To support us, please follow us wherever you're listening and visit ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠our website⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ to provide feedback.

Construction Dispute Interim Adjudications: Does the Court of Appeal or Divisional Court have Jurisdiction?

Supreme Advocacy's Court of Appeal Decision of the Week Blog is available on their ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠website⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. 

To support us, please follow us wherever you're listening and visit ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠our website⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ to provide feedback.

Appeals — Jurisdiction — Construction Act

(00:00:39) Judgment of Harrison Young J.A.

(00:01:39) I. Facts – 4

(00:04:46) II. Issues – 13

(00:08:48) III. Analysis – 22

(00:16:58) IV. Disposition – 37

To support us, please follow us wherever you're listening and visit ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠our website⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ to provide feedback.

Psilocybin and the Charter; joint JR’s and appeals.

Mark Mancini's Sunday Evening Administrative Review is available on ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Substack⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠.

(0:00:52) Lance v Canada (Attorney General), 2024 FC 787 (May 24, 2024)

(0:08:05) Casa Loma Residents Association v 555 Davenport Holdings Ltd, 2024 ONSC 2297 (April 18, 2024)

To support us, please follow us wherever you're listening and visit ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠our website⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ to provide feedback.

Criminal law — Evidence — Admissibility — Complainant’s sexual activity

(00:00:48) Summary

(00:00:48) Facts and Procedural History

(00:03:25) Held (Côté and Moreau JJ. dissenting on the appeal)

(00:03:33) Per Wagner C.J. and Karakatsanis, Rowe, Martin, Kasirer, Jamal and O’Bonsawin JJ.

(00:13:24) Per Côté and Moreau JJ. (dissenting on the appeal)

(00:18:12) Reasons for Judgment: O’Bonsawin J. (Wagner C.J. and Karakatsanis, Rowe, Martin, Kasirer and Jamal JJ. concurring)

(00:18:23) I. Overview – 1

(00:21:30) II. Facts – 6

(00:22:36) III. Procedural History – 9

(00:25:13) A. Oral Ruling on Voir Dire, 2021 BCSC 270 (Jenkins J.) – 9

(00:22:38) B. British Columbia Court of Appeal, 2022 BCCA 312, 418 C.C.C. (3d) 169 (Newbury and Fitch JJ.A., Frankel J.A. Dissenting) – 14

(00:27:14) IV. Issues – 17

(00:28:07) V. Analysis – 19

(00:28:09) A. The Standard of Review of Section 276 Decisions – 19

(00:32:35) B. The Use of Other Sexual Activity Evidence for Credibility and Context – 24

(00:35:16) (1) Witness Credibility, Context, and the Permissible Uses of Other Sexual Activity Evidence – 27

(00:41:33) (2) Application to This Case – 37

(00:48:47) (3) Reconsideration of the Pre-trial Ruling – 45

(00:55:30) C. Limitations on Court Openness on Appeals of Section 276 Determinations – 55

(00:59:38) (1) History and Purpose of Section 278.95 – 59

(01:04:10) (2) Text and Legislative Scheme of Section 278.95 – 63

(01:09:12) (3) The Court Has Implied Jurisdiction To Make Orders Limiting Court Openness – 68

(01:11:56) (4) Limiting Court Openness in This Case – 71

(01:19:29) VI. Disposition – 81

(01:20:31) Joint Dissenting Reasons: Côté and Moreau JJ.

(01:20:36) I. Introduction – 83

(01:22:32) II. Evolution of the Evidence and the Record – 87

(01:22:36) A. The Evolution of the Complainant’s Evidence – 87

(01:25:18) B. Discussions at Trial – 93

(01:26:09) III. Standard of Review – 95

(01:28:17) IV. The Trial Judge’s Ability To Revisit a Pre‑trial Ruling – 98

(01:36:57) V. Jurisdiction – 111

(01:41:59) VI. Application – 118

To support us, please follow us wherever you're listening and visit ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠our website⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ to provide feedback.

Criminal law — Evidence — Admissibility — Complainant’s sexual activity

To support us, please follow us wherever you're listening and visit ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠our website⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ to provide feedback.

Applications to Vary: Extensions of Time; Authenticity of Court Order.

Supreme Advocacy's Court of Appeal Decision of the Week Blog is available on their ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠website⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. 

To support us, please follow us wherever you're listening and visit ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠our website⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ to provide feedback.

Civil law — Appeals — Chambers orders

(00:00:48) Summary

(00:01:18) Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Griffin

(00:01:54) I. Background and Procedural History – 4

(00:07:54) II. The Underlying Order under Review – 21

(00:08:53) III. Analysis – 24

(00:10:47) IV. Formalizing Court Orders – 30

(00:16:11) V. Disposition – 42

To support us, please follow us wherever you're listening and visit ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠our website⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ to provide feedback.

Happy Long Weekend to all SEAR readers. This week features cases on correctness review, election financing, and new evidence on judicial review.

Mark Mancini's Sunday Evening Administrative Review is available on ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Substack⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠.

(00:00:55) Canadian Energy Services LP v Canada (Commissioner of Patents), 2024 FC 742 (May 14, 2024)

(00:04:17) Liberal Party of Canada v The Complainants, 2024 BCSC 814 (May 14, 2024)

(00:07:46) Rockcliffe Park Residents Association v City of Ottawa, 2024 ONSC 2690 (May 13, 2024)

To support us, please follow us wherever you're listening and visit ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠our website⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ to provide feedback.

Criminal law — Charge to jury — Co‑principal liability — Group assault

(00:00:47) Summary

(00:00:47) Facts and Procedural History

(00:01:39) Held (Rowe and Jamal JJ dissenting)

(00:01:45) Per Karakatsanis, Martin and Moreau JJ.

(00:06:02) Per Rowe and Jamal JJ. (dissenting)

(00:09:27) Reasons for Judgment: Moreau J. (Karakatsanis and Martin JJ. concurring)

(00:09:34) I. Overview – 1

(00:13:07) II. The Trial Judge’s Instructions on Causation – 7

(00:17:25) III. The Accuracy of the Jury Instructions – 14

(00:17:28) A. Relevant Legal Principles – 14

(00:20:04) B. Application to This Case – 18

(00:26:36) IV. Intervening Acts and Group Assaults – 26

(00:29:08) V. Conclusion – 31

(00:29:13) Dissenting Reasons: Jamal J. (Rowe J. concurring)

(00:29:59) I. The Trial Judge’s Intervening Act Instruction Did Not Properly Instruct the Jury on Legal Causation – 34

(00:38:50) II. The Curative Proviso Does Not Apply – 46

(00:41:15) III. Disposition – 51

To support us, please follow us wherever you're listening and visit ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠our website⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ to provide feedback.

Criminal law — Charge to jury — Co‑principal liability — Group assault