Welcome to “Cases That Should Have Gone to the Supreme Court of Canada, But Didn’t!” Today, Kyla Lee from Acumen Law Corporation discusses a critical extradition case that raises questions about the interpretation of cruel and unusual punishment under Canadian law. Key Points Discussed:In extradition proceedings, Canadian law prohibits extraditing an individual to face a […]
Welcome to “Cases That Should Have Gone to the Supreme Court of Canada, But Didn’t!” Today, Kyla Lee from Acumen Law Corporation discusses an important case about stays of administrative proceedings under appeal, highlighting the broader implications for access to justice and judicial efficiency. Key Points Discussed:A man involved in a disciplinary dispute with the
Today, Kyla Lee from Acumen Law Corporation discusses Duc Tung Hoang v. His Majesty the King, a case that raises critical questions about camera surveillance and its implications for privacy under Canadian law. Key Points Discussed:Police used a pole-mounted surveillance camera, positioned 15–20 feet high, to monitor Mr. Hoang’s residence without a warrant.The camera captured
Welcome to “Cases That Should Have Gone to the Supreme Court of Canada, But Didn’t!” In today’s episode, Kyla Lee from Acumen Law Corporation examines a tragic bus crash case that raises critical issues about product liability, government safety standards, and negligence. Key Points Discussed:The Case: A fatal bus crash on a snowy Christmas Eve
Welcome to “Cases That Should Have Gone to the Supreme Court of Canada, But Didn’t!” In today’s episode, Kyla Lee from Acumen Law Corporation examines a manslaughter case involving Mr. Toth, which raises crucial questions about lay opinions, social media’s influence, and evidentiary standards in court. Key Points Discussed:The Case: Mr. Toth was charged with
Acumen Law Corporation lawyer Kyla Lee gives her take on a made-in-Canada court case each week and discusses why these cases should have been heard by Canada’s highest court: the Supreme Court of Canada.
Welcome to another episode of Cases That Should Have Gone to the Supreme Court of Canada, But Didn’t! In this episode, Kyla Lee from Acumen Law Corporation explores the case of Brandon McNeil, highlighting critical issues around trial delays and judicial discretion under Jordan principles. Key Points Discussed: Trial Delay Due to Illness: After Mr.
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 crucial case involving circumstantial evidence in a sexual assault trial, highlighting issues surrounding consent and the evidentiary standards for intoxication. Key Points Discussed: Circumstantial Evidence in Sexual Assault Cases:
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 significant case involving liability in auto accidents that raises critical questions about ownership and consent. Key Points Discussed: The Accident: The case revolves around an accident that occurred in
Acumen Law Corporation lawyer Kyla Lee gives her take on a made-in-Canada court case each week and discusses why these cases should have been heard by Canada’s highest court: the Supreme Court of Canada. In today’s episode, Kyla Lee from Acumen Law Corporation discusses the unique and fascinating case of Sharon Fox, a lawyer charged
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
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: Why This Case Matters: This case touches on the intersection of civil forfeiture law, Charter rights,
