Kyla Lee

In this episode, Kyla Lee from Acumen Law Corporation examines a case arising from the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision striking down consecutive periods of parole ineligibility for multiple murder convictions. Once those sentences were declared unconstitutional, individuals already serving them began seeking remedies. The legal question became not whether the sentences were unconstitutional, but how courts should efficiently correct them. Some courts required offenders to bring new constitutional applications and litigate the issue at the trial level, while others pointed to simpler processes that had previously been used when sentencing laws were found unconstitutional.

Unconstitutional Sentences: Cases That Should Have Gone to the Supreme Court of Canada, But Didn’t!Read More »

In this episode, Kyla Lee from Acumen Law Corporation examines a case involving immigration sponsorship, religious freedom, and the recognition of non-traditional forms of parenthood. The case concerned a child who had been abandoned or left without parental care and was taken in through a form of guardianship recognized in Islamic tradition. The Canadian family sought to sponsor the child as they would a biological or legally adopted child, but immigration rules did not recognize the relationship in the same way. The case raised important questions about whether Canada’s immigration system adequately accommodates different cultural and religious approaches to parenthood and family formation.

Discrimination in Immigration Sponsorship: Cases That Should Have Gone to the Supreme Court of Canada, But Didn’t!Read More »

Welcome to “Cases That Should Have Gone to the Supreme Court of Canada, But Didn’t!”

In this episode, Kyla Lee from Acumen Law Corporation examines a case involving fresh evidence on appeal and how existing evidentiary rules interact with the unique procedures that govern sexual assault trials. Canadian courts have long applied the Palmer test when deciding whether fresh evidence should be admitted on appeal. The test generally requires that the evidence could not have been discovered through reasonable diligence and that it could reasonably have affected the outcome of the case. This case raised the question of whether that traditional approach is sufficient when the fresh evidence relates to material that would have required a screening application before being admitted at trial.

Fresh Evidence on Appeal: Cases That Should Have Gone to the Supreme Court of Canada, But Didn’t!Read More »