ocj/locations/ottawa/This get together is being organized by the wonderful Melissa McKee, and you can follow her on Twitter - https://x.com/TheMelissaMckeeGuy is being represented by Brian Doody of Doody Counsel (great name, lol) and you can follow Mr Doody on Twitter and LinkedIn.https://x.com/DoodyCounselhttps://www.linkedin.com/in/brian-doody-ma-llb-39813626/Lawyers, as a lesser subspecies of human, often catch a lot of flak for their shenanigans, but Doody is one of the good ones; pop over and say thank you.The Justice Center for Constitutional Freedoms has been supporting Guy's case, and you can donate via a button on their own article about him.https://www.jccf.ca/court_cases/peaceful-trucker-arbitrarily-detained-for-hours-without-access-to-legal-counsel/For more links, information, and a bunch of great photos, head over to my substack, and while you are there, smash that subscribe button https://autonomoustruckers.substack.com/p/the-little-r-model-that-could-guyAs you heard, I'm writing a book about the decades long war on truckers in North America, and you can read about that here -https://autonomoustruckers.substack.com/p/book-project-announcement-and-a-majorIf you have a couple of bucks to spare to help me get this book out the door -https://www.givesendgo.com/EndOfTheRoadThanks for listening, and as always, share this with your fellow truckers or anyone else who might be interested.Questions, comments, suggestions, corrections and Hate Mail are welcomed and strongly encouraged - gordilocks@protonmail.com

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, Jonathon Kappy and Boris Eng discuss the intricacies of consent judgments and their interpretation through the lens of a pivotal Ontario Court of Appeal case. Discover how contractual principles shape legal outcomes and ensure clarity in court-approved agreements.

In this engaging discussion, host David Lazzam welcomes Justice Richard Schneider and mental health advocate Noah Irvine to explore the intersection of addiction, mental health, and the law. Justice Schneider reflects on his extensive experience with mental health courts and the criminal justice system, while Noah shares a powerful perspective as a national advocate for systemic change. Drawing from personal tragedy and resilience, Noah speaks with authority and compassion, having lost both parents to suicide and addiction by the age of 15. Together, they tackle pressing issues such as deinstitutionalization, the role of the Criminal Code in mental health cases, and the impact on families. Their dialogue highlights both challenges and progress, envisioning a more inclusive future for mental health and addiction services in Canada. To delve deeper into these vital topics, don't miss the upcoming CIAJ conference on Addiction, Mental Health, and the Law, happening February 3-5, 2025, in Toronto.   Guests Noah Irvine, Mental Health Advocate The Honourable Justice Richard D. Schneider, Ontario Court of Justice, past Chair of the Ontario Review Board Host David Lazzam, Articling Student, CIAJ

In episode 145 of the podcast "Not on Record," hosts Joseph and Michael discuss a notable case from the Ontario Court of Appeal, *Rex v. JE*, which revolves around a sexual assault conviction involving a stepfather and his stepdaughter. The case highlights significant issues regarding the assessment of evidence, particularly the trial judge's failure to appropriately analyze the mother's testimony. Justice Daw criticized the trial judge for compartmentalizing evidence and applying an incorrect standard of proof, which led to an unjust dismissal of crucial defense evidence that could have raised doubts about the complainant's credibility.The discussion emphasizes the importance of not isolating witness testimonies when evaluating their reliability. Joseph and Michael argue that the trial judge's approach undermined the legal standards required for assessing evidence in sexual assault cases. They outline three critical legal errors made by the trial judge, including misapplying the standard of proof and failing to recognize that corroboration is not necessary for a conviction. This episode serves as a cautionary tale about the complexities of legal analysis in sensitive cases and underscores the necessity for judges to adhere strictly to established legal principles when evaluating testimonies. Website: [http://www.NotOnRecordpodcast.com](http://www.notonrecordpodcast.com/) Sign up to our Substack: [https://notonrecord.substack.com](https://notonrecord.substack.com/) 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](http://www.nrlawyers.com/). Produced by Possibly Correct Media [www.PossiblyCorrect.com](http://www.possiblycorrect.com/) #Podcast #law #Lawfare

Provide your feedback here. Send me a Text Message.In this episode, Mike discusses the Ontario Court of Justice decision R. v. Hoggar, 2024 ONCJ 546 where an officer found drugs, a loaded handgun and extended magazines after arresting a man for PPT, towing his vehicle to a private garage, searching more than an hour later, all while using a K9 to sniff it and dismantling its door panels. No exigent circumstances existed nor did the officer obtain a search warrant. Did the delay and manner in which the warrantless search incident to arrest was conducted render it unlawful? Or was there some reasonable basis for the officer to do what he did?Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at legalissuesinpolicing@gmail.com

Today on Kelly and Company: There are many stories in the news about the housing crisis and homelessness. How many of the homeless have pets? Do they ever get veterinary care? Dr. Danielle did some research on this topic and will chat about it with us today. The Ontario Court of Justice at 10 Armoury Street in Toronto has been deemed inaccessible by the disability community; Orientation and Mobility Specialist Mark Rankin shares his review. And the Tim Horton's Holiday Smile Cookie Campaign is back, supporting Tims Camps. Katie Wheatley tells us all about it.Show Highlights:Show Intro (00:35)Vet Care for People Facing Homelessness with Danielle Jongkind (03:18)Accessibility Issues at New Toronto Courthouse with Mark Rankin (27:18)Tim Horton's Holiday Smile Cookie Campaign with Katie Wheatley (46:01)

MONOLOGUE The Global War on Fossil Fuels and the Truth About CO2 Another mass grave Hoax? https://www.westernstandard.news/opinion/giesbrecht-another-mass-grave/59366  Brian Giesbrecht is a retired Manitoba judge. He was recently named the 'Western Standard Columnist of the Year' KEEPING AN EYE ON YOUR MONEY The Case for Canada to Adopt an Elon Musk Style Department of Government Efficiency  Franco Terrazzano – Federal Director of The Canadian Taxpayers Federation taxpayer.com IN DEFENSE OF WOMEN Update on Carolyn Burjoski - 20 year veteran teacher with the Waterloo Region District School Board, was ejected from a Board Meeting on Jan 17, 2022 and defamed for simply questioning the age appropriateness of books containing sexual content.  Ontario Court of Appeal has dismissed the School Board's appeal! Powerful institutions like @wrdsb can't weaponize false accusations to silence public debate. Now her defamation lawsuit can proceed to trial. Visit Carolyn's website https://cancelledteacher.com  Maureen Sullivan – Steering Committee Member at Canadian Women's Sex Based rights CAWSBAR JFK Assassination Anniversary  James DiEugenio is one of the most respected researchers and writers on the political assassinations of the 1960s. Jim has an MA in history from California State University Northridge. He is a retired teacher who has written or co-edited four books on the assassinations of the sixties: Destiny Betrayed, The Assassinations, The JFK Assassination: The Evidence Today and JFK Revisited. The last volume is the companion piece to Oliver Stone's two recent documentaries on the Kennedy assassination, JFK Revisited: Through the Looking Glass, and JFK: Destiny Betrayed. Jim wrote the screenplays for both of those films. He has lectured widely and made many appearances on many broadcast programs about the subject. He is the editor and publisher of the online journal kennedysandkings.com He is the co-author of The JFK Assassination Chokeholds That Prove There Was a Conspiracy ADAM ZIVO Save Our Sites or Fill Your Morgues: Unions Release Joint Letter Urging Ford Government to Reverse Deadly Closures of Supervised Consumption Sites in Ontario https://opseu.org/news/save-our-sites-or-fill-your-morgues-unions-release-joint-letter-urging-ford-government-to-reverse-deadly-closures-of-supervised-consumption-sites-in-ontario/248088/  Adam Zivo, National Post Columnist and director of The Centre for Responsible Drug Policy https://www.responsibledrugpolicies.com Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The appellants, Duncan and Michelle Sinclair, and their son were on a European holiday and were injured in an accident in Venice, Italy. They were passengers on a water taxi that crashed into a wooden structure. The appellants were both injured. The appellants had arranged their travels through Amex Canada Inc., operating under the name Centurion Travel Service which engages third-party travel suppliers for the provision of travel services such as car services, flights and hotel accommodations, at the request and on behalf of Centurion Card members. The day before flying to Venice, Mr. Sinclair booked transportation from the airport in Venice to their hotel, which included a water taxi ride. The water taxi was dispatched by the respondent, Venizia Turismo, and owned by the respondent, Venice Limousine S.R.L. After returning to Canada, the appellants commenced an action seeking damages arising out of the accident. The respondents moved to dismiss or stay the action against them for want of jurisdiction. The motion judge dismissed the motion. The respondents appealed to the Ontario Court of Appeal. A majority of the court found that there was no Ontario contract connecting the dispute to Ontario and allowed the appeal, staying the appellants' action. Argued Date 2024-11-07 Keywords Private international law — Jurisdiction — Presumptive connecting factors — Whether the court below failed to identify the operative contracts — Was the majority right to overturn the motion judge's finding of a connection with an Ontario contract — Was the Court of Appeal right to rule that the connection was rebutted? Notes (Ontario) (Civil) (By Leave) Language English Audio Disclaimers This podcast is created as a public service to promote public access and awareness of the workings of Canada's highest court. It is not affiliated with or endorsed by the Court. The original version of this hearing may be found on the Supreme Court of Canada's website. The above case summary was prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch).

In an affidavit in front of the Ontario Court of Appeal, Dinesh Kumar made a powerful statement to the preceding judges: “I do not want my guilty plea to ever be interpreted to mean that I did anything to harm Gaurov. I did not.”. Dinesh had only recently moved to Canada when he became the suspect in his month-old baby's death. Kylie and Rory tell you his story from his own words this week.Content warnings: discussed child abusehttps://www.transformationsnetwork.com/post/8-online-mental-health-resources-anyone-can-access References:https://www.innocencecanada.com/exonerations/dinesh-kumar/https://www.wrongfulconvictions.ca/cases/dinesh-kumar https://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2008/05/part-five-dinesh-kumars-affidavit-heart.html - Dinesh's affidavithttps://www.thestar.com/news/gta/a-father-s-20-year-battle-for-exoneration/article_69cb1ee4-6dbd-5fe0-8917-cdbc5ebe5f15.htmlhttps://newjerseymonitor.com/2023/09/13/appeals-court-agrees-shaken-baby-syndrome-is-junk-science-in-some-cases/#:~:text=While%20shaken%20baby%20syndrome%20is,being%20assaulted%2C%20Gooden%20Brown%20wrote.https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-debate-over-shaken-baby-syndrome-11655387830

In part two of our private equity law episode with Enda Wong, we'll speak about a new Ontario Court of Appeal ruling that considers whether shareholders can waive these dissent rights through contractual agreements, even if the shareholders' agreement doesn't explicitly state such waivers     ✨ Read the full episode transcript HERE ✨ Learn more about the topics/cases on the Lawyered website ✨ Help to declutter the law on the Lawyered crowdfunding page

We discuss a recent Ontario Court of Appeal decision, Mathur v. Ontario, which was the subject of a recent National Post column by Jamie Sarkonak. In this case, a group of teenagers had gone after the Ford government when it lowered the CO2 targets created by the previous government. The kids claimed the change in government policy violated their Charter rights by endangering the future. The teenagers lost the first round, but now the Appeal Court has ordered a new trial, indirectly suggesting they might have a right to a stable climate.Court of Appeal for Ontario, Oct 17, 2024: Mather v. OntarioJamie Sarkonak in the National Post, Oct 22, 2024: Court says lack of economy-killing climate targets may violate the CharterSupreme Court of Canada, Apr 2, 2024: Vriend v. AlbertaFriends of Science, Aug 6, 2019: Alligators in AlaskaKen Gregory in Friends of Science, Jun 14, 2024: Climate Sensitivity by Energy Balance with Urban and Natural Warming (PDF)CanLII, Jun 20, 2024: Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, SC 2018, c 12, s 186Supreme Court of Canada, May 25, 2021: References re Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing ActFinancial Times, Feb 21, 2015: Chairman of climate change panel accused of sexual harassmentWikipedia: Rajendra K. PachauriBBC, Feb 24, 2015: Profile: Climate chief Rajendra PachauriCarbon Brief, Jan 12, 2023: Tonga volcano eruption raises ‘imminent' risk of temporary 1.5C breachWatts Up With That?, Aug 24, 2024: Climate Change Weekly #516: Hunga Tonga Eruption Behind “Record” WarmingKenneth P. Green, Fraser Institute Bulletin, Apr 2024: Extreme Weather and Climate Change (PDF)CanLII, Sep 9, 2021: O.M.S. v E.J.S., 2021 SKQB 243 (Ruling by M.T. Megaw)Justice Centre Concluded Case, May 11, 2023: Trinity Bible Chapel, et al. v. OntarioTheme Music "Carpay Diem" by Dave StevensSupport the show

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).

Meet Shaneka Shaw Taylor, Shaneka is the Founder of Taylor'd Litigation Professional Corporation, an award-winning lawyer specializing in product liability, commercial litigation, and real property litigation, with a track record of success in Ontario and Alberta courts. In this episode, Shaneka talks about:Contracts are crucial in real estate investing. They should be clear and enforceable, covering all potential scenarios to safeguard your interests.There is a significant difference between transactional lawyers who handle agreements and closings and litigation lawyers who manage disputes. It's beneficial to have both types of lawyers on your team.Current litigation trends include buyers not being able to close deals due to appraisal issues, loan defaults, and promissory note disputes, often exacerbated by rising interest rates.Sellers can protect themselves by including clauses in contracts that allow immediate release of deposits if a buyer defaults and by considering alternative dispute resolution methods like arbitration to avoid lengthy court delays.Before purchasing a property, conduct thorough searches to ensure no outstanding work orders and verify ownership. Also, ensure the property's income can cover all expenses and have a financial buffer.Being ready for potential vacancies or tenant issues by having personal financial resources available and a clear exit strategy, such as refinancing options.About ShanekaShaneka Shaw Taylor is the brilliant mind behind Taylor'd Litigation Professional Corporation. As the Founder and driving force behind the firm, Shaneka has established herself as an exceptional lawyer, garnering multiple prestigious awards for her outstanding contributions to the legal field.Shaneka specializes in a range of litigation-focused areas, including product liability, commercial litigation, and real property litigation. Her skills as a courtroom advocate have consistently led to triumphant outcomes, as evidenced by her record of victories in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, the Ontario Divisional Court, the Ontario Court of Appeal for Ontario, and the Alberta King's Bench.Connect with ShanekaInstagram - https://www.instagram.com/taylordlitigationFacebook - https://www.facebook.com/Taylord-LitigationLinked in - https://www.linkedin.com/in/shaneka-shaw-taylor-8782a17Connect with Danielle ChiassonWebsite: https://strategicsuccessconsulting.comLinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/daniellechiasson/Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/DaniChiassonInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/letsgetrealTikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@danichiassonBook in a call: https://calendly.com/strategicsuccess/lets-get-real-estate-20-min-chat Listen in and subscribe for more.You can also leave us a review and of course, don't forget to share. I'm sure there are real people in your network who can take advantage of what they're going to learn from the show.Interested in becoming a guest on the show? Email admin@letsgetrealpodcast.com with the Subject: I want to be a guest! OR simply fill out: https://letsgetrealestatepodcast.com/be-a-guest/.

Provide your feedback here. Send me a Text Message.In this episode, Mike discusses the Ontario Court of Appeal decision R. v. Buffong, 2024 ONCA 660 where police received a tip from a confidential informer that an individual would be at a Thunder Bay bus station — with money and a handgun — intending on travelling to Toronto. When police went to the bus station, they saw a man matching the description provided by the tipster and took steps to detain him. When an officer reached out to pat the man down, he felt something metal in a satchel the man was wearing. The satchel was removed from the man and opened, leading to the discovery of a loaded pistol and bundles of cash. Was the man's detention lawful even though the credibility of the tipster was unknown? Was the search of the satchel — after it had been removed from the man — properly conducted within the scope of a safety search incident to investigative detention? Listen for the answers to these and other questions that arose during this case. Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at legalissuesinpolicing@gmail.com

- Mike Ramsay, Trustee and former Chair of Waterloo Region District School Board, Former Soldier, Police Officer and Civil Servant, joins Deb to discuss his latest piece in The Hub arguing it is time to ditch divisive DEI ideology- Deb takes your calls on a court challenge to a law designed to free up hospital beds that may be taking away patients' autonomy- Who is ultimately responsible if/when a tire falls off a car while driving? OPP constable Scott Stratton Traffic Safety division offers his expertise

(PUBLICATION BAN IN CASE) Mr. Agpoon was charged in December 2018 with offences relating to human trafficking in minors, possession of fentanyl, and a firearms offence. Mr. Flemmings was added to the Indictment in December 2019 on counts related to human trafficking and possession of fentanyl. The case came before the Ontario Court of Justice before the COVID-19 pandemic closed all Ontario courts on March 17, 2020 and thereafter led to varying province-wide and regional closures, capacity restrictions and operational limitations. The Crown preferred a direct indictment on May 19, 2021. Mr. Agpoon and Mr. Flemmings applied to stay proceedings on the basis of delay. The Ontario Superior Court of Justice granted the application and stayed all charges. The Court of Appeal granted an appeal and set aside the stay of proceedings. Argued Date 2024-05-22 Keywords Charter of Rights — Right to be tried within a reasonable time — Criminal law — What test should trial judges apply under s. 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms when deciding whether delay caused by the COVID-19 pandemic is reasonable? Notes (Ontario) (Criminal) (By Leave) (Publication ban in case) Language English Audio Disclaimers This podcast is created as a public service to promote public access and awareness of the workings of Canada's highest court. It is not affiliated with or endorsed by the Court. The original version of this hearing may be found on the Supreme Court of Canada's website. The above case summary was prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch).

On this long distance episode Kyla and Paul talk all about Ontario. They look at 2 Ontario Court of Appeal decisions and how they overturned favourable decisions. Check out the "Lawyer Told Me Not To Talk To You" T-shirts and hoodies at Lawyertoldme.com and "Sit Still Jackson" at sitstilljackson.com Follow Kyla Lee on Twitter: twitter.com/IRPlawyer Follow Kyla Lee on Instagram: instagram.com/kylaleelawyer

Provide your feedback here. Send me a Text Message.In this episode, Mike discusses the Ontario Court of Appeal decision R. v. Khandakar, 2024 ONCA 620 where the driver of a vehicle changed their mind and wanted to provide an ASD breath sample after being arrested for refusing to do so. Just when does an unequivocal refusal to provide an ASD sample constitute the actus reus for a refusal charge? How much time does a driver have to change their mind? Criminal Code provisions:s. 320.15 (1) Everyone commits an offence who, knowing that a demand has been made, fails or refuses to comply, without reasonable excuse, with a demand made under section 320.27 or 320.28.s. 320.27 (1) If a peace officer has reasonable grounds to suspect that a person has alcohol ... in their body and that the person has, within the preceding three hours, operated a conveyance, the peace officer may, by demand, require the person ...  (b) to immediately provide the samples of breath that, in the peace officer's opinion, are necessary to enable a proper analysis to be made by means of an approved screening device and to accompany the peace officer for that purpose ...Trial court ruling First level appeal rulingBC's Alco-Sensor FST Operator's ManualThanks for listening! Feedback welcome at legalissuesinpolicing@gmail.com

Mike Feir shares his review of Adventure to Fate Lost Island, a dungeon crawler RPG game for iOS that features excellent integration for VoiceOver users. Audio Description isn't just for theatre performances. Fern Lulham shares how Scotland's Audio Description Association is making big concert series a more inclusive experience! The Ontario Court of Appeal has ruled that dependent adults with disabilities must have a say in their care regardless of the level of their decision-making capacity. Laura Bain has the details of that story on The Buzz. Chef Mary Mammoliti says people are turning to Pinterest for a treasure trove of food inspiration. She shares some of the hottest trending recipe ideas including Bridgerton themed High Tea parties. Markus McCracken shares the exciting new accessible gaming features from Senua's Saga: Hellblade 2 that he says he's not seen in any game before. Reporter Brock Richardson weighs in on a few trending topics on our weekly Thursday Roundtable!

The Ontario Court of Appeal has a made a decision about the rights of adults with intellectual disabilities. Specifically, about their input when their parents go through a divorce or separation. Meagan Gillmore has been following the story and shares more.

The Ontario Court of Appeal has a made a decision about the rights of adults with intellectual disabilities. Specifically, about their input when their parents go through a divorce or separation. Meagan Gillmore has been following the story and shares more. Amazon recently held its second annual Alexa & Accessibility event in Toronto. Toronto Community Reporter Mara Hutchinson was a part of a panel discussion for the event. She joins to share some reflections. Legendary CBC Sports Broadcaster, Scott Russell recently announced his retirement. He joins the program to talk more about his career. What do mainstream conferences get wrong about including presenters with disabilities? Matisse Hamel Nelis discusses more. The weekly news quiz is back for another round of fun!

An Ontario court judge is expected to rule as early as this week on whether the seven-week-old pro-Palestinian tent city at the University of Toronto will be allowed to remain, or whether it must be dismantled immediately—with police help, if necessary. Lawyers for the university were in court last week arguing the encampment is illegal and has done irreparable harm to UofT's international reputation, while also violating the rights of Jewish and pro-Israel students and staff. Lawyers for the student protestors countered in court that their right to free speech and free assembly trumps any concerns the school may have. The Toronto encampment is one of about a half-dozen still up on Canadian university campuses since a wave of pro-Palestinian tent cities began in the United States in April. McGill's was the first in Canada—and it's still operating after two failed appeals to courts. Waterloo just issued a trespass notice on Friday, while five other schools have cleared theirs, usually with police help: York University, UQAM, the University of Calgary and the University of Alberta. Ontario Tech University in Oshawa was the first and only Canadian post-secondary institution to date to agree to the students' demands, and saw the tents come down peacefully. The CJN's Jonathan Rothman has been covering the UofT encampment since it went up, writing numerous pieces for us and conducting interviews inside. He joins _The CJN Daily _to describe what the tent city is like and predict what might happen next. What we talked about: Read more about Jewish groups intervening in the UofT encampment injunction court case, in The CJN Find out more about the criminal charges laid by Toronto police connected to the UofT encampment, in The CJN Read the University of Toronto's legal application to the Ontario Superior Court of Justice for a permanent injunction, and read all the legal briefs on the website of the law firm of Lenczner Slaght Credits: The CJN Daily is written and hosted by Ellin Bessner (@ebessner on Twitter). Zachary Kauffman is the producer. Michael Fraiman is the executive producer. Our theme music is by Dov Beck-Levine.  We're a member of The CJN Podcast Network. To subscribe to this podcast, please watch this video. Donate to The CJN and receive a charitable tax receipt by clicking here. Hear why The CJN is important to me.

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.    

Grip sum' Danger Cats Merch & Stand Up Tickets: https://www.DangerCatsShop.com   EXCLUSIVE PODCAST EPISODES https://www.patreon.com/dangercats69 __________________________________________________ Email a Fan Question For Tha Podcast: unclehack@dangercats.tv subject - Fan Question Subscribe To Tha Channel: https://bit.ly/3sLKqdV __________________________________________________ Follow Tha Social Medias: TELEGRAM CHANNEL https://t.me/unclehack69 INSTAGRAM Uncle Hack - https://www.Instagram.com/unclehack69 Danger Cats - https://www.Instagram.com/dangercats69 FACEBOOK Danger Cats - https://www.facebook.com/dangercats69 Uncle Hack - https://www.facebook/dangercats69 TWITTER Danger Cats - https://www.twitter.com/dangercats69 Uncle Hack - https://www.twitter.com/unklehack69   DISCORD - https://discord.gg/ECzVzrBBDS __________________________________________________

We have wacky Canadians in the news. Well, on two separate occasions in 2020, a Toronto man tricked two guys into believing they were talking to a woman online, and invited them over to his Toronto home to have anonymous sex through a hole in a sheet hanging in a doorway. The ruse came to an end when the second victim pulled the sheet down to find the man cowering behind the glory hole in a black wig. The Ontario Court convicted the Toronto man on two counts of sexual assault [sentenced to 28 months in prison,] given that the victims had been misled about the identity of their sexual partner. And because of this conviction, Canada has rolled out new Glory Hole etiquette, so we turn to our roving correspondent to learn all the details. Listen to Lamont & Tonelli Monday through Friday, 6-10am, on 107.7 The Bone. Get your Rock N Roll Fix at: 1077thebone.com Follow 107.7 The Bone on Facebook, Instagram, X, YouTube and TikTok. Follow 107.7 The Bone on Apple, Spotify or Amazon Music.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

We have wacky Canadians in the news. Well, on two separate occasions in 2020, a Toronto man tricked two guys into believing they were talking to a woman online, and invited them over to his Toronto home to have anonymous sex through a hole in a sheet hanging in a doorway. The ruse came to an end when the second victim pulled the sheet down to find the man cowering behind the glory hole in a black wig. The Ontario Court convicted the Toronto man on two counts of sexual assault [sentenced to 28 months in prison,] given that the victims had been misled about the identity of their sexual partner. And because of this conviction, Canada has rolled out new Glory Hole etiquette, so we turn to our roving correspondent to learn all the details. Listen to Lamont & Tonelli Monday through Friday, 6-10am, on 107.7 The Bone. Get your Rock N Roll Fix at: 1077thebone.com Follow 107.7 The Bone on Facebook, Instagram, X, YouTube and TikTok. Follow 107.7 The Bone on Apple, Spotify or Amazon Music.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

THE MEDICAL RECORD: STUDY SHOWS SMOKING CAN INCREASE RISK OF HAIR LOSS FOR MEN Libby Znaimer is joined by Dr. Alisa Naiman, Family Physician and Founder and Medical Director of The Medical Station in Toronto, Dr. Malcolm Moore, Medical Oncologist with the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre and  Dr. Fahad Razak, Canada Research Chair in Healthcare Data and Analytics at the University of Toronto. Today: a conversation about food poisoning, how smoking can increase the risk of hair loss in men and also World Cancer Day.  COURT GIVES GREENLIGHT TO CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT AGAINST FORMER LTC MINISTER Libby Znaimer is joined by Melissa Miller, Partner at Howie, Sacks & Henry LLP. This week, the Ontario Court of Appeal has greenlit a class-action lawsuit against the provincial long-term care ministry for alleged negligence in the way that the government dealt with the COVID-19 crisis. Melissa reacts to the news. IS THE HIGH COST OF LIVING FORCING YOU TO SACRIFICE YOUR RETIREMENT SAVINGS? Libby Znaimer is now joined by Andrew Fung, Acting Executive Vice President, Pensions at the Financial Services Regulatory Authority of Ontario. A new poll by the Financial Services Regulatory Authority of Ontario shows that a majority of Ontarians (81 per cent) are more worried about paying their increasingly costly food, mortgage and rent bills than saving for retirement. 

Outspoken author and academic Jordan Peterson's legal fight against his profession's governing body hit a snag in the Ontario Court of Appeal. Peterson was fighting a sanction from the College of Psychologists of Ontario ordering him to undergo remedial social media training. Ontario's highest court declined to hear his appeal of a lower court ruling. National Post reporter Tyler Dawson joins the show to discuss why Peterson was in hot water with the College, what his lawyer tried to argue in court and whether there's any further recourse. Background reading: Jordan Peterson says he's willing to risk licence over social media training after losing court battle Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Roslyn Tsao is the Managing Partner at Epstein Cole LLP, a boutique family law firm where she manages operations, recruitment, and student programs. As a family law attorney, she specializes in parenting arrangements, property division, and support issues and represents high-net-worth individuals with complex assets or compensation structures. Roslyn has appeared on motions, conferences, and trials in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice and argued appeals at the Ontario Court of Appeal. She is also frequently retained as a mediator and arbitrator in private disputes. Roslyn is an Associate Editor of the Reports of Family Law and has taught family law courses at Osgoode Hall Law School and will teach at the University of Toronto Law School in 2024. She is the 2022 recipient of the Award of Excellence in Family Law and has a Band 1 ranking in the Chambers & Partners Global High Net Worth Guide in Family/Matrimonial.  With prior experience in employment, wills and estates, criminal, real estate, and taxation law, Roslyn has achieved favorable outcomes for clients by focusing on practical, results-oriented legal advice and ongoing dialogue. Her expertise in the courtroom and role as Managing Partner enables her to manage attorneys effectively to drive law firm efficiency and performance. In this episode… Our legal education certainly didn't cover how to best manage and lead people, meaning that most lawyers who assume leadership roles are learning on the job and figuring it out as they go (or to put it another way, “flying by the seat of their pants”).  When you are one doing the managing and leading, what are some of the ways in which you can facilitate productivity and efficiency at your firm while at the same time fostering a desirable organizational culture? With over three decades of experience in the legal field, family law attorney Roslyn Tsao has become a coveted leader at her firm. She notes that attorneys today prioritize satisfaction in their careers and personal lives, so managing partners should facilitate a delicate balance to encourage professional development. Identifying your staff's needs, strengths, and weaknesses allows you to cultivate empathy, deliver value, and boost performance and your firm's bottom line. Additionally, Roslyn emphasizes educating lawyers on supplemental roles at the firm to reduce workload. Join Elise Holtzman for this episode of The Lawyer's Edge Podcast as she interviews Roslyn Tsao, the Managing Partner at Epstein Cole LLP, about her experience managing lawyers to increase firm productivity and efficiency. Roslyn shares the ideal attributes of lawyers in a boutique law firm, how to terminate attorneys tactfully, and how professional talent management roles have evolved. Spoiler alert: Empathy drives more productivity and efficiency!

On Episode 16 of Not Reserving Judgment, we tell you about a Waterloo school board official who lost his bid to block teacher Carolyn Burjoski's defamation claim after he called her transphobic; we get into the discussion over Alberta's Sovereignty Act motion; and we tell you about an Ontario Court of Appeal decision that found requiring math tests for teachers is not racist. Stories and cases discussed in this week's episode:Court victory for teacher silenced for transgender-book criticism (National Post)Alberta deploys sovereignty act, floats its own power corporation to defy federal clean-energy plan (Globe and Mail)Alberta Sovereignty Within A United Canada Act (Alberta Assembly)Ontario Court of Appeal agrees with CCF: Math tests for teachers weren't racist (TheCCF.ca)Opinion: The Alberta Sovereignty Act appears to be constitutional (The Hub)Opinion: Alberta's Sovereignty Act is constitutional but it needs nuance (National Post)Despite objections, Kingston council passes community standards bylaw (Kingston Whig-Standard)Nunavut judge says driving bans 'inconvenience' Inuit hunters but don't violate hunting rights (CBC News)Not 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.

Janani Shanmuganathan (@janani_shanmuganathan) is a criminal defense lawyer who has appeared frequently at the Ontario Court of Appeal and has argued at the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Canada. She is a Partner at Goddard & Shanmuganathan LLP.She joins Ara on this week's episode of #TheTamilCreator to discuss participating as co-counsel for a landmark Supreme Court Case (R.v. Nur.), how the cool moments of law that are seen on TV are only 10% of what being a lawyer entails, starting a business with her husband and navigating a work-life balance with it, having taken on clients even if they're not able to pay (Legal Aid Ontario), why she'd rather make a friend than try to network, her desire to be authentic, regretting rushing through life, and so much more.Follow Janani:- LinkedIn (https://www.linkedin.com/in/jshanmuganathan/)Timestamps00:19 - Ara introduces this week's guest, Janani Shanmuganathan00:45 - What sparked her passion for law; an innate love for learning01:58 - Never having second thoughts about her career choice02:45 - Why Janani chose criminal defence; helping the underdog03:35 - Misconceptions about being a lawyer; doubting herself05:36 - Being introverted as a lawyer; the benefits of introversion in general07:55 - The importance of research and organization as a lawyer09:39 - Co-counselling a major case; Janani explains the importance and process12:50 - Starting her own practice; figuring out how to work with her husband15:44 - Building her clientele through referrals16:36 - The benefit of working from home as a mother18:25 - Determining if she wants to take on a new client; and Legal Aid Ontario21:36 - Improving her skills/staying sharp; conferences, online resources, etc.22:32 - Advice she would give young law students; and Ara's insights25:01 - Not liking the word networking; how she goes about relationship building26:26 - A major learning lesson in Janani's life; trying to work while pregnant29:10 - Advice she would give her 16-year-old self; slow down31:55 - Re-examining your childhood as a parent; This Is Us and our immigrant parents35:38 - The personal legacy she wants to be remembered for by friends and family36:06 - Creator Confessions40:32 - The Wrap UpIntro MusicProduced And Mixed By:- The Tamil Creator- YanchanWritten By:- Aravinthan Ehamparam- Yanchan Rajmohan  Support the show

Criminal cases in Ontario must be tried within 18 months, but staffing shortages and other problems are leading to cases being thrown out when that time is up. Galloway talks to legal experts about what happens when serious cases like sexual assault allegations get thrown out, and protecting public faith in the legal system.

The Jordan Peterson case and the Ontario Court panel of 3 judges who sided with the College of Psychologists of Ontario and ruled Peterson must attend social media training of lose his licence to practice psychology in the province, which the University of Toronto Professor Emeritus has not engaged in for several years. Is the College correct? Did the Divisional Court completely miss the point by supporting the College and its code of conduct? Has Charter enshrined Freedom of Expression been compromised, not just for Peterson, but for all Canadians? Guest: Ari Goldkind. Criminal lawyer, media commentator. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Today's Podcast: The more difficulty Donald Trump faces with criminal charges and trials, as well as possible convictions and prison time, the more his supporters will rally to Trump's side. Guest: Professor Dante Scala. University of New Hampshire. Expert in Democracy and Presidential politics. Developments in Ukraine in its war with Russia. Yevgeny Prigozhin, founder and leader of the Wagner Group mercenaries killed in a crash of his private plane just weeks following his abortive coup attempt against Putin. Russian military members fighting with Ukraine, led by former Russian special forces commanders are inviting now leaderless Wagner mercenaries to join them in the fight against Putin. Will Ukraine's military attack any former Wagner mercenaries on its territory after they are alleged to have committed atrocities against Ukrainian citizens and military members? Ukraine will now be receiving U.S.-built F16 fighter planes from European NATO members. Ukraine's top fighter pilot killed in a mid-air collision. Russian missile attacks on civilian centres in Ukraine continue while Ukraine dispatches drones to attack targets in Moscow. What is the status of the war and is Ukraine concerned some senior GOP members and candidates for president are openly questioning supporting Ukraine militarily? Guest: Olexander Scherba. Former Ukraine Ambassador to Austria and member of the Ukrainian diplomatic mission to the United States. Author of: Ukraine vs Darkness: Undiplomatic Thoughts. The Jordan Peterson case and the Ontario Court panel of 3 judges who sided with the College of Psychologists of Ontario and ruled Peterson must attend social media training of lose his licence to practice psychology in the province, which the University of Toronto Professor Emeritus has not engaged in for several years. Is the College correct? Did the Divisional Court completely miss the point by supporting the College and its code of conduct? Has Charter enshrined Freedom of Expression been compromised, not just for Peterson, but for all Canadians? Guest: Ari Goldkind. Criminal lawyer, media commentator. Postponed from last weekend: the massive appeal of Taylor Swift and 31 million attempts to purchase tickets to her concerts in Toronto in November of 2024. As well, why do some artists become multi-decade successes while others have an occasional hit over the same period of time and yet others are so-called 'one hit wonders'? Guest: Eric Alper (thatericalper.com). 16-time JUNO Award winner and nominated six times as Publicist Of The Year during Canadian Music Week. --------------------------------------------- Host/Content Producer – Roy Green Technical/Podcast Producer – Tom McKay Podcast Co-Producer – Ben Straughan If you enjoyed the podcast, tell a friend! For more of the Roy Green Show, subscribe to the podcast! https://globalnews.ca/roygreen/ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

A former Niagara police officer who admitted to sexually abusing 11 women at his side massage business will serve an 18-month sentence at home. David Kukoly, 54, who was a veteran officer at the time of his arrest, pleaded guilty to five counts of sexual assault. He admitted to similar abuse against an additional six victims in an agreed statement of facts. He was sentenced on June 21 at the Ontario Court of Justice in St. Catharines, Ont. https://swopusa.org/#donate Sex Workers Outreach Project-USA is a national grassroots social justice network dedicated to the fundamental human rights of sex workers and their communities. It focuses on ending violence and stigma through education, community building, and advocacy.

Guest: Estair Van Wagner of Osgoode Hall Law School A recent court ruling in Waterloo concluded the city could not evict people from an encampment if there was not adequate shelter space available in the system because it was a violation of their human rights. This could have ramifications over how other municipalities deal with unhoused people but, like with most legal decisions, it is complicated. Estair Van Wagner, a professor at York University's Osgoode Hall Law School and advocate for the rights of the unhoused, takes us through the ruling and how it might change how the City of Toronto may deal with unhoused people. This episode was produced by Alexis Green, Paulo Marques and Raju Mudhar.