Podcasts about ontario court

In Episode 457 of Driving Law, Kyla Lee and Paul Doroshenko discuss the Ontario Court of Appeal's decision in R. v. Raffia and what it means for impaired driving refusal cases. The pair examine why the Court declined to weigh in on the controversial reasonable excuse issue that has generated significant discussion among impaired driving lawyers across Canada. They also break down the procedural complexities behind the appeal and what the decision leaves unresolved. Kyla and Paul then turn to a new Canadian study examining wrongful convictions and forensic science. The discussion explores how forensic evidence is often overstated in court, why juries and judges may place too much confidence in scientific evidence, and what this means for impaired driving prosecutions that rely heavily on forensic testing. Plus, the Ridiculous Driver of the Week features a driver who reacted to a distracted driving ticket by throwing his phone out the window in front of the police officer. 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.

The Ontario Court of Appeal has upheld key provisions of the province's Security from Trespass and Protecting Food Safety Act, delivering what livestock groups see as an important win for farm biosecurity, worker safety, and property rights. In a conversation with RealAgriculture's Lyndsey Smith, Beef Farmers of Ontario president Jason Leblond says the court decision... Read More

**Sponsored by EasyDNS** Move your domain or web hosting to EasyDNS and support Not On Record: https://easydns.com/NotOnRecord Use promo code: **notonrecord** In Episode 214 of *Not On Record*, criminal defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger and Diana Davison examine the important Ontario Court of Appeal decision R. v. C.P., 2026 ONCA 333 and discuss how mental illness can properly factor into assessing witness reliability and credibility in criminal trials. The case involved allegations of sexual assault against a biological father and raised complex questions about a complainant who had a documented history of hallucinations, delusions, medication non-compliance, and street drug use during the period of the alleged offences. The Court of Appeal was asked to determine whether the trial judge improperly relied on myths and stereotypes about mental illness when acquitting the accused. Joseph and Diana explain the critical legal distinction between credibility and reliability, why mental illness alone cannot be used to discount a witness's evidence, and when case-specific evidence of hallucinations, delusions, panic attacks, psychiatric symptoms, or medication issues may legitimately become relevant at trial. They also discuss third-party psychiatric records applications, the evidentiary foundation required to raise mental health issues in court, and why judges must carefully avoid discriminatory reasoning while still assessing reliability based on evidence. This episode provides valuable guidance for criminal lawyers, law students, and anyone interested in how Canadian courts balance fairness, mental health considerations, and the search for truth in the justice system. ### **Chapters** **00:00** Introduction to R. v. C.P. (2026 ONCA 333) **02:19** Mental illness, credibility, and reliability explained **04:21** Hallucinations, delusions, medication, and street drug use **07:10** Crown appeal and myths about mental illness **10:13** Evidence supporting reliability concerns **14:29** Accessing psychiatric and therapy records in criminal cases **16:11** Why the Court of Appeal upheld the acquittal **21:34** Lessons for lawyers handling mental health evidence

The applicants, two homeowners, hired the respondent company, Benchwood, to renovate their home. Benchwood is a general contracting and construction management business, and the respondent Michael Slaven is one of its co-owners. There were several areas of disagreement between the parties during the course of the renovations. A heated discussion occurred between Mr. Slaven and one of the homeowners. Benchwood performed no further work for the homeowners following this incident.The homeowners subsequently discovered that Benchwood posted photographs of their home online to attract new customers. This angered them and prompted them to post allegedly defamatory statements about Benchwood and Mr. Slaven on social media platforms.In response to these statements, Benchwood and Mr. Slaven commenced an action seeking damages for defamation. The homeowners subsequently brought a motion pursuant to s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act for an order dismissing the action as a proceeding that limits freedom of expression on matters of public interest. The motion judge agreed with the homeowners and ordered that the action be dismissed. Benchwood and Mr. Slaven appealed to the Ontario Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal unanimously allowed the appeal and set aside the dismissal of the action. Argued Date 2026-05-15 Keywords Torts — Libel and slander — Anti-SLAPP legislation — Dissatisfied clients of company posting negative statements online about company and its owner — Company and owner suing clients for defamation — Clients bringing motion to dismiss action pursuant to anti-SLAPP legislative provision — Whether the Court of Appeal erred in overturning the motion judge's finding that the impugned expression relates to a matter of public interest — Whether the Court of Appeal erred in overturning the motion judge's finding that there are no grounds to believe that the defences are not valid — Whether the Court of Appeal erred in overturning the motion judge's finding that the harms resulting from the impugned expression do not outweigh the public interest in protecting the expression — Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, s. 137.1 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).

Jerry opens the show with commentary on Progress Toronto’s Integrity Commissioner complaint against Brad Bradford, and why he believes the organization is out of line on the issue. Jerry then dives into two legal stories with Gavin Tighe, senior partner at Gardiner Roberts LLP and chair of the firm’s Litigation and Dispute Resolution Group. Together they discuss: the Ontario Court of Appeal ruling that a dog walker bitten on the job can’t sue because she “owned” the pet at the time, and the five‑year sentence handed to person who broke into a 61‑year‑old Toronto woman’s home and climbed into bed with her. Next, it’s Jerry’s monthly check‑in with Toronto Police Association President Clayton Campbell, who discusses top policing stories in the city. Is it time to ditch passwords altogether? Jerry speaks with Francis Syms, Associate Dean of Information and Communications Technology at Humber Polytechnic, about a phishing‑resistant alternative that experts say is the future of digital security.

This week on Driving Law, Kyla Lee and Paul Doroshenko discuss a controversial Ontario Court of Appeal decision upholding Canada's THC impaired driving laws, despite concerns that they may criminalize individuals who are not actually impaired. They examine the troubling shift in legal reasoning that appears to accept punishing innocent individuals as a necessary trade-off for public safety, and what this means for the future of criminal law and Charter protections. Later in the episode, Kyla is joined by U.S. personal injury lawyer Charles Sanders to compare the Canadian and American systems, including the impact of no-fault insurance, large jury verdicts, and proposed legislation in California that could reshape personal injury law. Plus, a Ridiculous Driver of the Week involving a very questionable explanation for driving naked. 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.

Oil prices plunge as Iran and the U.S. declare the Strait of Hormuz open; meanwhile, a million displaced people begin a perilous return to southern Lebanon. Keir Starmer welcomes the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz but warns a permanent international mission is still needed to keep the global economy from being "held to ransom." Myanmar frees former president Win Myint as part of a New Year amnesty for more than 4,500 prisoners. A US-Mexico labour panel rules against Canadian-owned gold mine in Mexico for violating workers' rights. Federal Justice Minister Sean Fraser is worried about the increasing use of the Charter's 'notwithstanding clause'. Ontario Court of Appeal considers overturning law prohibiting class-action suits against province's Children's Aid Societies.

Sponsored by EasyDNS Move your domain or web hosting to EasyDNS and support Not On Record: https://easydns.com/NotOnRecord Use promo code: notonrecord In this episode of Not On Record, criminal defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger and Diana Davison break down a fascinating Ontario appeal decision involving fresh evidence, recantation, no-contact orders, and the limits of the criminal justice system's truth-seeking function. The case centers on a convicted man seeking to introduce post-conviction recordings in which the complainant allegedly recants her sexual assault allegations, only to later resile from that recantation when re-interviewed by police. The Ontario Court of Appeal allowed a narrowly tailored cross-examination of the complainant to help determine whether this fresh evidence should be admitted on appeal. This episode explores the legal and policy tension at the heart of the case: should potentially exculpatory evidence be excluded because it was obtained through conduct that may have breached a court order? The discussion also examines how no-contact orders work in practice, what happens when complainants repeatedly reach out to the accused, and why recantations in domestic violence and sexual assault cases are often treated with caution. Joseph and Diana also discuss real-world examples where complainants continued contacting accused persons through text messages, WhatsApp, voicemail, family members, and parenting communication platforms such as OurFamilyWizard. They look at how defence counsel should respond, what the Crown may infer from repeated unwanted contact, and how these communications can affect credibility, reliability, reasonable prospect of conviction, and public-interest decision-making. This is a sharp conversation about sexual assault appeals, false allegations, fresh evidence applications, court order breaches, coercion, credibility assessments, and the uneasy balance between procedural integrity and discovering the truth. Topics in this episode include: Ontario Court of Appeal fresh evidence on appeal sexual assault conviction appeal complainant recantation resiling from a recantation no-contact order breach abuse of process cross-examination on appeal criminal defence strategy false allegations domestic violence recantations reasonable doubt credibility and reliability OurFamilyWizard communications Crown screening and reasonable prospect of conviction Subscribe to Not On Record for serious conversations about criminal law, sexual assault law, trial strategy, appeals, disclosure, credibility, due process, and the realities of the Canadian justice system.

The appellant, Aphria Inc. (“tenant”), entered into a ten-year lease for commercial office premises with the respondent landlords and successors (collectively, “landlord”). The tenant served a notice of repudiation on the landlord and vacated the premises. The landlord did not accept the tenant's repudiation of the lease. Ultimately, the landlord sued the tenant for rents owing.The motion judge in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice granted the landlord summary judgment for the rent owing plus interest. The motion judge declined to grant the landlord judgment for future rent. The motion judge dismissed the tenant's cross-motion for summary judgment for a declaration that if rent was owing, the amount was capped at rent owing for two years from the date of default pursuant to the lease. The Ontario Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed the tenant's appeal. It held that the motion judge did not err by refusing to depart from Highway Properties Ltd. v. Kelly, Douglas and Co. Ltd., [1971] S.C.R. 562, in order to recognize a duty to mitigate on commercial landlords who reject a repudiation of a lease by the tenant. The court also held that the motion judge did not err in his interpretation of the lease. Argued Date 2026-02-18 Keywords Contracts — Commercial leases — Repudiation — Duty to mitigate — Stare decisis — Interpretation — Are commercial landlords exempt from the duty to mitigate damages? — If the common law is able to grow and adapt to changing conditions, when and how should lower courts depart from Supreme Court of Canada decisions on common law? — Should courts apply the plain meaning of the words chosen by the parties in interpreting a contract, in the absence of any factual matrix evidence? 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).

S.A.'s trial for the charges of assault and sexual assault, was scheduled to commence on April 17, 2023. He elected to be tried by judge and jury. On the trial date, a judge was unavailable to preside, so the trial did not commence. A subsequent trial date was scheduled for February 12, 2024. The defence brought an 11(b) application. The 11(b) application judge stayed the proceedings, and held that even though the delay was below the presumptive 30-month ceiling set out in Jordan, the delay was unreasonable. The judge reasoned that unfilled judicial vacancies was an important factor that should be taken into account when assessing the delay. The Crown appealed. The Ontario Court of Appeal agreed with the Crown and found that the application judge made an error in concluding that delay from laying the charge to the anticipated end of the trial, approximately 26.5 months, was unreasonable delay. The Court of Appeal held that although the application judge stated the law correctly, the application of the lawwas in error. The Court of Appeal emphasized that when assessing delay the analysis must include a holistic approach, and cited the following factors for granting the Crown's appeal, and setting aside the stay of proceedings:1. The net delay in this case was well below the Jordan ceiling;2. Both the Crown and Defence had both acted with haste and diligence to move the case forward;3. There was an increase in complex cases in the Toronto region;4. The Toronto region was still experiencing the backlog of cases as a result of thepandemic;5. The appellant was not in custody and was out on bail;6. Nothing novel in this case warranted a sense of urgency (such as a young complainant, or this matter being a re-trial); and7. Had the first trial date had gone ahead, this two-week jury trial would have been completed in less than 17 months, which even falls below the ceiling for a trial proceeding only in the Ontario Court of Justice.

My guest this week is Jim Enos, Ontario President for the CHP and President of the Hamilton-Wentworth Family Action Council. Jim and the CHP are headed to the Ontario Court of Appeals on February 3rd, 2026—to defend freedom of speech regarding gender and family issues—specifically the right to proclaim the biological reality and dictionary definition that a woman is an adult female. Jim brings us up to date on the appeal and we invite viewers and listeners to help us win this important battle for the culture. You can view the poster at the heart of this case, learn more about the battle for women's rights and contribute to the cause at: https://www.chp.ca/gender 

The respondents, Robert Vrbanic and Sarah Josipovic, were jointly charged with possession of significant quantities of four different drugs for the purpose of trafficking and possession of the proceeds of crime. They sought a stay of proceedings, arguing that their right to a trial within a reasonable time had been breached. The appellant Crown did not dispute that the delay in this case was over the 18-month presumptive ceiling established in R. v. Jordan, 2016 SCC 27, [2016] 1 S.C.R. 631, for a trial in the Ontario Court of Justice, but argued that this delay was justified by the complexity of the case. The application judge concluded that the delay was not justified as an exceptional circumstance on the basis of the complexity of the case, and ordered a stay of proceedings. The Crown appealed the application judge's order. The majority of the Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal. It found that the application judge's assessment of the complexity of the case was free of legal error and entitled to deference. Roberts J.A., dissenting, would have allowed the appeal and set aside the stay of proceedings on the basis that the application judge's miscalculation of the net delay and misapplication of the governing principles respecting exceptional circumstances materially affected his ultimate decision as to whether the delay was unreasonable. Argued Date 2025-12-04 Keywords Charter of Rights — Right to be tried within a reasonable time — Exceptional circumstances — Complexity of case — Remedy — Stay of proceedings — Whether the application judge misapplied the governing principles on s. 11(b) Charter litigation by miscalculating the net delay and failing to properly assess complexity — Whether the determination of complexity, for the purposes of an exceptional circumstance under the s. 11(b) framework, ought to be evaluated within the context of the case as a whole — Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s. 11(b). 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).

Provide your feedback here. Anonymously send me a text message. In this episode, Mike discusses the Ontario Court of Appeal decision R. v. Dalia, 2025 ONCA 772 where police delayed providing an arrestee access to counsel until a house — the target of a search warrant — was secured. A sergeant expected an officer would learn via police radio when the home was secure and then facilitate access to a lawyer, while the officer was expecting further instruction from the sergeant before doing so. This miscommunication resulted in a s. 10(b) Charter breach. Listen and learn how you might avoid a similar situation. 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."Sentencing decision. (2023 ONSC 2114)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. 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

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

Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre slammed Prime Minister Mark Carney, calling his "trillion-dollar concession" to U.S. President Donald Trump a move that cost Canada jobs and investment.  Alberta Premier Danielle Smith called B.C. Premier David Eby's pipeline opposition unconstitutional and contrary to Supreme Court judgements on provincial jurisdiction. Freedom Convoy leaders Chris Barber and Tamara Lich were granted a conditional sentence in the Ontario Court of Justice for their involvement in the Freedom Convoy. The decision means the Convoy leaders will avoid further jail time. Tune into The Daily Brief with Isaac Lamoureux and Alex Zoltan! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

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

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.

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

On Episode 96, we explain what's wrong with the Ontario court decision that found a constitutional right to bike lanes in Toronto, and we tell you about Nova Scotia Premier Tim Houston's outrageous ban on walking in the woods. Plus, our Bad Legal Takes of the Week. Stories and cases discussed in this week's episode: Cycle Toronto et al. v. Attorney General of Ontario et al., 2025 ONSC 4397 (CanLii)Ontario court strikes down Ford government's plan to remove Toronto bike lanes (CBC News)Quebec anti-abortion group fails to reverse decision banning protests in front of clinics (CBC News)Nova Scotia forests travel ban (Nova Scotia)Crown attorneys' group denounces 'attacks' on justice system during Freedom Convoy, Hockey Canada trials (National Post)Prosecutorial Independence and the Rule of Law (Ontario Crown Attorneys Association)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.

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

Deb is mad about this and gets reaction as the news comes in Plus – Is going out to eat good for your mental health? GUEST: Guidy Mamann - Managing Partner and Immigration Lawyer at Mamann Sandaluk LLP

Sponsored by EasyDNS https://easydns.com/NotOnRecord In this in-depth episode, Joseph, Michael, and Diana tackle the critical legal concept of the *right to silence* in Canada, exploring its Charter protections under Sections 7 and 10(b), and contrasting it with the more precarious UK approach where silence can be held against the accused. The trio walks listeners through real-world police tactics—including deceit and the controversial Reid Technique—used in high-stakes interrogations. Using the 2025 Ontario Court of Appeal case *R. v. Ordonio*, they unpack how prolonged interrogation, sleep deprivation, and psychological pressure can lead to false confessions, even in serious cases like homicide. From legal nuance to psychological manipulation, this episode is both a warning and a masterclass on why keeping your mouth shut might be your best defense. 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

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),

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.

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

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

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

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

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/.

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

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.

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!

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.