R. v. Boutilier is a 2017 Supreme Court of Canada decision in which the Court had to determine whether Canada's dangerous offender designation regime is constitutional. Eric Purtzki is a criminal defence attorney in Vancouver who was counsel to Mr. Boutilier before the Supreme Court. We discuss how Canada's dangerous offender designation regime works, the consequences of being designated a dangerous offender, his arguments at the Supreme Court, and the decision.

Law Cans

Canada's Dangerous Offender Designation Regime, with Eric Purtzki

R v. Wong is a 2018 Supreme Court of Canada decision in which the Supreme Court of Canada had to determine whether a person could withdraw a guilty plea if they they did not know that their pleading guilty would lead to deportation. Peter Edelmann and Erica Olmstead are lawyers at Edelmann & Co. They represented the accused at the Supreme Court. Lobat Sadrehashemi represented one of the invervenors, the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers.

Withdrawing guilty pleas if they lead to deportation, with Peter Edelmann

Office of the Children’s Lawyer v. Balev is a 2018 Supreme Court of Canada decision in which the Supreme Court had to determine what the test should be for determining where to return a child under the Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (the Hague Convention). Ari Wormeli is a lawyer at YLAW Group, a prominent Vancouver family law firm. We discuss the Supreme Court decision, and Ari discusses what it is like being a family law lawyer, what he thinks is the number one indicator of whether a marriage will end in divorce and whether he has ever felt threatened by an opposing party.

International Child Custody Disputes and what Practising Family Law is Like, with Ari Wormeli

West Fraser Mills Ltd. v. British Columbia (Workers’ Compensation Appeal Tribunal)is a 2018 Supreme Court of Canada decision in which the Supreme Court had to determine whether it should overturn the WCAT's decision to expand the duty of employers to ensure that their operations are planned and conducted in accordance with safe work practices to owners. The case provides a useful context to explore the topic of "standard of review," which is extremely divisive in Canadian jurisprudence. Robert Danay is a lawyer with Canada's Department of Justice who has a passion for this topic, and has researched every Supreme Court of Canada decision on the issue going back twenty years. He can be found on Twitter at @RobertDanay

What is the Standard of Review? Should a Court Show Deference to a Tribunal?

Rankin (Rankin’s Garage & Sales) v. J.J is a 2018 Supreme Court of Canada decision in which the Supreme Court had to determine whether a commercial garage owed a duty of care to a teenager who had broken into the garage and stole a car. The teenager was injured after the car was involved in a crash. He sued the commercial garage for negligence. Saro Turner is a Partner at Slater Vecchio LLP, a prominent Vancouver personal injury law firm. He can be found at @saroturner online. We discuss the Supreme Court decision, and Saro describes the four elements of a negligence lawsuit - the duty of care, the standard of care, causation and damages. It is Tort Law 101! Saro also tells people who have suffered losses what they should look for when choosing a personal injury lawyer.

Does a Commercial Garage Owe a Duty of Care to Thieves and How to Pick a PI Lawyer, with Saro Turner

R v. Alex. is a 2017 Supreme Court of Canada decision in which the Supreme Court had to determine whether the Crown needs to prove that a police officer's request that an individual blow into an approved screening device is reasonable before it can admit the results of the breathalyzer without having to call a toxicologist and a technician as a witness. Kyla Lee is an Associate at Acumen Law Corporation, She is the host of Driving Law, a podcast which focuses on Canadian DUI law. She can be found at @IRPLawyer online. We discuss the difference between breathalyzers and approved screening devices, challenging breathalyzers, the difference in how breathalyzers work in the criminal context vs. provincial immediate roadside prohibition context and more.

How to Challenge Breathalyzer Results in Court, with Kyla Lee

Google Inc. v. Equustek Solutions Inc. is a 2017 Supreme Court of Canada decision in which the Supreme Court had to determine whether a British Columbia company could seek a worldwide injunction to to enjoin Google from displaying any part of another company's websites on any of Google's search results worldwide. Daniel Cowper is an Associate at Robert Fleming Lawyers, the law firm which represented Equutsek Solutions Inc. He can be found at @DanielCowper online.

Can a BC court order Google to remove results from its global search engine, with Daniel Cowper.

Doez v. Facebook is a 2017 Supreme Court of Canada decision in which the Supreme Court had to determine the enforceability of a forum selection clause. The case involved a class action lawsuit brought in British Columbia alleging that Facebook’s Sponsored Stories breached their privacy. Facebook argued that because its Terms of Use stated that users had to litigate any claims in California that the British Columbia courts lacked jurisdiction. Christopher Rhone is a Partner at Branch MacMaster LLP Barristers & Solicitors. He represented Ms. Doez, the plaintiff, at the Supreme Court.

hubhopper

Law Cans

hubhopper