videos

Defamation: Cases That Should Have Gone to the Supreme Court of Canada, But Didn’t!

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 a defamation lawsuit between a home building company and dissatisfied homeowners. After the homeowners posted negative reviews online, the company sued for defamation. The homeowners responded by seeking to have the case dismissed under British Columbia’s anti-SLAPP legislation, arguing that their posts constituted expression on a matter of public interest. The Supreme Court of Canada declined to hear the case, leaving open significant questions about how far anti-SLAPP protections extend in private disputes.

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

Obstruction of a Police Officer: Cases That Should Have Gone to the Supreme Court of Canada, But Didn’t!

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 an arrest for obstruction in the context of a routine traffic enforcement encounter. A person who was pulled over for a regulatory traffic matter—such as speeding or running a red light—was arrested for obstruction when they attempted to leave. Although the trial judge found the arrest unlawful, the Court of Appeal reversed that decision. The Supreme Court of Canada declined to hear the case, leaving unresolved questions about the scope of police powers in regulatory versus criminal contexts.

Obstruction of a Police Officer: Cases That Should Have Gone to the Supreme Court of Canada, But Didn’t! Read More »

Airbnb Bans: Cases That Should Have Gone to the Supreme Court of Canada, But Didn’t!

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 challenging a provincial Airbnb ban. The applicant, who operated multiple short-term rentals, argued that the new licensing regime violated his Charter rights—specifically, his right to equality under section 15. While the courts rejected the claim and the Supreme Court of Canada declined to hear the case, it raised important questions about the intersection of economic participation, immutable characteristics, and evolving forms of work in the gig economy.

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

Amendments to Canadian Firearms Laws: Cases That Should Have Gone to the Supreme Court of Canada, But Didn’t!

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 reclassification of firearms by the Canadian government, which changed some restricted firearms to prohibited. Firearm owners received notices from the Chief Firearms Officer that they were no longer permitted to possess certain firearms and were instructed to surrender them.

The affected individuals argued that this effectively revoked their firearms licences, which should have triggered review rights in provincial court. However, the courts disagreed, ruling that the issue was about regulatory classification, not revocation, and therefore outside the jurisdiction of the provincial court. The Supreme Court of Canada declined to hear the appeal.

Amendments to Canadian Firearms Laws: Cases That Should Have Gone to the Supreme Court of Canada, But Didn’t! Read More »

Legal Representation: Cases That Should Have Gone to the Supreme Court of Canada, But Didn’t!

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 an extradition case where an accused person was denied an adjournment after switching lawyers shortly before the hearing. Despite the high stakes of facing trial in a foreign country, the court refused to delay the proceeding—prompting a challenge that ultimately failed to reach the Supreme Court of Canada. This case raises fundamental questions about the right to counsel and what fair representation really looks like when timing, preparation, and legal strategy collide.

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

Ostrich Farm Culling: Cases That Should Have Gone to the Supreme Court of Canada, But Didn’t!

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 unique and emotionally charged case involving an ostrich farm in British Columbia. During an avian flu outbreak, the federal government ordered the mass destruction of all ostriches on the farm after a few birds tested positive. The farm owners requested that every bird be tested individually, but their request was denied under existing public health policies. They sought judicial review of the order, but the BC Supreme Court and BC Court of Appeal upheld the decision. The Supreme Court of Canada then declined to hear the case.

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

Requests for Counsel: Cases That Should Have Gone to the Supreme Court of Canada, But Didn’t!

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 an Indigenous woman arrested in a complex murder investigation. During a lengthy police interrogation, she repeatedly asked to speak with counsel again after already having received legal advice earlier in the process. The law currently holds that a second consultation with a lawyer is only required if there’s a significant change in circumstances. But this case raised a crucial question: should that legal framework shift when applied to Indigenous accused persons who face systemic barriers and power imbalances within the justice system? The Supreme Court of Canada declined to hear the case—missing a critical opportunity to address this issue in a meaningful way.

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

Drug Addiction & Sentencing: Cases That Should Have Gone to the Supreme Court of Canada, But Didn’t!

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 »

Contracts & Interpretation: Cases That Should Have Gone to the Supreme Court of Canada, But Didn’t!

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 »

Protests: Cases That Should Have Gone to the Supreme Court of Canada, But Didn’t!

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 »

Scroll to Top
CALL ME NOW