cases that should have gone to the supreme court

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 manslaughter case in which the accused argued that his severe drug addiction at the time of the offence should be considered a mitigating factor at sentencing. The court rejected the argument, ruling that addiction was not a basis for reduced moral blameworthiness. The Supreme Court of Canada declined to hear the case, missing a key opportunity to clarify the role addiction plays in sentencing and whether it should be treated as a mental health condition that lessens moral culpability.

Drug Addiction & Sentencing: 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 contract dispute in the energy sector where one party argued that the shared intentions during negotiation should override the written terms of the agreement. The court disagreed, holding that even if both parties had a different understanding during negotiation, the plain language of the contract governed. The Supreme Court of Canada declined to hear the appeal—missing an important opportunity to revisit how intention interacts with written terms in modern contract law.

Contracts & Interpretation: 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 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 »

Exclusion From Juries: 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 case involving a denied adjournment request in the context of mental and physical health. During a real estate dispute, a buyer asked the court to delay a summary trial due to health-related limitations. The adjournment was denied, and the trial proceeded. The buyer lost and was ordered to pay over $150,000. On appeal and in a leave application to the Supreme Court of Canada, they argued that Canada needs a clearer, more consistent framework for health-related adjournment requests. The Court declined to hear the case—missing a critical opportunity to address fairness and access to justice for individuals with disabilities.

Adjournments for Health Reasons: 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 breaks down a surprising contract case involving the use of a thumbs-up emoji. A buyer sent contract terms for the sale of flax, and the seller responded with a thumbs-up emoji. The buyer believed this created a binding agreement. The seller disagreed and refused to deliver the flax. The court found that the emoji did indicate agreement and upheld the contract. The Court of Appeal affirmed the decision. The Supreme Court of Canada declined to hear the case, leaving unresolved questions about how modern digital communication fits into established legal principles.

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