Beneath the Law

Judicial appointments spark controversy. In this episode, Gavin and Stephen dive into the contentious debate surrounding the political nature of judicial appointments in Ontario. They discuss Ontario Premier Ford's candid remarks on crime and bail, the inherent political process of selecting judges, and the criticisms leveled against this system. Addressing everything from the role of laypeople in judicial committees to the independence of the judiciary post-appointment, the hosts argue that while the process is far from perfect, it is deeply rooted in democratic principles. They champion the idea that judges, once appointed, are shielded from the political fray, able to exercise their duties with impartiality—a cornerstone of the Canadian legal system.Listen For:4:20 The Provincial Power to Appoint11:21 Reality of Supreme Court Appointments19:36 Independence of the JudiciaryLeave a rating/review for this podcast with one clickContact UsGardiner Roberts website | Gavin email | Stephen email  

It's a constitutional showdown. Gavin and Stephen discuss into the implications of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, particularly in light of recent events including the January 6th riots and legal actions concerning former President Donald Trump. They explore the historical context and application of the amendment, especially Section 3, which pertains to insurrection and its consequences for political participation. The conversation also explores a recent legal decision from Colorado that sought to remove Trump's name from the ballot, examining its constitutionality and potential impacts on U.S. democracy and the electoral system. Leave a rating/review for this podcast with one clickContact UsGardiner Roberts website | Gavin email | Stephen email  

Hockey, scandal, and the law.Gavin, Stephen, and guest Lad Kucis review a controversial case that’s made headlines across the Country. It involves former members of the Canadian World Junior Championship hockey team, now facing criminal charges for an alleged sexual assault that occurred six years prior. Amidst the legal discourse, the conversation critically examines the interplay between civil settlements and subsequent criminal proceedings, the impact on the accused players' careers, and the broader implications for the sport's integrity and the justice system at large. The episode is a potent reminder of the complexities and consequences when sports icons fall from grace, leaving a trail of legal quandaries and societal reflection in their wake.Listen For:2:47 The Incident Unveiled5:34 Regulatory Bodies React7:40 The Civil Settlement Conundrum23:56 Public Perception and PrejudiceGuest: Lad Kucis, Gardiner RobertsLeave a rating/review for this podcast with one clickContact UsGardiner Roberts website | Gavin email | Stephen email  

An ATV, a tragic turn, and a court decision that changed everything.Hosts Gavin and Stephen, dive into the Ontario Court of Appeal's ruling on de Roche v McInnis. The case unravels the duty of care owed not just by drivers, but by vehicle owners, accentuating the utmost importance of insurance and proper training. They reflect on the broader implications for owners of recreational vehicles, the devastating consequences of negligence, and the workings of statutory interpretation, emphasizing the importance of having insurance for recreational vehicles.This discussion is a stark reminder that with the thrill of high-speed adventure comes a weighty responsibility, echoing the dire need for precaution and protection in the realm of recreational vehicle use.Listen For:3:15 - Introducing the Case: de Roche v McInnis8:45 - The Duty of Care Explained: Navigating Negligence17:32 - Understanding Statutory Interpretation22:41 - Insuring Adventure: The Safety Net of LiabilityLeave a rating/review for this podcast with one clickRead Stephen’s blog on the McGinnis case2024 ONCA 63 (CanLII) | Desrochers v. McGinnis | CanLII (McGinnis case)Contact UsGardiner Roberts website | Gavin email | Stephen email  

The Supreme Court of Canada has really stirred the pot this time. The issue is whether mandate letters should be subject to disclosure. Mandate letters are instructions or views given to cabinet ministers by the leader of a government.  Sparked by CBC News' request for one collection of letters from 2018, the legal battle questioned their confidentiality. Ultimately, the Supreme Court reversed lower court rulings, emphasizing the importance of cabinet confidentiality for democracy and effective governance.  Gavin and Stephen Thiele explore the decision's implications, arguing it protects necessary government deliberation zones, akin to privacy in other professional realms. They critique the media's and opposition's transparency demands, suggesting such pressures could undermine responsible government by stifling free debate and decision-making within the cabinet.  Listen For: 1:13 The Impact on Democracy and Governance 6:34 Legal and Constitutional Framework 11:36 Media’s Role and Responsibility 17:07 Implications for Legal Scholarship  Leave a rating/review for this podcast with one click  Contact Us Gardiner Roberts website | Gavin email | Stephen email  

Gavin and Stephen discuss a defamation case involving a social media influencer in Edmonton, Alberta. The influencer, Rosemary, had a falling out with a couple, leading to a series of defamatory posts about them on her Instagram account. The court found in favour of the couple, awarding the female plaintiff $50,000 and the male plaintiff $75,000. This highlights the importance of being careful about what you post on social media, as defamation can lead to significant legal consequences. They also discuss the challenges of applying old defamation laws to new technology and the changing nature of media.Listen For1:54 There’s Been a Seismic Shift in Defamation Law Due to Social Media3:04 Challenges in Applying Traditional Law to New Technology4:56 The Role of Social Media Influencers in Defamation11:08 The Difficulty of Enforcing Defamation JudgementsLeave a rating/review for this podcast with one clickContact UsGardiner Roberts website | Gavin email | Stephen email  

In this episode Gavin and Stephen discuss the recent decision by the federal court on the challenge to the constitutionality and legality of the federal government's decision to invoke the Emergencies Act in response to the trucker convoy protest in Canada. They argue the protest was non-violent and did not pose a threat to the security of Canada, making the use of the Emergencies Act unreasonable and ultra vires of the federal government. They also express concern about the potential for damages to be awarded to those who were unlawfully injured by the misuse of the statute, which could result in significant costs for Canadian taxpayers. No doubt where this one’s headed… the Supreme Court of Canada.Leave a rating/review for this podcast with one clickContact UsGardiner Roberts website | Gavin email | Stephen email  

In this episode we’re unwrapping the tale of the Banker’s Sandwich Scandal.You might have read the headlines. Szabolcs Fekete, a financial crime expert at Citibank was fired by the bank after claiming a two-sandwich lunch on expenses. He’d claimed he ate one sandwich for lunch then ate the second for dinner. But under closer scrutiny he admitted he had travelled with a partner and the second sandwich was for them.But is firing the right price for this deception? Seems a high cost for a low price. In this episode Gavin and Stephen put a bit more “meat in the sandwich” so to speak and explain the rest of the story.Listen For1:32 Understanding the Foundation of the Employer-Employee Relationship6:56 The Consequences of Dishonesty and the Cover-Up16:04 Contextual Approach and Intention in Legal Analysis27:05 The Importance of Clear Policies and Fair ProcessLeave a rating/review for this podcast with one clickContact UsGardiner Roberts website | Gavin email | Stephen email  

Have former US President Donald Trump’s legal battles exposed biases within the Us judicial system?How do you think the election of judges affects their impartiality and the perception of justice in the US?How does public confidence in the judiciary impact the overall health of a democracy?In this episode, Gavin and Stephen would argue YES to all of the above.  And they argue the American judicial system may not survive the divisive political climate.Listen For1:16 Trump’s Exclusion from the Ballot in Colorado3:25 Politicization of Judiciary and Judicial Appointments6:53 Public Confidence and the Health of Democracy9:18 Trump’s Influence on the Perception of Judicial BiasLeave a rating/review for this podcast with one clickContact UsGardiner Roberts website | Gavin email | Stephen email  

Gavin and Stephen discuss the intersection of law and sports, specifically focusing on incidents in hockey where players have been criminally charged or sued for their actions on the ice.  There have been high-profile cases, such as those involving NHL players Dino Ciccarelli, Marty McSorley, and Todd Bertuzzi, who were all charged with assault for their actions during games. They also discuss a recent case in England where a player was charged with involuntary manslaughter after his skate blade cut another player's throat, resulting in his death.  There is potential for both criminal and civil liability in sports. Players need to understand the potential consequences of their actions. And there are also challenges in determining damages in such cases, particularly when a player's professional career is ended due to an injury. Leave a rating/review for this podcast with one click Listen For 5:45 Consent and Liability in Sports 8:03 Incidents Leading to Criminal Charges in Sports 11:29 Civil Liability and Damages in Sports Injuries 20:18 Legal Implications of Sports Regulations and Player Conduct  Contact Us Gardiner Roberts website | Gavin email | Stephen email  

In this episode Etobicoke Centre MP Yvan Baker discusses gun control in Canada and the US. Baker says government regulation is important in controlling firearms, but the debate is ongoing. Baker explains that Canada has traditionally had more restrictive gun laws than the US, but there is a growing desire for stronger action to prevent serious gun crimes. He mentions recent measures such as the banning of about 1500 models of assault-style firearms and the introduction of red flag and yellow flag laws, which allow citizens to report concerns about gun owners. He also discusses the challenges of gun smuggling from the US and the need for more resources and technology at the border. The conversation also touches on the potential for mass tort litigation against gun manufacturers.Leave a rating/review for this podcast with one clickGuest Yvan Baker, MP Etobicoke CentreYvan is a member of the Standing Committee on Finance. He is the Chair of the Canada-Ukraine Parliamentary Friendship Group and an executive member of the Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association. In recognition of his service to the community, Yvan was awarded the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee Medal. Yvan holds an MBA from the Tuck School of Business at Dartmouth College and a BBA from the Schulich School of Business at York University.Facebook | X | InstagramContact UsGardiner Roberts website | Gavin email | Stephen email  

Tom Hanks has warned his fans about a circulated AI-generated ad featuring him, clarifying he had nothing to do with the ad.Megan Fox has had issues with Lensa’s Magic Avatars, a popular AI art tool that creates stylized portraits based on user-submitted photos.Stephen Spielberg has expressed his nervousness about the impact of AI on the future, particularly its potential to replace human creativity in art.And before his passing, Stephen Hawking went one step further voicing his concerns that advanced AI might one day replace humans altogether. In the legal world, there’s a battle emerging in which legal systems globally are trying to keep pace with artificial intelligence. US President Biden recently issued an executive order underlining the need for effective regulatory translation when it comes to AI. Alfredo Esposito is an Italian lawyer with a focus on intellectual property and digital rights. What he sees is the legal system just can’t keep up with the whirlwind of technological advancements, specifically in AI and property rights. Leave a rating/review for this podcast with one clickListen For:0:19 Ownership and Regulation of AI4:10 European Context of Copyright Law and AI6:11 Legal Protection of Voice and Image23:47 Global Enforcement and Human Rights Guest: Alfredo EspositoLinkedIn | Facebook | Instagram | XAlfredo’s online articles Contact UsGardiner Roberts website | Gavin email | Stephen email  

Let’s dive into a controversial issue. How about gender identity and the role of parents and schools in Canada?New policies by the governments of New Brunswick and Saskatchewan, require parental consent for children under 16 to use different gender identity pronouns.In this episode Gavin and Stephen highlight the legal and political implications of these policies, including a recent decision by the Saskatchewan Court of King's Bench to issue an injunction against the policy. They also discuss the potential use of the notwithstanding clause by the Saskatchewan government to override the court's decision. Are we entering an age where parental involvement in children's lives is potentially being harmed by policies that seek to separate parents and children?Leave a rating/review for this podcast with one clickContact UsGardiner Roberts website | Gavin email | Stephen email  

A recent decision by the Law Society against the firm Diamond and Diamond spotlights a pivotal aspect of law firm marketing, particularly within the personal injury sector.Gavin and Stephen dissect the case of Jeremy Diamond, a lawyer who facing penalty from the Law Society for misleading advertising. His firm was caught making false claims regarding their services and expertise. This episode also touches on the broader implications exploring how the Law Society tribunal’s decision sheds light on the contentious issue of contingency fees which enable lawyers to charge a portion of the damages awarded in the case (“We don’t get paid unless YOU get paid”). This is a practice that may democratize access to legal service it can also open the door to potentially unscrupulous practices.Leave a rating/review for this podcast with one clickListen For:0:34 The changing landscape of law firm marketing3:51 The case of Diamond and Diamond11:54 A critique of the referral business model22:12 Discussion on plea agreements and judicial discretionContact UsGardiner Roberts website | Gavin email | Stephen email  

Gavin and Stephen discuss the implications of digital footprints and privacy in the context of law and technology.  Every action online leaves a digital footprint, which can be used in legal cases to determine when a document was created. They also discuss the issue of privacy in the workplace, particularly when employers provide devices like phones or computers to their employees. There was one case where teachers were disciplined for their private messages on a school-provided computer, raising questions about the boundaries of privacy. And the use of drones for surveillance is sparking controversy, both by law enforcement and private individuals. Laws need to keep up with rapidly advancing technology.Leave a rating/review for this podcast with one clickContact UsGardiner Roberts website | Gavin email | Stephen email  

There’s a clear regulatory gap in the world of temporary rentals like Airbnb’s. Long-term Airbnb stays face challenges which is clear from a recent Toronto Star story. A couple from Switzerland booked a 10-month Airbnb stay in midtown Toronto. Everything seemed fine with the couple settling in and getting along well with the landlord. Then things took a turn when the landlord wanted the property back due to a family emergency.Leave a rating/review for this podcast with one clickGuest: May Warren, Toronto StarEmail | XContact UsGardiner Roberts website | Gavin email | Stephen email  

Jordan Peterson’s clash with the College of Psychologists of Ontario has been controversial to say the least. In this episode, Stephen and Gavin highlight the profound ability to misunderstand argument, position, and opinion for a belief – and the growing divide in society when it comes to viewpoints and tolerance for alternative perspectives. Where does the balance lie between defending freedom of speech and maintaining professional conduct within the adversarial system?Leave a rating/review for this podcast with one clickContact UsGardiner Roberts website | Gavin email | Stephen email  

Emojis… widely used in digital communication to convey emotions, actions, or ideas, haven’t typically been universally recognized as legally binding symbols in formal contracts or agreements. Until now. A recent decision at the Court of King’s Bench for Saskatchewan found the thumbs-up emoji (👍) constituted acceptance of a contract to sell 87 metric tonnes of flax. The damages ordered to be paid were $82,000. It may be unconventional but it was legally binding. Gardiner Roberts website https://www.grllp.com/Email Gavin Tighe gjtighe@grllp.com Email Stephen Thiele sthiele@grllp.com

Months ago, proponents of Bill C-18, the Online News Act, dismissed warnings from Meta and Google, believing their threats to remove news links from their platforms were mere bluffs. But inevitable has occurred with Meta taking action recently by actively blocking news links and sharing on Facebook and Instagram. The situation appears dire, leaving little hope for resolution. In this episodes Canada’s leading legal expert on this topic, Michael Geist explains what’s happened and if there’s a possible disentanglement for this mess. Guest: Michael GeistMichael Geist is a law professor at the University of Ottawa where he holds the Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-commerce Law.https://www.michaelgeist.ca/Read Michael’s blog on Bill C-18Listen to Michael’s podcast Law Bytes Gardiner Roberts website https://www.grllp.com/Email Gavin Tighe gjtighe@grllp.com Email Stephen Thiele sthiele@grllp.com

Anti Libel Chill legislation is a fairly recent change. Libel Chill is the fear of being sued for speaking your mind.  An example of this is if a developer wanted to build something in a particular area but a grassroots ratepayer organization formed to oppose it. The developer might hire a legal team to essentially send the message that if people say bad things about the developer say on social media, there will be litigation.  You want to say bad things about me, I’m going to make it expensive for you. This kind of strategy has become common, and a name has developed called Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation or SLAPP. Now a number of Canadian jurisdictions are putting in place Anti SLAPP legislation with a goal to give people peace of mind when they speak their mind. Noble idea, but will the legislation work? Gardiner Roberts website https://www.grllp.com/Email Gavin Tighe gjtighe@grllp.com Email Stephen Thiele sthiele@grllp.com