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

(00:00:42) Summary

(00:30:06) Reasons for Judgment: Kasirer J. (Wagner C.J. and Karakatsanis, Rowe, Martin, Jamal, O’Bonsawin and Moreau JJ. concurring)

(00:30:18) I. Overview – 1

(00:46:25) II. Background – 20

(00:46:27) A. Parties to the Tripartite Agreements – 20

(00:47:32) B. Policing in Indigenous Communities – 22

(00:50:14) C. Framework for Entering Into and Implementing Tripartite Agreements – 25

(00:50:19) (1) Federal Framework – 25

(00:52:52) (2) Quebec Framework – 29

(00:55:40) (3) Implementation of the Agreements – 36

(00:59:24) D. 2004 Agreement in Principle to Enter Into a Treaty – 42

(01:00:14) E. Amended Originating Application and Replies – 43

(01:03:12) III. Judicial History – 47

(01:03:15) A. Quebec Superior Court, 2019 QCCS 5699 (Dufresne J.) – 47

(01:06:21) B. Quebec Court of Appeal, 2022 QCCA 1699 (Bich, Bouchard and Ruel JJ.A.) – 54

(01:07:09) (1) Bouchard J.A., Bich and Ruel JJ.A. Concurring – 55

(01:09:33) (2) Bich J.A., Bouchard and Ruel JJ.A. Concurring – 58

(01:11:38) IV. Parties’ Arguments and Issues on Appeal – 62

(01:17:57) V. Analysis – 71

(01:31:04) A. Bases for Quebec’s Liability – 96

(01:31:07) (1) Good Faith, a Source of Private Law Obligations – 96

(01:38:03) (a) Duties Flowing From the Obligation To Act in Good Faith – 107

(01:43:56) (b) Quebec’s Breach of the Requirements of Good Faith in Negotiations – 113

(02:03:31) (2) The Honour of the Crown, a Source of Public Law Obligations – 140

(02:06:49) (a) Application of the Honour of the Crown to Contractual Undertakings – 146

(02:20:13) (b) Characterization of the Tripartite Agreements – 170

(02:31:27) (c) Obligation Flowing From the Honour of the Crown – 185

(02:36:01) (d) Breach by Quebec of Its Obligation To Conduct Itself Honourably in Performing the Agreements – 193

(02:38:07) B. Appropriate Remedy – 198

(02:41:35) (1) Breach of Good Faith: Restitutio in Integrum – 205

(02:44:37) (2) Breach of the Obligation To Act With Honour: Restoring the Honour of Crown – 210

(03:02:28) VI. Conclusion – 237

(03:04:21) Dissenting Reasons: Côté J.

(03:04:29) I. Overview – 241

(03:12:04) II. Facts and Procedural Context – 251

(03:17:59) III. Analysis – 260

(03:18:01) A. The Principle of the Honour of the Crown Is Implicitly Incorporated Into the Tripartite Agreements – 260

(03:23:46) B. Quebec Undertook To Contribute Financially to the Establishment and Maintenance of the Sécurité Publique de Mashteuiatsh – 268

(03:25:14) (1) Quebec’s Undertaking Flows Strictly From the Tripartite Agreements – 270

(03:31:10) (2) The Federal Policy Cannot Define Quebec’s Undertaking – 279

(03:33:36) (3) The Honour of the Crown Cannot Serve as a Basis for Rewriting the Tripartite Agreements From the Standpoint of Either the Public Law Principle or the Implied Obligation Pursuant to Article 1434 C.C.Q. – 283

(03:40:02) C. Quebec Did Not Act Dishonourably or Abusively – 291

(03:46:15) (1) Quebec’s Additional Measures To Support Mashteuiatsh’s Police Force – 303

(03:51:41) (2) Deference towards Takuhikan’s Contractual and Financial Autonomy – 311

(03:56:46) D. Comments on the Remedy – 317

(04:02:49) IV. Conclusion – 325

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

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

Procedural fairness in indigenous context, study permits.

(00:00:41) Eskasoni First Nation v Canada (Attorney General), 2024 FC 1856 (November 21, 2024)

(00:04:09) Shirazi Nezhad v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 1747 (November 1, 2024)

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

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

Powers of Attorney: Can the Presumption of Undue Influence Apply?

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.

Aftermath of Auer and Doré.

(00:00:37) Prince Edward Island Potato Board v Canada (Agriculture and Agri-Food), 2024 FCA 180

(00:04:37) Morabito v British Columbia (Securities Commission), 2024 BCCA 377 (November 15, 2024)

(00:07:10) Trozzi v College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, 2024 ONSC 6096 (November 1, 2024)

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

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

(00:00:40) Summary

(00:10:28) Reasons for Judgment: O’Bonsawin J. (Wagner C.J. and Karakatsanis, Martin, Kasirer, Jamal and Moreau JJ. concurring)

(00:10:41) I. Overview – 1

(00:12:48) II. Factual Context – 6

(00:13:04) A. The Evidence of the Complainant – 7

(00:14:00) B. The Evidence of the Five Other Witnesses – 15

(00:16:12) C. The Exhibits – 21

(00:17:12) III. Judicial History – 22

(00:17:14) A. Supreme Court of Nova Scotia, 2021 NSSC 290 (Coady J.) – 22

(00:19:05) B. Nova Scotia Court of Appeal, 2023 NSCA 28, 425 C.C.C. (3d) 475 – 27

(00:19:26) (1) The Majority (Bryson J.A., Farrar J.A. Concurring) – 28

(00:21:33) (2) The Dissent (Van den Eynden J.A.) – 33

(00:22:57) IV. Issues – 38

(00:24:58) V. Analysis – 44

(00:25:16) A. Did the Trial Judge Fail To Consider All the Evidence? – 45

(00:27:37) B. Did the Trial Judge Misapprehend the Evidence? – 51

(00:27:55) (1) Interpretation of Section 279.01 Cr. C. – 52

(00:30:54) (a) Object of Section 279.01 Cr. C. – 55

(00:31:49) (b) Text and Context of Section 279.01 Cr. C. – 63

(00:36:13) (c) Conclusion – 70

(00:37:00) (2) The Trial Judge Assessed the Evidence Based on a Wrong Legal Principle – 72

(00:37:49) (a) Past Discreditable Conduct Evidence and Its Exclusionary Rule – 74

(00:39:23) (b) The Trial Judge’s Characterization of the Accused’s Conduct as Past Discreditable Conduct – 79

(00:41:30) (c) Regular Violence and Threats of Violence by the Accused Were Covered by the Indictment – 83

(00:45:00) (d) Regular Violence and Threats of Violence by an Accused Can Be Relevant and Material to the Actus Reus – 91

(00:48:17) (e) The Mens Rea Can Be Inferred From a Finding of Exploitation and Regular Violence and Threats of Violence by an Accused Against a Victim Can Be Relevant and Material to the Definition of Exploitation – 96

(00:51:08) (3) Conclusion and Precise Articulation of the Trial Judge’s Error of Law – 109

(00:51:48) (4) The Trial Judge’s Mischaracterization of the Evidence Tainted His Legal Analysis – 110

(00:54:29) C. Might the Error of Law Have Had a Material Bearing on the Acquittals? – 115

(00:55:29) VI. Conclusion – 120

(00:56:50) I. Defining the Error of Law in the Present Appeal – 123

(00:59:58) II. The Legal Error Would Not Have a Material Bearing on the Acquittal – 129

(01:01:30) A. The Trial Judge Could Not Have Been Persuaded by the Testimony of the Complainant – 133

(01:06:40) B. The Trial Judge Could Not Have Inferred Intent From the Circumstances of Control or Exploitation – 141

(01:07:17) (1) The Five Witnesses Did Not Provide an Evidentiary Basis for Finding Actual Exploitation – 142

(01:09:26) (2) The Negative Credibility Findings of the Five Witnesses Bar an Inference of “Intent To Exploit” – 147

(01:13:38) III. Conclusion – 155

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

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

Second Appeal as of Right: Family Responsibility and Support Arrears.

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.

Katz is out of lives and clarity on subordinate legislation.

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

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

Judicial review — Standard of review — Subordinate legislation

(00:00:41) Summary

(00:06:54) Reasons for Judgment: Côté J. (Wagner C.J. and Karakatsanis, Rowe, Martin, Kasirer, Jamal, O’Bonsawin and Moreau JJ. concurring)

(00:06:59) I. Overview – 1

(00:10:54) II. Facts – 8

(00:12:00) III. Judicial History – 9

(00:12:02) A. Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta, 2021 ABQB 37 – 9

(00:13:27) B. Court of Appeal of Alberta, 2022 ABCA 381 – 11

(00:14:27) IV. Issues – 13

(00:14:43) V. Standard of Review – 14

(00:17:08) VI. Overview of the Off‑Coal Agreement, the MGA and the Linear Guidelines – 19

(00:17:14) A. The Off‑Coal Agreement – 19

(00:18:53) B. The Municipal Government Act – 22

(00:23:08) C. The Linear Guidelines – 30

(00:25:30) VII. Analysis – 37

(00:27:21) A. The Common Law Rule Against Administrative Discrimination – 40

(00:29:39) B. The Linear Guidelines Discriminate Against Parties to Off‑Coal Agreements – 45

(00:32:43) C. The Minister Is Statutorily Authorized To Discriminate Against Parties to Off‑Coal Agreements – 50

(00:35:32) D. The Linear Guidelines Are Consistent With the Scheme and Purposes of the MGA – 55

(00:40:52) VIII. Conclusion – 62