Podcasts about quebec court

After a jury trial before Blanchard J. of the Superior Court, the appellant, Maxime Chicoine-Joubert, was convicted of one count of second degree murder and one count of assault with a weapon. On appeal, Mr. Chicoine-Joubert argued that the judge had erred in his instructions regarding manslaughter and in his answer to questions from the jury by failing to mention the necessary mens rea.The Quebec Court of Appeal, for the reasons of Vauclair J.A., Hamilton J.A. concurring, dismissed Mr. Chicoine-Joubert's appeal. It found that the instructions to the jury were correct in the context of the case. Since Mr. Chicoine-Joubert conceded his guilt for the manslaughter verdict, the question from the jury on that offence did not require that the judge address it. Bachand J.A., dissenting, would have allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial on the grounds that the trial judge had not adequately answered the questions from the jury and that there was a reasonable possibility that the jurors had misunderstood the requisite mens rea for second degree murder. Although the dissenting judge agreed with the majority that the initial instructions contained no error warranting the court's intervention, he found that the trial judge had not fulfilled his obligation to answer questions from the jury clearly, correctly and comprehensively. He did not instruct the jurors on manslaughter or provide them with an example. Argued Date 2025-02-20 Keywords Criminal law — Charge to jury — Questions from jury — Manslaughter — Whether trial judge erred in his instructions and in his answer to questions from jury regarding offence of manslaughter, offence that appellant does not acknowledge having committed — Whether majority of Court of Appeal made reviewable error in declining to order new trial. Notes (Quebec) (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).

Judge Gagnon of the Court of Québec acquitted the appellant, Frédéric Rioux, of the offence of sexual assault committed between August 1 and 2, 2019, in Bonsecours. Although the Crown had laid only one charge for a sexual assault that occurred in Bonsecours, the Crown's evidence related to two instances of sexual intercourse, one in Magog and the other in Bonsecours. With regard to the first sexual act, which took place in a park in Magog, the judge found that the accused's evidence was probative of the complainant's consent and had not been contradicted by the complainant, who had no memory of the incident. The actus reus was therefore not established beyond a reasonable doubt. As for the second instance of sexual intercourse, which occurred at the accused's house in Bonsecours, the judge found that the Crown had met its burden but that Mr. Rioux's version raised a doubt concerning his honest but mistaken belief in the complainant's consent.For the reasons given by Bachand J.A. and concurred in by Hamilton J.A., the Quebec Court of Appeal allowed the Crown's appeal and ordered a new trial, but only with respect to Mr. Rioux's criminal liability for the events that took place in the park in Magog on the evening of August 1, 2019, since the Crown had decided not to challenge the trial judge's conclusion that Mr. Rioux had no criminally liability for the events in Bonsecours. The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge had made errors of law in analyzing the issue of the complainant's capacity to consent to the sexual acts that had taken place in Magog. Those errors of law on the issue of the consensual nature of the sexual acts made it necessary to hold a new trial. Mainville J.A., dissenting, would have dismissed the appeal, as he was of the view that the trial judge had considered all the circumstantial evidence but had found that Mr. Rioux could nevertheless be acquitted based on the probative value of his testimony. Mainville J.A. expressed serious reservations about the validity of the Crown's appeal with regard to events that were not part of the charge, given that the accused had been acquitted of the offence directly covered by the indictment. He added that it was not appropriate to order a new trial when Mr. Rioux would be tried again for an offence of which he had been finally acquitted. Argued Date 2025-01-22 Keywords Criminal law — Evidence — Assessment — Sexual assault — Capacity to consent — Absence of direct evidence from complainant — Consideration of all evidence — Appeal — Powers of Court of Appeal — Charge — Order limiting scope of new trial — Whether majority of Court of Appeal erred in law in holding that trial judge had failed to consider all evidence on ultimate issue of guilt or innocence — If trial judge made error of law, whether majority erred in law in failing to address question of whether respondent had shown with reasonable degree of certainty that verdict would not necessarily have been same without that error in light of trial judge's conclusion that he believed appellant. Notes (Quebec) (Criminal) (As of Right) (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).

Two years ago bombshell allegations emerged suggesting foreign actors were succeeding in influencing Canadian electoral contests and Canadian parliamentarians. Media reports suggested the Liberal government hadn't done enough to warn the public or even MPs about the matter, and a political debate emerged about how best to get to the bottom of it. After a series of false starts, it was Quebec Court of Appeal Justice Marie-Josée Hogue who was appointed to investigate and weigh in with findings and recommendations.  Tuesday, Hogue issued her final report.  While Hogue left some questions answered, she came to a very different finding on a key matter involving foreign interference and parliamentarians. This week on “It's Political,” we unpack what we learned from Hogue's report and what it says about where foreign interference threats now lie.  Then NDP MP Charlie Angus joins us to discuss what he see as the next and most concerning phase of foreign interference. Hint: it's at your fingertips.  In this episode: The Center for International Governance Innovation's senior fellow Wesley Wark, Timmins—James Bay NDP MP Charlie Angus, Green Party Leader Elizabeth May, NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh and Public Safety Minister David McGuinty. Hosted by Althia Raj. Some of the clips this week were sourced from CPAC, CBC, Global, ABC and CTV. This episode of “It's Political” was produced by Althia Raj and Kevin Sexton. Matt Hearn is our sound engineer. Our theme music is by Isaac Joel.

The appellants, the Attorney General of Quebec and His Majesty the King, obtained leave to appeal to the Supreme Court from the declaration of unconstitutionality made by the Quebec Court of Appeal pursuant to s. 52(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982 with respect to the mandatory minimum sentences of 12 months' imprisonment provided for in s. 163.1(4)(a) and (4.1)(a) of the Criminal Code. According to the majority of the Court of Appeal, these provisions violate s. 12 of the Canadian Charter, namely, the guarantee provided against cruel and unusual punishment, and cannot be justified in a free and democratic society under s. 1 of the Canadian Charter. That declaration of unconstitutionality resulted from appeals filed notably in respect of two decisions rendered by the Court of Québec regarding the sentences to be imposed on the respondents, Mr. Naud and Mr. Senneville. Mr. Naud was convicted of two counts relating to possession and distribution of child pornography. Sentences of 9 months' imprisonment for possession and 11 months' imprisonment for distribution pursuant to s. 163.1(4)(a) and (3) of the Criminal Code were imposed on him, along with various consequential orders. Mr. Senneville was convicted of two counts relating to possessing and accessing child pornography. Sentences of 90 days' imprisonment to be served intermittently for possession and 90 days' imprisonment to be served intermittently for accessing child pornography pursuant to s. 163.1(4)(a) and (4.1)(a) of the Criminal Code were imposed on him, also along with various consequential orders. Argued Date 2025-01-20 Keywords Charter of Rights — Cruel and unusual treatment or punishment — One-year minimum sentences — Child pornography — Counts relating to possessing and accessing child pornography — Whether s. 163.1(4)(a) of Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, violates s. 12 of Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms — If it does, whether it is reasonable limit prescribed by law that can be demonstrably justified in free and democratic society under s. 1 of Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms — Whether s. 163.1(4.1)(a) of Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, violates s. 12 of Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms — If it does, whether it is reasonable limit prescribed by law that can be demonstrably justified in free and democratic society under s. 1 of Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms — Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, ss. 12 and 1 — Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, s. 163.1(4)(a) and (4.1)(a). Notes (Quebec) (Criminal) (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 2015, the appellant was charged with the second degree murder of his spouse. Before his trial, a Quebec Superior Court judge allowed his motion for the trial to take place before a judge alone, in accordance with s. 473(1) of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, despite the absence of consent from the respondent prosecutor. The judge was of the opinion that a prosecutor's decision to consent to a trial before a judge alone does not fall within the core of prosecutorial discretion but is instead a tactical decision subject to a court's authority to control its own processes. Considering the particularities of the case, the judge was of the view that the accused had discharged his burden of demonstrating that the prosecutor's decision was unreasonable or unfair in the circumstances. After a trial without jury, the accused was acquitted of second degree murder, but he was convicted of manslaughter. The Court of Appeal allowed the respondent prosecutor's appeal and ordered, among other things, that a new trial be held before a jury on the charge of second degree murder. The court was of the opinion that the trial judge had erred by applying the unreasonableness standard in her review of the prosecutor's refusal to consent despite the fact that the accused had to prove that this refusal constituted an abuse of process. The Court of Appeal found that the accused had failed to prove this and that the impugned judgment was therefore vitiated by an error of law that had the effect of granting the Superior Court jurisdiction that it did not have. The accused's trial was therefore a nullity. Argued Date 2024-12-06 Keywords Criminal law — Courts — Jurisdiction — Procedure — Trial — Trial without jury — Trial judge allowing appellant's motion for trial without jury despite absence of consent of prosecutor — Discretion of prosecutor to consent to trial without jury — Whether Quebec Court of Appeal erred in finding that trial judge had held appellant's trial “without jurisdiction” — Whether prosecutor's appeal of order made by trial judge was governed by s. 676(1)(a) of Criminal Code — If trial was held without jurisdiction, whether Quebec Court of Appeal erred in finding that irregularity could not be corrected through application of s. 686(4) of Criminal Code while denying stay of proceedings pursuant to s. 686(8) — Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, ss. 473, 686(4), (8). Notes (Quebec) (Criminal) (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 February, the Supreme Court dismissed a challenge by Quebec to the Canadian government's Indigenous child welfare law, reversing a Quebec Court of Appeal decision to declare the 2019 federal law partly unconstitutional. The decision was widely celebrated by First Nations, Inuit and Métis leaders. Yet, according to lawyer Bruce McIvor, the decision has a troubling assumption at its core. Bruce McIvor is a member of the Manitoba Métis Federation and a founding partner at First People's Law.

What happens when the right to a fair and public trial clashes with the need to protect informer confidentiality? This episode of our podcast takes you through a riveting journey into the complex world of informer privilege and the right to a transparent judicial process. We scrutinize a landmark Supreme Court of Canada decision involving a secret trial in Quebec, where the Quebec Court of Appeal overturned the conviction due to abuse of process. Michael Mulligan from Mulligan Defence Lawyers joins us to dissect the intricate legal principles at play and ponder the broader implications for justice and transparency in Canada.But that's not all. We'll also cover a gripping case from the BC Court of Appeal, where a woman was awarded over $1 million in damages after being struck by a hockey puck. This case exemplifies the intricacies of personal injury law, highlighting the challenges in compensating for lost future income and non-pecuniary damages. With expert insights from Michael Mulligan, our discussion provides a comprehensive look at these pivotal cases, offering a deeper understanding of the Canadian justice system's complexities and the ongoing tension between individual rights and public interest.Follow this link for a transcript of the show and links to the cases discussed.

(Publication ban in case) In July 2019, in two separate cases, the respondents appeared in the Court of Québec to answer charges for indictable offences that were punishable by a maximum of 14 years of imprisonment, but that had been punishable by a maximum of 10 years of imprisonment at the time they were allegedly committed. The respondents were thus entitled to a preliminary inquiry. On September 19, 2019, s. 535 of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46 (“Cr. C.”), was amended and the right to a preliminary inquiry was abolished for an accused charged with an indictable offence punishable by less than 14 years of imprisonment. The respondents both requested a preliminary inquiry after September 19, 2019. Both requests were denied by the Court of Québec on the basis that it lacked jurisdiction followed the amendment to s. 535 Cr. C. The Quebec Superior Court denied judicial review in each case. The Quebec Court of Appeal determined that the amendment to s. 535 Cr. C. applies prospectively; it allowed both appeals and referred each case back to the Court of Québec for a preliminary inquiry. Argued Date 2024-02-14 Keywords Criminal law — Preliminary inquiry — Legislation — Prospective application of legislative amendments to preliminary inquiry rules — Interpretation — Whether Quebec Court of Appeal erred in law in finding that right to preliminary inquiry depends on law in force at time of commission of offence with which accused is charged — Whether accused charged with indictable offence has right to preliminary inquiry even if not personally liable to 14 years or more of imprisonment — Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, s. 535. Notes (Quebec) (Criminal) (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 this special episode of Runnymede Radio, guest host Jake McConville sits down with Professor Ryan Alford of Lakehead University and Stéphane Sérafin of the University of Ottawa to discuss the Quebec Court of Appeal's recent decision in Hak v. Quebec, concerning the constitutionality of Quebec's Act respecting the laicity of the state.

Joe Ortona, chair of the English Montreal School Board

Kelly Greig, CTV Montreal reporter

Elias Makos is joined by Paul Gott, Lead singer and guitarist for Montreal Punk Rock band the Ripcordz and a journalism professor at Concordia, and Justine McIntyre, Strategic consultant and former city councillor. New proposed Quebec regulations will require more French markings on consumer products & lead to fewer choices and higher costs for things like home appliances Tomorrow the Quebec Court of Appeal will rule on the constitutionality of Bill 21 Wendy's intends to test dynamic pricing in some restaurants as early as next year

This month, the Supreme Court dismissed a challenge by Quebec to the Canadian government's Indigenous child welfare law, reversing a Quebec Court of Appeal decision to declare the 2019 federal law partly unconstitutional. The decision was widely celebrated by First Nations, Inuit and Métis leaders. Yet, according to lawyer Bruce McIvor, the decision has a troubling assumption at its core. Bruce McIvor is a member of the Manitoba Métis Federation and a founding partner at First People's Law.

Andrew Caddell, town councilor in Kamouraska, President of the Task Force on Linguistic policy

WITH GUEST HOST TAYLOR MACPHERSON Topics of foreign interference continue to plague federal politics in Canada. In one of Brian Lilley's latest pieces, the Toronto Sun columnist focuses in on Quebec Court of Appeal Justice Marie-Josee Hogue, a commissioner in a foreign interference inquiry. Lilley joins Taylor to discuss his questioning of Hogue's political games in the inquiry.

(PUBLICATION BAN IN CASE) (SEALING ORDER) (CERTAIN INFORMATION NOT AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC) On March 23, 2022, the Quebec Court of Appeal issued a redacted version of its reasons, which it had originally delivered on February 28, 2022, allowing the respondent Named Person's conviction appeal and staying the criminal proceedings brought against Named Person, a police informer. The trial judgment under appeal had not been made public, and all the details of the proceedings, which were held in camera, were unknown to the public. The Court of Appeal ordered that the original version of its judgment and all information in its record be sealed. After the Court of Appeal issued the redacted judgment, the media appellants filed a motion to have the confidentiality orders concerning the appeal record and the trial record lifted in whole or in part. The appellant the Attorney General of Quebec filed a motion to vary the sealing order applicable to the appeal record. The Court of Appeal dismissed the motions. Argued Date 2023-12-12 Keywords Criminal law - Canadian charter (Criminal), Procedure - Criminal law — Charter of Rights — Procedure — Informer privilege — Order that proceedings be held in camera and sealing order — Whether trial judge can proceed outside justice system, completely and totally in camera, without putting together record or revealing very existence of court proceedings, contrary to open court principle protected by s. 2(b) of Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms — Whether, even though police informer privilege is absolute, its unrestrained interpretation may displace constitutional principle of open court proceedings, as Court of Appeal suggested — In addition to identity and list of information that would automatically identify informer, for which there is absolute protection, what test and framework should apply to permit adversarial proceeding in order to decide what other information might identify police informer — When determining facts that may be published while still protecting police informer's identity, whether judge who hears application should order that interested third parties be notified and have opportunity to be heard on these matters — Whether Court of Appeal erred in refusing to partially unseal its record on ground that this exercise seemed unworkable. Notes (Quebec) (Criminal) (By Leave) (Publication ban in case) (Sealing order) (Certain information not available to the public) 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).

Bombardier inc. entered into a procurement contract with the respondent branch of the Greek government (HMOD) for ten firefighting amphibious aircraft. There was also an Offsets contract by which Bombardier committed to offset programs inviting Greek suppliers as subcontractors for the work, for a total credited value of 110% of the main contract. Bombardier was to pay up to 10% of this amount as liquidated damages if the Offsets contract was not fulfilled, which was secured by a letter of guarantee with the appellant. Bombardier arranged a corresponding letter of counter-guarantee issued by National Bank of Canada in favour of the appellant. A dispute arose under the Offsets contract. Bombardier filed a request for arbitration under the rules of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) in Paris. It later amended its request to include the issue of whether the Offsets contract was null and void for violating the principle of the free movement of goods under the laws of the European Union. Although at one point HMOD made an undertaking not to seek payment under the letter of guarantee while arbitration was pending, it later demanded payment of the US $13,868,354 from the appellant under the letter of guarantee. Bombardier sought and received interim injunctions against payment from Quebec courts and through an Interim Order of the ICC Arbitral Tribunal, and the appellant obtained an interim injunction from a Greek court. When a further injunction was denied by a Greek court, and with the imminent release of the ICC Arbitral Tribunal Award, HMOD served the appellant with an Extrajudicial Invitation Protest, ordering it, under penalty of law, to make payment under the letter of guarantee. Shortly after the appellant paid HMOD, the Final Award of the ICC Arbitral Tribunal was released, ruling that the Offsets Contract, including its terms pertaining to the liquidated damages and to a letter of guarantee, violated EU law and was null and void ab initio. When National Bank refused payment to the appellant under the letter of counter-guarantee, the appellant sought recovery through the courts of Quebec. The Superior Court of Quebec confirmed its jurisdiction and rejected the appellant's demand for payment under the letter of counter-guarantee on the basis of the fraud exception. It held that the letter of counter-guarantee was unenforceable and enjoined National Bank from paying pursuant to it. The court homologated the ICC Arbitral Tribunal Final Award and ordered the HMOD to comply with it. The Quebec Court of Appeal confirmed the trial court decision, except to strike out that part of the trial judgment ordering HMOD to comply with the Final Arbitral Award. Argued Date 2023-11-14 Keywords Commercial law - Commercial law — Banks and banking operations — Letters of credit — Bank's obligation to pay on presentation of letter of guarantee and counter-guarantee — Fraud exception — Scope and availability of exception — Jurisdiction of Quebec courts — What are the proper limits to the fraud exception to the autonomous nature of letters of credit — Could the Quebec courts rule that the appellant's conduct amounted to bad faith when it abided by the judgments rendered by the court of competent jurisdiction — How is risk to be apportioned between the parties to a complex commercial transaction scheme utilizing letters of credit — Bank of Nova Scotia v. Angelica-Whitewear Ltd., [1987] 1 S.C.R 59. Notes (Quebec) (Civil) (By Leave) 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).

Jacques Delisle is a Canadian lawyer who served as a judge on the Quebec Court of Appeal from 1992 to 2009. In 2010, he was arrested and then accused of murdering his wife on November 12, 2009.  -K&O   Rate, Review and Subscribe on the platforms of your choice. Check us out on Instagram to join in the discussions about the case! Comment on the case related post, we can't wait to hear your thoughts. @podcastbyproxy Intro music made by: https://soundcloud.com/aiakos    Sources: Jacques Delisle had mistress, court told at trial of former judge accused of murdering wife, Marie-Nicole Rainville | National Post Ex-Quebec judge charged with murder | CBC News Former Que. judge's mistress testifies at his murder trial | CTV News Mistress of former Quebec judge on trial for wife's murder says she loved him | Globalnews.ca Ex-judge's trial told he had mistress when wife was killed | CBC News Quebec judge accused of killing wife had a mistress, court hears - The Globe and Mail Secretary of former judge accused of murder details their love affair - The Globe and Mail Jacques Delisle | Murderpedia, the encyclopedia of murderers Quebec judge Jacques Delisle found guilty of murdering wife | Globalnews.ca Retired judge found guilty of murdering wife - The Globe and Mail Judge found guilty in rare murder trial; killed wife, court says | Globalnews.ca 2012 QCCS 1921 (CanLII) | R. v. Delisle | CanLII 2013 QCCA 952 (CanLII) | Delisle v. R. | CanLII 2012 QCCA 1250 (CanLII) | Delisle v. R. | CanLII 2016 QCCS 6299 (CanLII) | R. v. Delisle | CanLII Former Quebec judge convicted of killing his wife could get a new trial - The Globe and Mail Former Quebec judge convicted of killing wife liberated ahead of new murder trial | CBC News Justice minister orders new trial for ex-Quebec judge convicted in wife's killing | CKPGToday.ca Former Quebec judge Jacques Delisle won't face new murder trial, remains free | CTV News Crown appeals stay of proceedings in case of Quebec judge accused of killing wife | CTV News No 2nd trial for ex-Quebec judge once convicted in wife's death | CBC News Crown given more time to consider retrial for retired Quebec judge accused of murdering wife | CBC News Crown makes case Jacques Delisle's wife didn't commit suicide | CBC News Court overturns stay granted to 88-year-old former Quebec judge in wife's killing | CBC News  

Jacques Delisle is a Canadian lawyer who served as a judge on the Quebec Court of Appeal from 1992 to 2009. In 2010, he was arrested and then accused of murdering his wife on November 12, 2009.  -K&O   Rate, Review and Subscribe on the platforms of your choice. Check us out on Instagram to join in the discussions about the case! Comment on the case related post, we can't wait to hear your thoughts. @podcastbyproxy Intro music made by: https://soundcloud.com/aiakos    Sources: Jacques Delisle had mistress, court told at trial of former judge accused of murdering wife, Marie-Nicole Rainville | National Post Ex-Quebec judge charged with murder | CBC News Former Que. judge's mistress testifies at his murder trial | CTV News Mistress of former Quebec judge on trial for wife's murder says she loved him | Globalnews.ca Ex-judge's trial told he had mistress when wife was killed | CBC News Quebec judge accused of killing wife had a mistress, court hears - The Globe and Mail Secretary of former judge accused of murder details their love affair - The Globe and Mail Jacques Delisle | Murderpedia, the encyclopedia of murderers Quebec judge Jacques Delisle found guilty of murdering wife | Globalnews.ca Retired judge found guilty of murdering wife - The Globe and Mail Judge found guilty in rare murder trial; killed wife, court says | Globalnews.ca 2012 QCCS 1921 (CanLII) | R. v. Delisle | CanLII 2013 QCCA 952 (CanLII) | Delisle v. R. | CanLII 2012 QCCA 1250 (CanLII) | Delisle v. R. | CanLII 2016 QCCS 6299 (CanLII) | R. v. Delisle | CanLII Former Quebec judge convicted of killing his wife could get a new trial - The Globe and Mail Former Quebec judge convicted of killing wife liberated ahead of new murder trial | CBC News Justice minister orders new trial for ex-Quebec judge convicted in wife's killing | CKPGToday.ca Former Quebec judge Jacques Delisle won't face new murder trial, remains free | CTV News Crown appeals stay of proceedings in case of Quebec judge accused of killing wife | CTV News No 2nd trial for ex-Quebec judge once convicted in wife's death | CBC News Crown given more time to consider retrial for retired Quebec judge accused of murdering wife | CBC News Crown makes case Jacques Delisle's wife didn't commit suicide | CBC News Court overturns stay granted to 88-year-old former Quebec judge in wife's killing | CBC News  

Elias Makos is joined by Caroline Codsi, Founder & Chief Equity Officer, Women in Governance and Jonathan Kalles, Senior Consultant at McMillan Vantage and former advisor to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. Justin Trudeau and Sophie Grégoire Trudeau  have announced their separation after 18 years of marriage A court has ruled that Quebec's English school board reform is unconstitutional NDG's flooding victims are threatening a class action lawsuit against the city

Fair dealing is a limitation and exception to the exclusive rights granted by copyright law to the author of a creative work. Fair dealing is found in many of the common law jurisdictions of the Commonwealth of Nations. Fair dealing is an enumerated set of possible defenses against an action for infringement of an exclusive right of copyright. Unlike the related United States doctrine of fair use, fair dealing cannot apply to any act which does not fall within one of these categories, although common law courts in some jurisdictions are less stringent than others in this regard. In practice, however, such courts might rule that actions with a commercial character, which might be naïvely assumed to fall into one of these categories, were in fact infringements of copyright, as fair dealing is not as flexible a concept as the American concept of fair use. There are similar limitations and exceptions to copyright, such as the right to quote, also in the Berne Convention and in the laws of civil law jurisdictions. By country. United States. The parallel concept in United States copyright law is fair use. The term "fair dealing" has a different meaning in the U.S. It is a duty of full disclosure imposed upon corporate officers, fiduciaries, and parties to contracts. In the reported cases, it usually arises in the context of the "implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing", which underlies the tort cause of action for insurance bad faith. Canada. The Canadian concept of fair dealing is similar to that in the UK and Australia. The fair dealing clauses of the Canadian Copyright Act allow users to engage in certain activities relating to research, private study, education, parody, satire, criticism, review, or news reporting. With respect to criticism, review, and news reporting, the user must mention the source of the material, along with the name of the author, performer, maker, or broadcaster for the dealing to be fair. Prior to 2011, fair dealing in Canada was not definitely found to contain exceptions for parody (unlike fair use in the United States), but the Copyright Act has since been amended to include parody and satire (along with educational use) under its fair dealing provisions. Previously, a Quebec Court of Appeal in Les productions Avanti Cine Video v Favreau (4 August 1999) had recognized that parody could potentially be a 'critique', but it refused to recognize the exception in that circumstance. The 2004 ruling by the Supreme Court of Canada in CCH Canadian Limited v Law Society of Upper Canada has gone far in clarifying the concept of fair dealing in Canada. In considering fair dealing the Court makes the following general observation: It is important to clarify some general considerations about exceptions to copyright infringement. Procedurally, a defendant is required to prove that his or her dealing with a work has been fair; however, the fair dealing exception is perhaps more properly understood as an integral part of the Copyright Act than simply a defense. Any act falling within the fair dealing exception will not be an infringement of copyright. The fair dealing exception, like other exceptions in the Copyright Act, is a user's right. In order to maintain the proper balance between the rights of a copyright owner and users' interests, it must not be interpreted restrictively. Furthermore, by taking "a liberal approach to the enumerated purposes of the dealing", the Court has made fair dealing more flexible, reducing the gap between this provision and US fair use. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

(PUBLICATION BAN) After a trial in the Court of Québec, the respondent, Olivier Chatillon, was convicted of one count of sexual assault of a child. The trial judge held that the prosecution's case could be based on the admissions made to the professionals who had assessed him, although he had met with them during an entirely voluntary therapeutic process to receive treatment for problems associated with substance abuse and sexual deviance. The Court of Appeal, for the reasons given by Vauclair J.A. and concurred in by Healy J.A., granted the motion for leave to appeal, allowed the appeal and acquitted the respondent. It declared that the admissions were inadmissible in evidence based on its analysis of the Wigmore criteria for privilege. Mainville J.A., dissenting, would have dismissed the respondent's appeal on the ground that the admissions were admissible because they were not privileged. By consenting to the disclosure of his admissions, the respondent had expressly waived their confidentiality. Argued Date 2023-03-15 Keywords Criminal law - Evidence, Admissibility - Criminal law — Evidence — Admissibility — Admissions — Wigmore test — Whether majority of Quebec Court of Appeal erred in law in finding respondent's admissions inadmissible on ground that they were privileged under Wigmore test. Notes (Quebec) (Criminal) (As of Right) (Publication ban in case) 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).

(PUBLICATION BAN IN CASE) The respondent pleaded guilty to a charge of sexual interference committed against a minor under the age of 16 between August 1, 2013 and July 19, 2015. During that period, he and the complainant had full sexual intercourse four times. He also pleaded guilty to a charge of child luring arising from interaction with the complainant on social media between February 25 and September 13, 2015. The trial judge sentenced the respondent to imprisonment for 10 months on the count of sexual interference and for 5 months concurrent on the count of child luring. She also found that the mandatory minimum sentence of one year of imprisonment provided for in s. 172.1(2)(a) Cr. C. for the offence of child luring was disproportionate in view of the circumstances in which it had been committed in this case and the respondent's own circumstances, and that it was therefore contrary to s. 12 of the Charter. As a result, she declared it to be of no force or effect with respect to the respondent. The majority of the Quebec Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal from the sentence of imprisonment for child luring and from the declaration that the minimum sentence was of no force or effect. Levesque J.A., dissenting, would have allowed the appeal, increased the sentence for child luring from 5 to 12 months and set aside the declaration that the minimum sentence was of no force or effect. Argued Date 2023-02-15 Keywords Canadian charter (Criminal) - Criminal law, Sentencing - Charter of Rights — Criminal law — Sentencing — Mandatory minimum sentence — Whether majority of Court of Appeal erred in law in downplaying gravity of offence of child luring based on considerations not relevant for sentencing purposes — Whether majority erred in law in finding that once underlying offence (in this case sexual interference) has been committed, subsequent interaction is less serious, even though it has same objective — Whether s. 172.1(2)(a) Cr. C. is contrary to s. 12 of Charter — If so, whether it is appropriate and reasonable limit prescribed by law that can be demonstrably justified in free and democratic society in accordance with s. 1 of Charter — Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, s. 172.1(2)(a). Notes (Quebec) (Criminal) (By Leave) (Publication ban in case) 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 2017, the AMF brought an action before the FMAT alleging that the appellants participated in a transnational pump and dump scheme by improperly influencing or manipulating the price of a stock in contravention of the Quebec Securities Act, CQLR, c. V-1.1. According to the AMF, the appellants, who are residents of B.C., made financial transactions through offshore companies incorporated in several countries with bank accounts in Europe. AMF alleged that they acted in concert to acquire the shares of a Nevada company (Solo), give it a legitimate face and promote its business for the purpose of fraudulently increasing the value of its shares and then selling them for a profit, for distribution among themselves. Solo's shares are traded on an over-the-counter market in New York. The AMF alleged that at all material times, Solo was under the direction of a Québec resident and was a reporting issuer in Québec with a business address in Montreal. It also alleged that the misleading press releases and promotional materials, a portion of which originated in Montreal, were accessible to Québec residents and that approximately fifteen investors in Québec lost a total of $5,000 as a result of the activities. AMF's action sought to have the FMAT order the appellants to cease any activity in respect of a transaction in securities; prohibit them from acting as directors or officers of an issuer, dealer, adviser or investment fund manager for five years; and impose administrative penalties on them, all pursuant to ss. 265, 273.3, 195.2, 199.1(1) and 273.1 of the Securities Act. The appellants brought preliminary motions for declinatory exceptions arguing that the FMAT was without jurisdiction. The FMAT denied the appellants' motions and confirmed its jurisdiction to hear the action. The Quebec Superior Court dismissed the application for judicial review, and the Quebec Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. Argued Date 2023-01-18 Keywords Constitutional law - Private international law, Extraterritoriality, Legislation, Interpretation, Administrative law, Boards and tribunals, Jurisdiction - Constitutional law — Constitutional applicability — Private international law — Extraterritoriality — Jurisdiction of Québec Court — Legislation — Interpretation —Administrative law — Boards and Tribunals — Jurisdiction — Did the Court of Appeal err in deciding that the provisions of the C.C.Q. setting out the International Jurisdiction of Québec Authorities (articles 3134 to 3145) do not apply to administrative proceedings before the Financial Markets Administrative Tribunal (FMAT) — Did the Court of Appeal err in deciding that the FMAT can assert adjudicative jurisdiction over out-of-province defendants based on legislative or territorial jurisdiction — Did the Court of Appeal err in affirming the FMAT's jurisdiction over the application by the Autorité des Marchés Financiers (AMF) against Sharp — Are the provisions of the C.C.Q. governing the International Jurisdiction of Québec Authorities applicable to administrative proceedings before a Québec tribunal in the context of disputes relating to the implementation of provincial laws concerning property and civil rights — If the provisions of the C.C.Q. are not applicable, must the Court's jurisdiction be founded on the presence of specific and predetermined presumptive connecting factors relating to the alleged violations or is it sufficient for the Court to find some form of connection deemed sufficient between Québec and the overall context within which the violations took place — Is the test met in the circumstances of this case — Can article 3148 C.C.Q. be applied by analogy to ground the jurisdiction of Québec courts and tribunals in proceedings of a different nature than a personal action of patrimonial nature — Can article 3136 C.C.Q. apply to the present action in the absence of a request to this effect before the FMAT and in the absence of any evidence as to the impossibility that the Appellants' alleged conduct be adjudicated elsewhere. Notes (Quebec) (Civil) (By Leave) Language Floor 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 2017, the AMF brought an action before the FMAT alleging that the appellants participated in a transnational pump and dump scheme by improperly influencing or manipulating the price of a stock in contravention of the Quebec Securities Act, CQLR, c. V-1.1. According to the AMF, the appellants, who are residents of B.C., made financial transactions through offshore companies incorporated in several countries with bank accounts in Europe. AMF alleged that they acted in concert to acquire the shares of a Nevada company (Solo), give it a legitimate face and promote its business for the purpose of fraudulently increasing the value of its shares and then selling them for a profit, for distribution among themselves. Solo's shares are traded on an over-the-counter market in New York. The AMF alleged that at all material times, Solo was under the direction of a Québec resident and was a reporting issuer in Québec with a business address in Montreal. It also alleged that the misleading press releases and promotional materials, a portion of which originated in Montreal, were accessible to Québec residents and that approximately fifteen investors in Québec lost a total of $5,000 as a result of the activities. AMF's action sought to have the FMAT order the appellants to cease any activity in respect of a transaction in securities; prohibit them from acting as directors or officers of an issuer, dealer, adviser or investment fund manager for five years; and impose administrative penalties on them, all pursuant to ss. 265, 273.3, 195.2, 199.1(1) and 273.1 of the Securities Act. The appellants brought preliminary motions for declinatory exceptions arguing that the FMAT was without jurisdiction. The FMAT denied the appellants' motions and confirmed its jurisdiction to hear the action. The Quebec Superior Court dismissed the application for judicial review, and the Quebec Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. Argued Date 2023-01-18 Keywords Constitutional law - Private international law, Extraterritoriality, Legislation, Interpretation, Administrative law, Boards and tribunals, Jurisdiction - Constitutional law — Constitutional applicability — Private international law — Extraterritoriality — Jurisdiction of Québec Court — Legislation — Interpretation —Administrative law — Boards and Tribunals — Jurisdiction — Did the Court of Appeal err in deciding that the provisions of the C.C.Q. setting out the International Jurisdiction of Québec Authorities (articles 3134 to 3145) do not apply to administrative proceedings before the Financial Markets Administrative Tribunal (FMAT) — Did the Court of Appeal err in deciding that the FMAT can assert adjudicative jurisdiction over out-of-province defendants based on legislative or territorial jurisdiction — Did the Court of Appeal err in affirming the FMAT's jurisdiction over the application by the Autorité des Marchés Financiers (AMF) against Sharp — Are the provisions of the C.C.Q. governing the International Jurisdiction of Québec Authorities applicable to administrative proceedings before a Québec tribunal in the context of disputes relating to the implementation of provincial laws concerning property and civil rights — If the provisions of the C.C.Q. are not applicable, must the Court's jurisdiction be founded on the presence of specific and predetermined presumptive connecting factors relating to the alleged violations or is it sufficient for the Court to find some form of connection deemed sufficient between Québec and the overall context within which the violations took place — Is the test met in the circumstances of this case — Can article 3148 C.C.Q. be applied by analogy to ground the jurisdiction of Québec courts and tribunals in proceedings of a different nature than a personal action of patrimonial nature — Can article 3136 C.C.Q. apply to the present action in the absence of a request to this effect before the FMAT and in the absence of any evidence as to the impossibility that the Appellants' alleged conduct be adjudicated elsewhere. Notes (Quebec) (Civil) (By Leave) 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).

By Order in Council 1288 2019 of December 18, 2019, the Quebec government submitted the following question to the Quebec Court of Appeal: Is An Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families, S.C. 2019, c. 24, ultra vires the Parliament of Canada under the Constitution of Canada? The Court of Appeal answered that the Act, which came into force on January 1, 2020, is constitutional, except for ss. 21 and 22(3), which are not. It found that the pith and substance of the Act is to ensure the well being of Indigenous children by fostering culturally appropriate services that will reduce their over representation in provincial child welfare systems. The well being of Indigenous persons is part of the essence of the federal head of power set out in s. 91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1867, and the national principles stated in general terms in the Act are compatible with Quebec's child welfare legislation. The Court of Appeal also held that the right of self government in relation to child and family services falls within s. 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. Examining the framework established by the Act for circumscribing the exercise of this generic Aboriginal right, the court found that the aim of s. 21 is to make the doctrine of federal paramountcy applicable to Indigenous laws. Because this alters the fundamental architecture of the Constitution, s. 21 is ultra vires. The same is true of s. 22(3), which provides that Indigenous laws prevail over any conflicting or inconsistent provisions of provincial legislation. Section 91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1867 does not authorize Parliament to give absolute priority to an Aboriginal right. Argued Date 2022-12-07 Keywords Constitutional law - Division of powers, Aboriginal peoples (s. 35), Aboriginal rights, Self-government - Constitutional law — Division of powers — Pith and substance — Aboriginal peoples — Aboriginal rights — Self government — Child and family services — Whether An Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families, S.C. 2019, c. 24, is ultra vires Parliament of Canada under Constitution of Canada — Constitution Act, 1867, s. 91(24) — Constitution Act, 1982, s. 35. Notes (Quebec) (Civil) (As of Right) Disclaimers This podcast is created as a public service to promote public access and awareness of the workings of Canada's highest court. It is not affiliated with or endorsed by the Court. The original version of this hearing may be found on the Supreme Court of Canada's website. The above case summary was prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch).

After a trial in the Court of Québec, the appellant, Mikerlson Vernelus, was convicted of possession of a firearm and breach of a recognizance. A vehicle with the appellant and two other individuals in it had been stopped by the police and the appellant had been arrested for possession of cannabis. During the search incident to the arrest, the police had found a firearm in a bag belonging to the appellant. Testing of that weapon had found DNA only from the vehicle's other occupant. The trial judge rejected the appellant's testimony, as she did not find it credible. She then held that the defence as a whole did not raise any reasonable doubt as to knowledge, control and possession of the weapon found, including the appellant's consent. The judge also noted that the fact that the appellant was calm when the weapon was found confirmed his knowledge that the weapon was hidden in his bag, which was under his control. The Quebec Court of Appeal, for the reasons given by Moore J.A. and concurred in by Pelletier J.A., dismissed the accused's appeal based on the unreasonableness of the verdict. The majority explained that the offence of possession of a firearm is grounded in control and knowledge. The trial judge had found from the evidence that these elements were established beyond a reasonable doubt, and it was open to her to make such a finding. First, the bag in which the weapon was found was the appellant's bag, the weapon was not visible from the outside and was in the centre of the bag with clothing around it, and the bag was close to the appellant. These facts established the appellant's control of the weapon. Second, the judge could infer from these indicia that the appellant knew of the weapon's presence and thus that he was guilty. The fact that the appellant had not placed the weapon in the bag himself did not matter. The prosecution could establish, and had established here, that the weapon had not been placed in the bag without the appellant's knowledge. The majority explained that, at the third step of R. v. W.(D.), [1991] 1 S.C.R. 742, a possible, speculative inference that amounts to pure conjecture is not sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt. Schrager J.A., dissenting, would have set aside the judgment and substituted acquittals on the offences of possession of a firearm and breach of a recognizance. In his view, the verdict was unreasonable because the trial judge had misapplied the third step of R. v. W.(D.), [1991] 1 S.C.R. 742. In light of the possibility that the firearm had been placed in the bag without the appellant's knowledge, which was a reasonable inference from the evidence, the appellant had not been given the benefit of the reasonable doubt to which he was entitled because the evidence did not reasonably support the guilty verdict. Argued Date 2022-12-06 Keywords Criminal law - Appeals, Evidence, Unreasonable verdict - Criminal law — Appeals — Evidence — Reasonable inference — Verdict — Unreasonable verdict — Whether majority of Quebec Court of Appeal erred in law in holding that trial judge had not made error and had not reached unreasonable verdict by finding that appellant had possession of firearm for which he was charged, even though that inference was not only reasonable one that could be drawn from evidence or from lack of evidence. Notes (Quebec) (Criminal) (As of Right) Disclaimers This podcast is created as a public service to promote public access and awareness of the workings of Canada's highest court. It is not affiliated with or endorsed by the Court. The original version of this hearing may be found on the Supreme Court of Canada's website. The above case summary was prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch).

This episode features a conversation about private international law hosted by Gabriel Poliquin (Olthuis van Ert) with retired Supreme Court of Canada Justice Louis LeBel and Paul-Erik Veel (Lenczner Slaght). Marking the 10th anniversary of the foundational Supreme Court of Canada Club Resorts v Van Breda decision (written by the Honourable Louis Lebel on behalf of the Court) – which brought greater certainty to the question of when Canadian courts will assume civil jurisdiction, the guests discuss the positive nature of conflict of laws rules, the influence of civil law judges and the evolution of private international law in the internet age.The Honourable Louis LeBel was appointed a justice of the Quebec Court of Appeal in 1984, and was appointed to the Supreme Court of Canada in 2000, retiring in 2014. He is now counsel at Langlois in Montreal and Quebec City. He received an honorary doctorate of laws degree from Laval University in 2001 and from the University of Ottawa in 2010, was awarded both the Medal of the Quebec City Bar and the Medal of the Quebec Bar, and was named a Companion of the Order of Canada in 2017. He has been an honorary member of the American College of Trial Lawyers since 2004. Paul-Erik Veel is a partner at Lenczner Slaght in Toronto, where he practices commercial litigation with a focus on class actions. He appears regularly before Courts across the country, including at the Supreme Court of Canada.  Paul-Erik is known for his groundbreaking use of legal data analytics to inform the practice of litigation, for which he was named one of the Top 25 Most Influential Lawyers of 2022 by Canadian Lawyer Magazine. In addition to his many activities, he also lectures in private international law at the University of Toronto. Paul-Erik clerked at the Supreme Court of Canada from 2009 to 2010 for the Honourable Louise Charron. Gabriel Poliquin is counsel at Olthuis van Ert based in Ottawa. He focuses his practice on all aspects of civil and commercial litigation but with a special focus on public law including proceedings against the Crown. Mr. Poliquin is a trained mediator and offers alternative dispute resolution services in civil and commercial matters. When not acting in public or commercial law matters, Gabriel teaches private international law as a lecturer at the University of Ottawa's Faculty of Law. Gabriel clerked at the Supreme Court of Canada from 2010 to 2011 for the Honourable Louis LeBel.Land AcknowledgementThe Advocates' Society acknowledges that our offices, located in Toronto, are on the customary and traditional lands of the Mississaugas of the Credit, the Haudenosaunee, the Anishinabek, the Huron-Wendat and now home to many First Nations, Inuit, and Metis peoples.  We acknowledge current treaty holders, the Mississaugas of the Credit and honour their long history of welcoming many nations to this territory. While The Advocates' Society is based in Toronto, we are a national organization with Directors and members located across Canada in the treaty and traditional territories of many Indigenous Peoples. We encourage our members to reflect upon their relationships with the Indigenous Peoples in these territories, and the history of the land on which they live and work. We acknowledge the devastating impacts of colonization, including the history of residential schools, for many Indigenous peoples, families, and communities and commit to fostering diversity, equity, and inclusiveness in an informed legal profession in Canada and within The Advocates' Society.

Following the enactment in 2018 of the Cannabis Act, S.C. 2018, c. 5, by the federal government and the Cannabis Regulation Act, CQLR, c. C-5.3, by the province of Quebec, the appellant, Janick Murray-Hall, brought an action in the Quebec Superior Court challenging the constitutional validity of ss. 5 and 10 of the Cannabis Regulation Act, which completely prohibit the possession of cannabis plants and the cultivation of cannabis for personal purposes in Quebec. He sought a declaration that those provisions are ultra vires the provincial legislature or, in the alternative, that they are of no force or effect because of the application of the doctrine of federal paramountcy. The Quebec Superior Court allowed the appellant's application and declared that ss. 5 and 10 of the Cannabis Regulation Act are constitutionally invalid. The Quebec Court of Appeal was of the view that the provisions are constitutionally valid and operative. It unanimously allowed the appeal of the Attorney General of Quebec and set aside the trial judgment. Argued Date 2022-09-15 Keywords Constitutional law - Division of powers - Constitutional law — Division of powers — Double aspect doctrine — Cooperative federalism — Doctrine of federal paramountcy — Constitutionality of Quebec statute prohibiting possession of cannabis plants and personal cultivation of cannabis for personal purposes — Whether Quebec Court of Appeal judges erred in law in finding ss. 5 and 10 of Cannabis Regulation Act, CQLR, c. C-5.3, constitutionally valid — Whether Court of Appeal's judgment must therefore be reversed — Cannabis Regulation Act, CQLR, c. C-5.3, ss. 5, 10. Notes (Quebec) (Civil) (By Leave) Disclaimers This podcast is created as a public service to promote public access and awareness of the workings of Canada's highest court. It is not affiliated with or endorsed by the Court. The original version of this hearing may be found on the Supreme Court of Canada's website. The above case summary was prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch).

In this episode, Mike discusses the Quebec Court of Appeal decision R. v. Leventis, 2022 QCCA 291  where a panel of three  judges had to determine whether an arrest for drug possession was justified based on an anonymous tip of drug trafficking, along with suspicious observations, when viewed through the lens of the officer's experience. Also examined in this episode is the extent to which an anonymous tip is scrutinized and the role an officer's experience plays in the reasonable grounds analysis.  "Experience is the hardest kind of teacher. It gives you the test first and the lesson afterward.” ~ Oscar WildeNote: The court's decision was rendered in French and additional details were taken from the trial court's rulings.Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at legalissuesinpolicing@gmail.com

This episode of Canada's Court is Her Majesty versus Marc-André Boulanger. The issue in this case focuses on s. 11(b) of the Charter. Specifically, the Supreme Court of Canada considered whether two particular periods of delay, 84 and 112 days respectively are to be attributed to defense due to their conduct. In Boulanger, an 11(b) application was brought by the defense, as a result 32 months net delay. After analyzing, although without great detail the case's history, the lower court granted the motion for a stay of proceedings pursuant to 24(2) of the Charter. The Crown appealed to the Quebec Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal, dismissed the appeal, coming to the same conclusion, however through different analysis. Justice Chamberland dissented, giving the Crown a right to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.

On the evening of January 29, 2017, the Respondent, 27-year-old Alexandre Bissonnette, left home with two firearms and ammunition, heading to the Great Mosque of Québec. On arrival, he fired at the worshippers for 2 minutes, resulting in fatalities and severe injuries. He would go on to plead guilty on 12 counts, including six of first-degree murder. At sentencing, Mr. Bissonnette challenged the constitutional validity of s. 745.51 empowering a judge to order parole ineligibility periods of 25 years for each murder, to be served consecutively,The sentencing judge concluded the provision infringes ss. 12 and 7 of the Charter, and that the limits on the protected rights had not been shown to be justified in a free and democratic society. He found the appropriate remedy would be to “read in” a new wording that would allow a court to impose consecutive periods of less than 25 years. Mr. Bissonnette appealed to the Quebec Court of Appeal, which unanimously held that s. 745.51 does infringes ss. 12 and 7 of the Charter. However, the Court found that the constitutional incompatibility identified by the sentencing judge goes to the very heart of the provision and that reading in is, therefore, not appropriate. It accordingly declared s. 745.51 of the Criminal Code is invalid and of no force or effect. As a result, it ordered a total period of parole ineligibility of 25 years.

This week on Legally Speaking with Michael Mulligan:The leaked draft decision on abortion from the US Supreme Court has raised questions concerning the law in Canada. For 100 years in Canada, from 1869 until 1969, having or performing an abortion was a criminal offence in Canada. In 1969 the Criminal Code was amended to permit abortions but only when a committee of doctors certified that a woman's life or health was in danger. As “health” was not defined, the interpretation of this exception was inconsistent between hospitals. Dr. Morgentaler was an abortion advocate and openly acknowledged performing hundreds of abortions without the approval of a committee of other doctors. He was repeatedly charged with performing abortions but was acquitted on each occasion by juries.Juries are not required to give reasons for their verdict and can apply community standards to criminal prosecutions by refusing to convict. Crown Counsel appealed one of the jury acquittals, and the Quebec Court of Appeal substituted a conviction. This resulted in public outrage and eventually the “Morgentaler Amendment” to the Criminal Code, which, in 1975, removed the authority of Courts of Appeal to enter a conviction where a jury finds someone not guilty. Following this amendment, a Court of Appeal can only order a new trial.Also, in 1975, Dr. Morgentaler appealed his conviction to the Supreme Court of Canada, arguing that the criminal code law restricting abortion was unconstitutional. Because this was prior to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, he was unsuccessful. The Supreme Court of Canada held that the law was valid. This decision was two years after the US Supreme Court decided Roe vs. Wade. In 1988 Dr. Morgentaler was back in the Supreme Court of Canada, again arguing that the 1969 Criminal Code restrictions on abortion were unconstitutional. This time, he was successful. The Charter became part of the Canadian Constitution in 1982. As a result, in 1988, a majority of the Supreme Court of Canada found that the abortion offence in the Criminal Code violated section 7 of the Charter, which guarantees that “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.” Conservative governments made two subsequent attempts to pass legislation to restrict abortion. The second attempt passed in the House of Commons but resulted in a tie vote in the Senate. Pursuant to the rules of the Senate, a tie vote does not pass, and, as a result, the new Criminal Code restrictions on abortion did not become law. As a result, there are no federal laws in Canada restricting abortion, and it is dealt with like any other medical procedure. Also, on the show, a protester charged with criminal contempt for allegedly breaching an injunction relating to blocking logging in the Fairy Creek area was found not guilty. The Crown must prove that the accused knew about the injunction to be convicted of criminal contempt. While the injunction was posted on the internet, there was no evidence the accused had seen it. The man was not physically blocking the road to the logging area. Instead, he crossed the road twice while banging a drum. The RCMP had read out a summary of the injunction telling people they couldn't blockade the road. The accused was arrested 15 seconds later.There wasn't evidence that the accused had been told the injunction prohibited him from crossing the road. Finally, the legal approach to assessing the credibility of an accused person in a criminal case is discussed. Follow this link for links to the cases discusse

This week on Hull on Estates, Nick Esterbauer and Tsvetomira Niklin discuss electronic wills in the context of the Quebec Court of Appeal's decision in , and review differences in inter-provincial legislation in relation to the acceptance and/or potential for validation of digital testamentary documents.

On the evening of January 29, 2017, the Respondent, 27-year-old Alexandre Bissonnette, left home with two firearms and ammunition, heading to the Great Mosque of Québec. On arrival, he fired at the worshippers for 2 minutes, resulting in fatalities and severe injuries. He would go on to plead guilty on 12 counts, including six of first-degree murder. At sentencing, Mr. Bissonnette challenged the constitutional validity of s. 745.51 empowering a judge to order parole ineligibility periods of 25 years for each murder, to be served consecutively, The sentencing judge concluded the provision infringes ss. 12 and 7 of the Charter, and that the limits on the protected rights had not been shown to be justified in a free and democratic society. He found the appropriate remedy would be to “read in” a new wording that would allow a court to impose consecutive periods of less than 25 years. Mr. Bissonnette appealed to the Quebec Court of Appeal, which unanimously held that s. 745.51 does infringes ss. 12 and 7 of the Charter. However, the Court found that the constitutional incompatibility identified by the sentencing judge goes to the very heart of the provision and that reading in is, therefore, not appropriate. It accordingly declared s. 745.51 of the Criminal Code is invalid and of no force or effect. As a result, it ordered a total period of parole ineligibility of 25 years.

Live from Las Vegas the latest episode tackles changes in the way Statistics Canada measures the basket of food as part of its CPI index, a pending lawsuit in Quebec aimed at beef processors, and how getting Russian food products, or ingredients, off the grocery shelf may be harder than you think!Our very special guest on this episode is Lyne Castonguay, President and Chief Operating Officer, Dairy Division (USA), Saputo.  An accomplished Canadian executive fluent in business strategies on both sides of the border, we talk to Lyne about culture (and not just yogurt!) and establishing a business that can take on the huge opportunity of the U.S. food service and consumer dairy business.  With 29 dairy plants, an experience team and a roster of great new products, in a wide-ranging interview Lyne shares her plans for growth and success for all team members. With Michael travelling on business out of the country we skipped Trying Stuff this episode but will return with more great products to test, share our insights and sample for lunch! Relevant Linkshttps://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/220316/dq220316a-eng.htm?HPA=1&indid=3665-1&indgeo=0https://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory/beef-giant-jbs-pay-525m-settle-price-fixing-82654864https://globalnews.ca/news/8721936/quebec-class-action-beef-suppliers-price-fixing/ About LyneLyne Castonguay graduated from the Université de Moncton with a Bachelor of Business Administration and furthered her education at Harvard Business School and Emory University. Lyne previously held executive positions with a major Canadian food retailer, as well as senior roles at a large retailer both in Canada and in the United States. She has over 20 years of experience in manufacturing, retail, e-commerce and services. She joined Saputo in February 2021 as Deputy President and Chief Operating Officer, Dairy Division (USA). Following a successful transition period, Lyne was appointed President and Chief Operating Officer, Dairy Division (USA), on November 4, 2021. About UsDr. Sylvain CharleboisDr. Sylvain Charlebois is a Professor in food distribution and policy in the Faculties of Management and Agriculture at Dalhousie University in Halifax. He is also the Senior Director of the Agri-food Analytics Lab, also located at Dalhousie University. Before joining Dalhousie, he was affiliated with the University of Guelph's Arrell Food Institute, which he co-founded. Known as “The Food Professor”, his current research interest lies in the broad area of food distribution, security and safety. Google Scholar ranks him as one of the world's most cited scholars in food supply chain management, food value chains and traceability.He has authored five books on global food systems, his most recent one published in 2017 by Wiley-Blackwell entitled “Food Safety, Risk Intelligence and Benchmarking”. He has also published over 500 peer-reviewed journal articles in several academic publications. Furthermore, his research has been featured in several newspapers and media groups, including The Lancet, The Economist, the New York Times, the Boston Globe, the Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, BBC, NBC, ABC, Fox News, Foreign Affairs, the Globe & Mail, the National Post and the Toronto Star.Dr. Charlebois sits on a few company boards, and supports many organizations as a special advisor, including some publicly traded companies. Charlebois is also a member of the Scientific Council of the Business Scientific Institute, based in Luxemburg. Dr. Charlebois is a member of the Global Food Traceability Centre's Advisory Board based in Washington DC, and a member of the National Scientific Committee of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) in Ottawa.Michael LeBlanc  is the Founder & President of M.E. LeBlanc & Company Inc and a Senior Advisor to Retail Council of Canada as part of his advisory and consulting practice.   He brings 25+ years of brand/retail/marketing & eCommerce leadership experience, and has been on the front lines of retail industry change for his entire career.  Michael is the producer and host of a network of leading podcasts including Canada's top retail industry podcast,       The Voice of Retail, plus  Global E-Commerce Tech Talks  ,      The Food Professor  with Dr. Sylvain Charlebois and now in its second season, Conversations with CommerceNext!  You can learn more about Michael   here  or on     LinkedIn. Be sure and check out Michael's latest adventure for fun and influencer riches - Last Request Barbecue,  his YouTube BBQ cooking channel!

On the evening of January 29, 2017, the respondent, Mr. Bissonnette, who was 27 years old at the time, left home with two firearms and ammunition and headed to the Great Mosque of Québec. On arriving there, he fired on the worshippers who were present. He pleaded guilty on 12 counts, including six of first degree murder. Before the sentencing judge, the respondent challenged the constitutional validity of s. 745.51 of the Criminal Code, a provision under which, in the event of multiple murders, a judge may, in addition to imposing a life sentence, order parole ineligibility periods, to be served consecutively, of 25 years for each murder. The sentencing judge concluded that the section in question infringes ss. 12 and 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and that the limits on the protected rights had not been shown to be justified in a free and democratic society. He found that the appropriate remedy would be to read in a new wording that would allow a court to impose consecutive periods of less than 25 years. The Quebec Court of Appeal reached the same conclusions as regards the constitutionality of the provision, but it was of the view that the constitutional incompatibility identified by the sentencing judge goes to the very heart of the provision and that reading in is therefore not appropriate. It accordingly declared that s. 745.51 of the Criminal Code is invalid and of no force or effect. As a consequence, it ordered a total period of parole ineligibility of 25 years in this case. Argued Date 2022-03-24 Keywords Canadian charter (Criminal) - Constitutional law, Criminal law, Cruel and unusual treatment or punishment (s. 12), Right to life, liberty and security of person (s. 7) - Charter of Rights and Freedoms — Constitutional law — Criminal law — Cruel and unusual treatment or punishment — Right to life, liberty and security of person — Accused pleading guilty on six counts of first degree murder and six counts of attempted murder — Accused challenging constitutional validity of provision allowing judge to add one 25 year period before eligibility for parole for each first degree murder — Whether s. 745.51 of Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C 46, infringes s. 7 of Charter — Whether it infringes s. 12 of Charter — If so, whether it constitutes reasonable limit prescribed by law that can be demonstrably justified in free and democratic society under s. 1 of Charter - Whether 50 year period of ineligibility for parole is just and appropriate punishment in this case — Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, ss. 1, 7, 12 Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C 46, s. 745.51. Notes (Quebec) (Criminal) (By Leave) 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).

Unpacking the Quebec Court of Appeal's decision on the Liberal government's Indigenous child welfare law. Why both Canada and Quebec are taking the fight to the country's highest court. That's on this episode of Nation to Nation.

In the Court of Québec, the respondent, Daniel Brunelle, was convicted of aggravated assault, assault with a weapon and possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose. The offences arose out of an episode of road rage. The trial judge found that the respondent had not acted in self defence. With regard to the second condition for self defence, she did not believe the respondent's claim that he had used force for the purpose of defending himself. She found that he had instead retaliated and taken revenge. The Quebec Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the guilty verdicts and ordered a new trial. In the majority's view, the trial judge had erred in analyzing the second condition for self defence by finding that the accused had sought to take revenge and had done more than defend himself. The judge had not taken account of how quickly everything happened and had not considered all the evidence. Bachand J.A., dissenting, would have dismissed the appeal on the basis that there was no reason to intervene. In his view, the issue was whether the trial judge's finding that the respondent had acted out of vengeance was sufficiently supported by the evidence and involved no palpable and overriding error. He found that this was the case. Argued Date 2022-03-15 Keywords Criminal law - Appeals, Evidence, Unreasonable verdict, Defences, Self-defence - Criminal law — Appeals — Evidence — Unreasonable verdict — Defence — Self defence — Whether majority erred in law in holding that verdict was unreasonable even though trial judge's findings of fact were supported by evidence. Notes (Quebec) (Criminal) (As of Right) Disclaimers This podcast is created as a public service to promote public access and awareness of the workings of Canada's highest court. It is not affiliated with or endorsed by the Court. The original version of this hearing may be found on the Supreme Court of Canada's website. The above case summary was prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch).

In today's episode: 1. The current crisis in Ukraine may be a triggering event for employees, especially those with connections to the country.  The Ukraine Crisis Has People Rattled. Here's How to Talk About Fear at Work | Inc.com2. Ontario is planning to improve day job protection for military reservists. Ontario Improving Day Job Protection for Military Reservists | Ontario Newsroom3. Anxieties about microaggressions rise as in-person work returns. Now there is a tool that can educate individuals and combat those microaggressions. Anxieties about microaggressions rise as in-person work returns | CBC News4.  The Quebec Court of Appeal recently ruled that banning front-line managers from unionizing unduly infringed on their freedom of association. New labour relations legal landscape on the horizon following Quebec Appeal Court decision - The Lawyer's Daily 5. GM takes new approach to worker diversity as Oshawa production returns. GM takes new approach to worker diversity as Oshawa production returns | CTV News 6.  Lululemon aiming to train all employees in mental-health first aid. Lululemon aiming to train all employees in mental-health first aid | Benefits Canada.com7. GoodLife Fitness has let go of nearly 500 employees across Canada due to COVID-19 restrictions cutting down on business  GoodLife Fitness Canada lays of 480 instructors | CTV News8. Tomorrow is March 8, the International Women's day. This year's theme is Break the Bias. IWD: IWD 2022 campaign theme: #BreakTheBias (internationalwomensday.com)

The respondents, Mélanie Ste Marie, Michel Ste Marie, Dax Ste Marie and Richard Felx, were charged with conspiracy to launder proceeds of crime, laundering proceeds of crime, and commission of an offence for a criminal organization. In the Court of Québec, the respondents moved for a stay of proceedings for unreasonable delay. The Court of Québec found that s. 11(b) of the Charter had been infringed but declined to stay the proceedings. It convicted the respondents of the offences charged. On appeal from the guilty verdicts, the Quebec Court of Appeal had to determine whether the Court of Québec had erred in declining to stay the proceedings after finding unreasonable delay. The Court of Appeal allowed the respondents' appeals, quashed the convictions and ordered a stay of proceedings. Argued Date 2022-02-10 Keywords Canadian charter (Criminal) - Criminal law, Right to be tried within a reasonable time (s. 11(b)), Remedy - Charter of Rights Criminal law Right to be tried within a reasonable time Remedy Whether Quebec Court of Appeal erred in law in granting final stay of proceedings without addressing point of law validly raised by Crown, respondent in Court of Appeal, namely proper attribution of delay relating to extraordinary recourses exercised by defence Whether Quebec Court of Appeal erred in law in reviewing only part of legal framework of decision on motion for stay of proceedings under s. 11(b) of Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, though framework ill defined by trial judge. Notes (Quebec) (Criminal) (By Leave) 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).

The respondent, Marc-André Boulanger, faced four charges laid under, among other things, the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. The Court of Québec granted the respondent's motion for a stay of proceedings for unreasonable delay under s. 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and entered a stay of proceedings on the four charges. The trial judge found a net delay of 32 months and 10 days, which was therefore above the presumptive ceiling of 30 months. The majority of the Quebec Court of Appeal dismissed the prosecution's appeal from the Court of Québec's decision. Although the majority's analysis differed from that of the trial judge with regard to the delay related to the unavailability of the respondent's lawyer, the majority was of the view that the trial judge had correctly stayed the proceedings and agreed with the judge's overall assessment of the main cause of the delay in the progress of this case: the absence of a carefully crafted prosecution plan. Chamberland J.A., dissenting, would have allowed the appeal, set aside the Court of Québec's decision, dismissed the respondent's motion for a stay of proceedings, and referred the case back to the same judge for a decision on the outcome of the trial. In his view, 84 days had to be added to the defence delay, resulting in a net delay below the applicable 30 month ceiling. Argued Date 2022-02-09 Keywords Canadian charter (Criminal) - Right to be tried within a reasonable time (s. 11(b)), Criminal law - Charter of Rights - Right to be tried within a reasonable time - Criminal law - Whether majority erred in law in refusing to subtract 84 day delay for which respondent admitted being responsible and which was attributable to his conduct - Whether majority erred in law in interfering with trial judge's decision to attribute to respondent 112-day delay caused by fact that his lawyer was unavailable, even though that finding was within judge's discretion. Notes (Quebec) (Criminal) (As of Right) Disclaimers This podcast is created as a public service to promote public access and awareness of the workings of Canada's highest court. It is not affiliated with or endorsed by the Court. The original version of this hearing may be found on the Supreme Court of Canada's website. The above case summary was prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch).

The respondent, Patrick Dussault, was charged with both second-degree murder and arson. At the police station, Mr. Dussault chose to speak to Mr. Benoit, a lawyer he did not know, whom he selected from a list provided by police. During the initial phone call, Mr. Benoit informed Mr. Dussault, that in light of the serious nature of the charges, he, Mr. Benoit, would come to the station and speak to Mr. Dussault in person. Nevertheless, Mr. Dussault began to speak to Mr. Benoit in confidence by telephone. Just over an hour later, Mr. Benoit arrived at the police station, but was not permitted to speak with Mr. Dussault because, in the opinion of investigators, the respondent had already exercised his right to counsel during the initial phone call. The investigators consulted with prosecuting counsel, who advised them that, in her opinion, Mr. Dussault had in fact exercised his right to counsel. The investigators maintained their initial position and did not allow further consultation between Mr. Dussault and Mr. Benoit at the station. Thereafter, Mr. Dussault was interrogated and made an incriminating statement to police.Prior to trial, at a voir dire, Mr. Dussault moved to exclude said statement under s. 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, alleging a violation of his s. 10(b) Charter right to counsel. The trial judge admitted the statements into evidence and a jury found Mr. Dussault guilty of second-degree murder. The narrow issue on appeal was whether Mr. Dussault had exhausted his right to counsel at the conclusion of his initial telephone call with his lawyer, or whether Mr. Dussault should have been allowed to consult with Mr. Benoit, in person, at the police station, in order to fully exhaust his right to counsel. The Quebec Court of Appeal unanimously allowed the appeal and quashed the jury's guilty verdict.The Crown was granted leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The respondent, a private company, was issued a statement of offence under the Quebec Building Act for carrying out certain construction work as a contractor without holding a current licence for that purpose. Under s. 197.1 of the Act, the penalty for such an offence is a mandatory fine for a minimum amount that varies depending on who the offender is, that is, whether the offender is a natural person or a legal person. The respondent filed a notice of intention to question the constitutionality of the fine provided for in s. 197.1, arguing that the fine violated its right to be protected against “any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment” under s. 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. At trial, the Court of Québec held that it was not necessary to rule on the issue of the application of s. 12 of the Charter to legal persons, because the minimum fine at issue was at any rate not cruel and unusual. The respondent was found guilty, and a fine of $30,843 was imposed. On appeal, the Quebec Superior Court affirmed that decision and added that legal persons such as the respondent could not benefit from the protection of s. 12 of the Charter. A majority of the Quebec Court of Appeal set aside the decisions of the lower courts and held that s. 12 of the Charter can in fact apply to legal persons. The matter was returned to the trial court to rule on the specific issue of the fine provided for in s. 197.1 of the Act. Argued Date 2020-01-22 Keywords Canadian charter (Non-criminal) - Constitutional law, Cruel and unusual treatment or punishment (s. 12) - Charter of Rights - Cruel and unusual treatment or punishment - Application of Charter rights to legal persons - Statement of offence issued against business corporation for carrying out construction work as contractor without holding current licence - Provincial building legislation providing for mandatory minimum fine of $30,843 - Whether legal person can benefit from protection of section 12 of Charter - Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s. 12 - Building Act, CQLR, c. B 1.1, ss. 46, 197.1. Notes (Quebec) (Criminal) (By Leave) 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).

(PUBLICATION BAN IN CASE) In February 2011, the respondent, J.F., was charged with several offences involving sexual acts committed between 1986 and 2001. While judgment was reserved, the Supreme Court rendered its decision in R. v. Jordan, 2016 SCC 27, [2016] 1 S.C.R. 631. Following the first trial, J.F. was acquitted in February 2017. The total delay between the charges and the verdict was 72 months and 2 days. In June 2018, the Quebec Court of Appeal ordered a new trial because of errors of law in the trial judgment. The delay between that order and the anticipated end of the new trial was 10 months and 5 days. J.F. filed a motion for a stay of proceedings under s. 11(b) of the Charter in December 2018. The trial judge found that the delay for the first trial was unreasonable and that J.F. had never waived his right to be tried within a reasonable time. She granted the motion and ordered a stay of proceedings in February 2019. In a unanimous judgment, the Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's order, but for reasons that differed from those of the trial judge. Argued Date 2021-11-30 Keywords Canadian charter (Criminal) - Criminal law - Charter of Rights - Criminal law - Tried within reasonable time - Trial delay - Ceilings - Whether failure to raise, at first trial or on appeal, possible infringement of right to be tried within reasonable time amounts to waiver of right to raise it during subsequent trial - Whether Jordan framework should be used to consider trial delay for previous trial, delay that is completely over and can no longer be remedied - Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s. 11(b). Notes (Quebec) (Criminal) (By Leave) (Publication ban in case) 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).

Theme- The Role and Utility of Comparative Law *What is Comparative Law? * Is it really necessary to Compare Legal Systems? What role does the comparison serve? * How do cultures shape legal systems? In the latest Episode of TCLF One-On-One, Mr. Sébastien Lafrance answers these questions and much more. Guest Profile: Sébastien Lafrance is a Crown Counsel (Prosecutor) for the Public Prosecution Service of Canada. He was a part-time Professor of Law at the University of Ottawa. He clerked for the Honourable Marie Deschamps of the Supreme Court of Canada and for the Honourable Michel Robert, Chief Judge of the Quebec Court of Appeal. Sébastien also worked as counsel for the Law Branch of the Supreme Court of Canada. He has published book chapters and articles (in Canada, France, India, Indonesia, the United Kingdom and Vietnam; in English, French and Vietnamese) on criminal, constitutional, international and also labour law, one of which was awarded a national first prize. He won the Charles-Rousseau Public International Law Moot Court competition with his teammates and has lectured on various legal topics around the world. Sébastien completed the courses for a Master in Law, Laval University, and studied international law at the Hague Academy of International Law, Netherlands. He holds a degree in law (LLB) from the University of Quebec at Montreal, a degree in political science (BSc) from the University of Montreal and he also studied Russian and Slavic Studies at McGill University. He is a polyglot, recently learning Indonesian and Mandarin Chinese intensively. Sébastien is a member of the Law Society of Ontario and of the Law Society of Quebec. TCLF One-On-One - Through the series, TCLF team aims to interact with the best legal professionals from India and abroad on diverse themes of law.

In 2011 two men in Quebec wagered $517,000 on a best-of-three rock, paper, scissors game. The man the lost took out a mortgage on his home to pay the debt but was successful in having the gambling contract, and mortgage set aside.In Quebec, private contractual disputes are deal with pursuant to the Civil Code of Quebec, rather than common law principles of contract, that apply in other Canadian provinces. The Civil Code of Quebec specifies that gambling contracts are only valid if they relate to activities “requiring only skill or bodily exertion on the part of the parties” rather than to chance. In addition, the amount of the wager must not be excessive.The trial judge who originally decided the case found that rock, paper, scissors was not simply a game of luck because it called upon the skill of the parties in terms of the speed of execution, sense of observation, and in selecting strategic sequences. The Quebec Court of Appeal disagreed with the trial judge and concluded that rock, paper, scissors was a game involving a large part of chance, and not only the skill or bodily exertion of the parties. Both the trial judge, and the Court of Appeal, agreed however that the amount wagered was excessive and so the gambling contract, and resulting mortgage, was set aside. Also discussed are continued efforts, by British Columbia courts, to manage the dislocation caused by COVID-19. While the Court of Appeal will be back to full operation using Zoom for hearings, the trial courts are still trying to find ways to manage witnesses, juries, and other practical issues, safely. The Provincial Court has now adjourned cases that were set until July 3rd. In an effort to mitigate what will otherwise be a potentially unmanageable backlog, the court will begin dealing with an increased number of less urgent matters by telephone, including criminal sentencing cases where a jail sentence is not being requested. Judges will also engage in pre-trial telephone hearings in an effort to encourage the resolution of outstanding criminal and family law cases. Finally, a recently released family law decision from the BC Supreme Court involved the assignment of a replacement judge to decide a case, after the original trial judge became incapable of continuing after hearing a seven-day trial. The replacement judge was able to listen to audio recordings of the trial, review the transcripts and exhibits, and hear submissions from the lawyers involved. The replacement judge pointed out that while they were not able to observe the demeanour of witnesses in order to assess creditability, that this is only a small part of making this assessment, and that based on the material and audio recordings they were able to accomplish what was required without needing to start the trial over. Follow this link for a transcript fo the show and links to the cases discussed.

This week, Kim gives a haircut from a distance and Isa reconnects with her high school crush.  WE ARE DRINKING More beer ! (Corona life) Isa is drinking Capitaine Simcoe https://troududiable.com/bieres/capitaine-simcoe/?lang=en and gave it a 2.5/5 WE ARE TALKING ABOUT Extreme Ironing and The Mutilated Currency Division 500G $ Rock, Paper, Scissors Bet ruled invalid in Quebec Court. https://torontosun.com/news/weird/500g-rock-paper-scissors-bet-ruled-invalid-quebec-court/wcm/6f1656d0-5edf-47a3-817a-4dfeb19a398f

Police officers in Montreal believed that a warning picture on an escalator, suggesting that people hold the handrail, made this a legal requirement. The police officers ordered a woman to hold onto the handrail and, when she refused, they arrested her, placed her in handcuffs, searched her purse, and issued her a ticket for not holding onto the handrail.After being acquitted of the non-existent offence of failing to hold onto the handrail, the woman sued the police officers. The woman was unsuccessful both at trial and on appeal to the Quebec Court of Appeal. Both of these courts held that the woman was the author of her own misfortunate and that she should have just obeyed the police officers. The Supreme Court of Canada, however, disagreed and awarded the woman $20,000 plus court costs, as a result of her unlawful arrest.The Supreme Court of Canada concluded that people should not have to put up with being unlawfully arrested, and such actions should not be trivialized. Also discussed are various ways people can breach the terms of their ICBC insurance coverage. The Insurance (Vehicle) Act and corresponding regulations set out the terms of ICBC insurance coverage, much like an insurance contract would in the case of private insurance. Part 5 of the Insurance (Vehicle) Act regulations set out numerous ways in which you can breach the terms of your ICBC insurance. If you are in breach you effectively have no insurance and can be personally responsible for paying for any loss or damage you cause.Some of the ways you can breach your ICBC insurance coverage are relatively clear: a conviction for a Criminal Code driving offence, or driving while prohibited, for example. Other ways you can end up in breach include more ambiguous and include activates such as operating a vehicle “for an illicit or prohibited trade or transportation” or “if the insured is not authorized and qualified by law to operate the vehicle”. These may be relevant in the context of ride-sharing regulations.Finally, a Law Society citation for a lawyer who conducted a press conference is discussed. The Law Society rules respecting the need to keep client information confidential, and circumstances in which a lawyer is permitted to provide information to the media are discussed. Follow this link, for a transcript of the show and links to the cases discussed.

On this episode of the podcast, Hilary Young, Oliver Pulleyblank and Robert Danay discuss the recent decision of the Quebec Court of Appeal in 9147-0732 Québec inc v Directeur des poursuites criminelles et pénales, 2019 QCCA 373 in which a majority of the Court found that corporations enjoy protection against cruel and unusual punishment under s. 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Rob mentions an interesting blog post on the case by Leonid Sirota. In obiter dicta, Oliver discusses his favourite spring beverage and issues a challenge to Hilary to identify the perfect spring beer. Find us on @twitter or Facebook Send us your voice memo recorded questions, comments or replies to robert@stereo-decisis.com Become a patron of the pod on Patreon and leave us a rating and a review wherever you got this podcast.

This week is the 40-year anniversary of the Quebec Court of Appeal's decision in the Menard case. This case is arguably one of the most important animal law cases ever decided in Canada, and has a bigger impact on animals that any other case in the country, defining what it means for suffering to be unnecessary.

This week is the 40-year anniversary of the Quebec Court of Appeal's decision in the Menard case. This case is arguably one of the most important animal law cases ever decided in Canada, and has a bigger impact on animals that any other case in the country, defining what it means for suffering to be unnecessary.

Make BC 'Site C' free: A new summary of research into the mega-hydro project produces a flood of arguments against its completion. Will British Columbia's coalition government listen? Home is where the hurt is: Rules preventing non-Indigenous people from residing on the Kahnawake reserve are now being challenged in court by some of its Mohawk members. Absent audience: Canada’s auditor general claims politicians are basically ignoring his reports on indigenous issues. Returning are Brock Pitawanakwat, assistant professor of Indigenous studies at the University of Sudbury, and Ken Williams, assistant professor with the University of Alberta’s department of drama. // Our theme is 'nesting' by birocratic.

Supreme Court of Canada upholds religious freedom. One Sunday afternoon in 1949, approximately 30 Jehovah’s Witnesses took part in a religious service at the house of Esymier Chaput in Chapeau, Quebec. Suddenly, three provincial police officers entered the house, broke up the service and confiscated a Bible, hymn books, a number of religious pamphlets and the collection box. The officers then dispersed the group and escorted the minister out of town. Chaput took the police to court, only to lose at both the trial division and the Quebec Court of Appeal. However, on November 15, 1955, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the police had acted illegally and criminally – and awarded Chaput $2,000. Justice Taschereau wrote, “In our country, there does not exist a state religion. No one is required to follow someone else’s belief. All religions are on the same footing, and all Catholics, as well as others such as Protestants, Jews or other adherents of different religious faiths, have complete freedom to believe as they wish. The conscience of everyone is a personal affair and not that of anyone else. It would be terrible to think that a majority could impose their religious views on a minority.” See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.