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

Criminal law — Appeals — Standard for appellate intervention — Credibility and reliability assessment

(00:00:20) Reasons for Judgment: Martin J. (Wagner C.J. and Côté, Kasirer, Jamal and O’Bonsawin JJ.)
(00:00:28) I. Introduction – 1
(00:03:13) II. Background – 5
(00:03:14) A. Mr. Kruk – 5
(00:04:15) (1) Trial Decision – 7
(00:06:02) (2) British Columbia Court of Appeal Decision – 9
(00:07:03) B. Mr. Tsang – 10
(00:08:34) (1) Trial Decision – 13
(00:10:04) (2) British Columbia Court of Appeal Decision – 15
(00:10:57) III. Analysis – 16
(00:12:28) A. The Proposed Rule Against Ungrounded Common-Sense Assumptions – 19
(00:19:15) B. The Proposed Rule Against Ungrounded Common-Sense Assumptions Should Not Be Adopted – 27
(00:19:55) (1) The Proposed Rule Is Not a Logical Extension of the Prohibition Against Myths and Stereotypes About Sexual Assault Complainants – 29
(00:21:04) (a) The History of Myths and Stereotypes Against Complainants – 31
(00:31:47) (b) The Proposed Rule Should Not Be Adopted as a Corollary to the Prohibition Against Myths and Stereotypes – 45
(00:32:17) (i) The Proposed Rule Disregards the Distinct Character of Myths and Stereotypes – 46
(00:43:38) (ii) The Accused’s Rights Remain Protected – 58
(00:50:04) (iii) The Difference Between Factual and Legal Speculation – 67
(00:51:38) (2) The Proposed Rule Runs Contrary to Established Standards of Review and Is Counterproductive to Proper Testimonial Assessment – 69
(00:52:55) (a) The Role of Common Sense in Evaluating a Witness’s Testimony – 71
(01:01:22) (b) Established Standards of Review for Credibility and Reliability Assessments – 80
(01:11:16) (3) Summary – 92
(01:17:03) IV. Application – 100
(01:18:13) A. Mr. Kruk – 102
(01:25:17) B. Mr. Tsang – 110
(01:37:26) V. Disposition – 127

(01:37:35) Concurring Reasons: Rowe J.
(01:37:38) I. Overview – 128
(01:42:02) II. Jurisprudential Background – 134
(01:46:02) III. Principles of the Fact-Finding Process – 141
(01:46:38) A. Foundational Concepts – 142
(01:52:20) B. Generalized Expectations in the Fact-Finding Process – 151
(01:58:31) IV. Framework for Appellate Review of the Use of Generalized Expectations in the Fact-Finding Process – 160
(02:01:09) A. Did the Trial Judge Rely on a Generalized Expectation in Their Reasoning Process? – 165
(02:05:17) (1) Materiality and the Curative Proviso – 171
(02:11:56) B. If the Trial Judge Relied on a Generalized Expectation, Was the Expectation Reasonable? – 181
(02:18:54) (1) Question of Law or Fact? – 190
(02:30:59) (2) The “Rules” in JC – 209
(02:34:49) C. Did the Trial Judge Rely on a Generalized Expectation as Itself a Conclusive and Indisputable Fact? – 214
(02:39:23) V. Application to These Appeals – 220
(02:39:36) A. Mr. Kruk – 221
(02:46:57) B. Mr. Tsang – 233
(02:48:52) (1) A Person Would Not Ask To Be Spanked While Engaging in Sexual Foreplay “Out of the Blue” – 236
(02:51:38) (2) A Controlling Person Would Not Refrain From Engaging in Vaginal Intercourse Because of the Absence of a Condom – 240
(02:55:17) (3) A Person Would Not Abruptly and Unceremoniously Leave Another With Whom He Had Engaged in Consensual Sex – 245
(02:58:33) VI. Conclusion – 249

The full recording of this decision as available on dicta premium. Visit our website at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠dicta.dev⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ to start your free trial and take advantage of our limited time offer.

Medical Malpractice: Removing Jury; Providing Adequate Reasons

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.

Jury trial — Removing jury — Adequacy of reasons

(00:00:20) A. Overview – 1
(00:02:09) B. Factual Background – 6
(00:04:17) C. Procedural History & Trial Decisions – 11
(00:07:10) D. Analysis – 17
(00:07:35) (1) The Law on Discharging the Jury and Providing Adequate Reasons – 18
(00:11:24) (2) The Reasons for Discharging the Jury were Inadequate – 25
(00:17:24) (3) A New Trial is Necessary – 35
(00:18:47) E. Conclusion – 38

Visit our website at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠dicta.dev⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ to start your free trial and take advantage of our limited time offer.

Aftermath of SCC Mandate Letters Case

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

(0:00:00) Front Matter

(0:00:42) British Columbia (Minister of Public Safety) v British Columbia (Information and Privacy Commissioner), 2024 BCSC 345 (February 29, 2024)

(0:04:56) Akbari et al v Blenkinsop et al, 2024 ONSC 1184 (February 27, 2024)

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

Constitutional law — Charter of Rights — Search and seizure

(0:00:20) Facts

(0:01:33) Disposition

(0:01:41) Per Karakatsanis, Martin, Kasirer, Jamal and Moreau JJ.

(0:09:08) Per Wagner C.J. and Côté, Rowe and O’Bonsawin JJ. (dissenting)

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

Constitutional law — Charter of Rights — Search and seizure

(00:00:19) Reasons for Judgment: Karakatsanis J. (Martin, Kasirer, Jamal and Moreau JJ. concurring) – 1
(00:00:26) I. Introduction – 1
(00:08:47) II. Background – 15
(00:11:58) III. Decisions Below – 23
(00:12:01) A. Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta – 23
(00:13:00) B. Court of Appeal of Alberta – 25
(00:14:24) IV. Analysis – 28
(00:15:45) A. Legal Framework – 29
(00:17:36) B. The Subject Matter of the Search – 34
(00:22:52) C. Was the Expectation of Privacy Reasonable? – 44
(00:23:30) (1) Control Over the Subject Matter – 46
(00:24:43) (2) The Place of the Search – 49
(00:25:29) (3) The Private Nature of the Subject Matter – 51
(00:37:47) (4) Does the Balance Weigh in Favour of a Reasonable Expectation of Privacy? – 71
(00:49:50) V. Disposition – 92

(00:50:02) Dissenting Reasons: Côté J. (Wagner C.J. and Rowe and O’Bonsawin JJ. concurring) – 93
(00:50:08) I. Introduction – 93
(00:51:31) II. Facts – 96
(00:55:11) III. Judicial History – 104
(00:55:13) A. Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta – 104
(00:57:08) B. Court of Appeal of Alberta – 108
(00:57:10) (1) Majority (Schutz and Crighton JJA) – 108
(00:58:45) (2) Dissent – 110
(01:01:27) IV. Issue – 116
(01:01:40) V. Analysis – 117
(01:04:24) A. Subject Matter of the Search – 122
(01:17:40) B. Objective Reasonableness of the Expectation of Privacy – 141
(01:20:10) (1) Private Nature of the Subject Matter – 147
(01:22:20) (2) Control Over the Subject Matter – 152
(01:24:05) (3) Place of the Search – 156
(01:25:10) (4) Conclusion on Reasonable Expectation of Privacy – 158
(01:29:45) VI. Conclusion – 165

The full recording of this decision as available on dicta premium. Visit our website at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠dicta.dev⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ to start your free trial and take advantage of our limited time offer.

Class Actions: Standing to Appeal; Motions to Quash

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.

Class Actions: Standing to Appeal; Motions to Quash

(0:00:22) Summary

(0:00:45) Reasons for Judgment
(0:00:49) I. Introduction
(0:03:47) II. Background
(0:03:49) A. The Litigation
(0:05:04) B. The Purdue Canada Settlement
(0:06:28) C. The Bankruptcy Proceedings
(0:09:52) D. The Settlement Approval Hearing
(0:12:44) E. Reasons for Judgment
(0:12:56) (1) Intervention Application
(0:17:13) (2) Settlement Approval
(0:19:38) F. The Application
(0:20:09) G. Sequencing Decisions
(0:21:40) H. Positions on Application to Quash the Appeals
(0:23:34) III. Discussion
(0:23:35) A. Should the applications to quash proceed in advance of the appeals?
(0:23:40) (1) Statutory Framework
(0:24:39) (2) Submissions of Lac La Ronge
(0:27:45) (3) Analysis
(0:30:12) B. Does this court have jurisdiction to hear the appeals? If so, should they be quashed in any event?
(0:30:17) (1) Governing Principles
(0:36:26) (2) Submissions of Lac La Ronge
(0:41:06) (3) Analysis
(0:45:41) C. Should this court award costs in favour of the Province and Purdue Canada?
(0:46:27) IV. Conclusion

Visit our website at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠dicta.dev⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ to start your free trial and take advantage of our limited time offer.

Charter values (another one), reasonableness review

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

(0:00:00) Front Matter
(0:00:44) New Blue Ontario Fund v Ontario (Chief Electoral Officer), 2024 ONSC 1048 (February 2, 2022)
(0:07:05) Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) v Abdi, 2024 FC 279 (February 16, 2024) 

The full recording of this decision as available on dicta premium. Visit our website at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠dicta.dev⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ to start your free trial and take advantage of our limited time offer.

Family law: Jurisdiction

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