As we rely more on home delivery, it’s important to consider what can happen between the moment a package leaves the sender and when it arrives in your hands. This week’s Weird and Wacky brings you stories that highlight how some individuals take advantage of this vulnerable journey.
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 dives into the case of Jordan Peterson, a controversial figure who was disciplined by the College of Psychologists of Ontario for making scientifically inaccurate and offensive statements. Peterson’s appeal was rejected by the courts, and his application for leave to the Supreme Court of Canada was denied.
On this episode Kyla and Paul look at disturbing data about Alco-Sensor results between the new and old models. They also point out the problems with the Ohio Stop.
Welcome to this week’s Weird and Wacky Wednesday, where we explore some of the most baffling ways people try to outwit the system. These stories go from high tech to low places. It just goes to show just how far some will go to break the rules.
In this episode, Kyla Lee from Acumen Law Corporation explores a civil forfeiture case involving Mr. Liu, which raised critical issues about judicial efficiency, Charter rights, and the use of taxpayer resources in the justice system.
Key Points Discussed:
Civil Forfeiture and Charter Rights: Mr. Liu challenged the evidence in his civil forfeiture proceedings, arguing that it was obtained in violation of his Charter rights. He sought to have his Charter application heard before being subjected to examination, arguing that this would save time and resources if the evidence were excluded.
Judicial Efficiency: The case raised significant concerns about the efficient use of judicial resources, as continuing with lengthy civil proceedings before addressing Charter breaches could result in wasted time and taxpayer money.
Court’s Discretion: The BC Supreme Court and Court of Appeal denied Mr. Liu’s application to bifurcate the proceedings, stating that it was a matter of judicial discretion. The Supreme Court of Canada ultimately denied leave to appeal, leaving unresolved issues about how best to manage judicial resources in complex cases.
Why This Case Matters:
This case touches on the intersection of civil forfeiture law, Charter rights, and the efficient functioning of the justice system. Kyla Lee discusses how bifurcating proceedings and addressing Charter applications first could prevent unnecessary delays and conserve court resources. Despite these concerns, the Supreme Court of Canada chose not to weigh in, missing an opportunity to clarify how judicial resources should be managed in cases like this.
On this long distance episode Kyla and Paul talk all about Ontario. They look at 2 Ontario Court of Appeal decisions and how they overturned favourable decisions.
This week, we’re diving into a whole new realm of bad food decisions. Hold onto your appetites—because this week’s lineup is more likely to make you lose your lunch than enjoy it!
On this special solo host episode, Kyla looks over data to explain why stricter penalties don’t equate to safer driving habits. She also explains why it might be worth disputing traffic camera tickets now.
As students sharpen their pencils and settle into another school year, some school staff seem to have missed the memo on setting a good example. This week’s Weird and Wacky Wednesday explores three back-to-school stories that remind us even the grown-ups can make mistakes. One wonders where to draw the line on anti-social behaviour when it comes to those who are responsible for students.
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 dives into the complex and controversial case of Barton, which has already made its way to the Supreme Court of Canada once before, only to return after a new trial and conviction. The critical issue on this appeal was whether the Alberta Court of Appeal had effectively created two different categories of consent in Canadian law for sexual assault cases—particularly in situations where there is a foreseeable risk of bodily harm.