videos

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 »

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 breathalyzer evidence and procedural fairness in impaired driving prosecutions. In most cases, the Crown relies on a certificate to prove a person’s blood alcohol concentration, which becomes conclusive evidence if properly admitted. However, strict procedural timelines apply. The Crown must provide reasonable notice of its intention to rely on the certificate, and the defence must give 30 days’ notice if seeking to cross-examine the technician or analyst. In this case, the certificate was served only seven days before trial. The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal found this acceptable, and the Supreme Court of Canada declined to hear the appeal.

…

Certificate Evidence: 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 unconstitutional strip searches and the appropriate remedy when Charter rights are violated. The case began as a routine traffic stop that escalated into multiple investigations, ultimately leading to the accused being taken into custody and strip searched. At trial, the court found the strip search to be unjustified, unrelated to the investigation, and a serious violation of the accused’s rights, granting a stay of proceedings. The Court of Appeal agreed the search was unconstitutional but overturned the stay, finding that a lesser remedy was appropriate. The Supreme Court of Canada declined to hear the appeal.

…

Strip Searches: 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 power of courts to order lawyers to continue acting for clients. In a class action related to vaccine litigation, a lawyer filed a notice of discontinuance that removed certain plaintiffs from the case. Those plaintiffs later applied to have their claims reinstated, arguing that they had not consented to the discontinuance. The court reinstated the claims and went further, ordering the same lawyer who had filed the discontinuance to continue acting for them. The lawyer objected, arguing that communication problems and professional obligations created an ethical conflict that made it impossible to continue representing the clients. The Supreme Court of Canada declined to hear the appeal.

…

Ordering Lawyers to Act: 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 about delay in civil proceedings and the consequences of failing to advance a lawsuit. In a dispute between two companies, a claim was filed in court but no steps were taken to move the case forward for nine years. As a result, the court dismissed the action for delay. The plaintiff applied to have the dismissal set aside, arguing that the result was unjust, but that request was denied. The decision was upheld on appeal, and the Supreme Court of Canada declined to hear the case.

…

Delay in Civil Matters: 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 internet defamation and the constitutional limits of permanent court ordered restrictions on speech. After an unpleasant experience at a coffee shop, a customer engaged in a sustained and targeted online campaign against a specific location. The conduct included repeated negative reviews, the creation of fake profiles, and continued postings across multiple platforms over a long period of time. A court initially issued an injunction to stop the behaviour. When that injunction was breached, the court imposed a permanent injunction prohibiting the individual from ever expressing opinions about the business again. The Supreme Court of Canada declined to hear the appeal.

…

Online Defamation: 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 unpacks a case involving a police search of a computer that raised major privacy concerns. The accused, facing charges related to online conduct, challenged the broad scope of a search conducted on his seized devices. He argued there should be a distinction between the authority to seize a computer and the authority to conduct a full forensic search of its digital contents. The Supreme Court of Canada declined to hear the case.

…

Computer Searches: 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 explores a case out of Saskatchewan that challenged the constitutionality of mandatory alcohol screening. After being required to provide a breath sample without any suspicion of impairment, the accused argued that this random breath testing violated Charter rights. The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal was split on the decision, with one judge finding the law unconstitutional. Despite the national impact of mandatory screening, the Supreme Court of Canada refused to hear the case.

…

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

…

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