Blog

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 protest-related charges during the COVID-19 pandemic. The accused refused to leave a protest area when asked by police and sat down in defiance. He was convicted of multiple offenses, including obstruction and mischief. On appeal, he argued that the convictions violated the “Kienapple principle”—the legal rule that a person should not be convicted of multiple offenses arising from the same act. The Supreme Court of Canada declined to hear the case, missing an important opportunity to clarify how this principle applies to protest-related conduct and constitutionally protected expression.

…

Protests: 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 murder trial where the accused argued that both his mental health struggles and the impact of anti-Black racism should inform his level of moral culpability. The court declined to consider these factors in the way the defence proposed, and the accused received a severe sentence. The Supreme Court of Canada denied leave to appeal—missing an important opportunity to provide clear national guidance on how mental health and systemic racism should be evaluated in criminal trials and sentencing.

…

Mental Health & Anti-Black Racism: 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 discusses a national security case involving a man convicted of terrorism-related offenses after claiming he had only pretended to join the conspiracy in order to defraud others involved. He was disbelieved and convicted—but a central issue in his trial was the heavily redacted disclosure of a national security affidavit. The accused argued that his right to full disclosure was denied. The government claimed national security privilege. The Supreme Court of Canada declined to hear the case—missing a rare and critical opportunity to define how national security privilege should be handled in criminal trials with serious consequences.

…

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