cases that should have gone to the supreme court

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 »

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 evidentiary screening applications in sexual assault trials. Canadian law requires special procedures before certain types of evidence can be introduced, particularly where the evidence relates to a complainant’s sexual history or other highly private information. In this case, the issue was whether evidence of a complainant’s previously expressed sexual attraction could be admitted without first going through a screening application. The trial judge allowed the evidence without requiring the application, and the Court of Appeal upheld that decision.

…

Sexual Assault Trials: 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 international child abduction, refugee claims, and the Hague Convention. Under the Hague Convention, children who are wrongfully removed from one country to another are generally expected to be returned to their home jurisdiction. But this case raised a far more complicated question: what happens when a parent brings a child to Canada and then files a refugee claim on the basis that returning would expose them or the child to danger or persecution?

…

International Child Abduction: 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 another case dealing with unreasonable delay and the ongoing challenges in applying the Jordan framework. The accused was initially successful in arguing that their right to be tried within a reasonable time had been violated at the provincial court level. However, that decision was overturned on appeal. The case turned on how delay was apportioned between the Crown and the defence, and whether courts can rely on speculative reasoning about what could have happened to move a case along more quickly.

…

Unreasonable Delay: 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 the defence of colour-of-right and its potential application in protest-related contempt proceedings. Colour-of-right is typically raised where someone believes they are entitled to property and acts on that belief. In this case, individuals involved in anti-deforestation protests in British Columbia were subject to court injunctions restricting their activities. Some protesters violated those orders and were charged with contempt of court, arguing that their actions were justified because they believed they were protecting land they had a rightful claim to. The courts rejected that argument, raising important questions about the limits of this defence.

…

Colour-Of-Right: 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 delay in criminal trials and whether time taken by judges to decide mid-trial issues should count toward the Jordan ceiling. In a Quebec case, the accused argued that his right to be tried within a reasonable time was breached because the judge took time throughout the trial to rule on interlocutory motions and Charter applications. These pauses extended the proceedings beyond the 18 month ceiling. The Quebec Court of Appeal disagreed, finding that this type of delay did not violate the accused’s rights.

…

Deliberate Delay: 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 jury instructions and the role of addressing myths and stereotypes in criminal trials. A First Nations man, Necan, was charged with an offence allegedly committed after consuming alcohol. The defence requested a specific jury instruction addressing harmful stereotypes about Indigenous people and alcohol use, including the “firewater” myth. The trial judge declined to give that tailored instruction, instead relying on general guidance about avoiding bias. Necan was convicted, and the issue raised important questions about whether generic instructions are enough to guard against prejudice in cases involving historically marginalized groups.

…

Myths & Jury Instructions: Cases That Should Have Gone to the Supreme Court of Canada, But Didn’t!Read More »