Beneath the Law

Send us a text

Background

October 2023 terrorist action in Israel in which over 1,000 people were killed by Hamas has led to war in the Gaza Strip

War has resulted in displacement of Palestinians and estimates of over 30,000 killed

In response, there have been numerous pro-Palestinian protest and anti-war protests, including at University campuses in the United States and Canada

Injunctions to remove protestors in Quebec had failed

After more than a month of occupation of King’s College Circle, U of T brought an application to remove pro-Palestinian encampment on the grounds that protestors were engaged in an unlawful trespass of the university’s property

Injunction proceeding

University is private education institution, not affiliated with government

Property of the university is private, but with spaces open to the public

King’s College Circle is for use by the entire university population and is also a tourist attraction

After attempting to engage in negotiations with protestors, U of T finally issued a Trespass Notice under provincial Trespass legislation, but police would not enforce notice

Required U of T to go to court for an injunction

U of T argued that protestors had caused damage and had engaged in violent actions on campus, and that occupation was simply illegal as the grounds constituted private university property

To obtain an injunction, generally required to establish serious issue to be tried, irreparable harm and that balance of convenience favours the granting of an injunction; however, serious issue to be tried standard elevated to prima facie case where result is a mandatory injunction, like the removal of the encampment

Court finds that U of T’s argument that protestors engaged in violent actions or were engaged in expressions of hate toward others not proven; no prima facie case on these allegations

However, court finds that there was a prima facie case on the issue of trespass; property belonged to U of T and occupation of King’s College Circle was essentially exclusive to the pro-Palestinian protestors

Protestors controlled entry to King’s College Circle and only permitted those sympathetic to their position entry to the King’s College Circle grounds

King’s College Circle, however, was an area of U of T to be used by the entire University community and others such as tourists

Protestors relied on Charter to protect themselves against removal from the encampment; contended that they had a right to freely express themselves and associate together in protest

Court finds that Charter did not apply to protect protestor because protestors had not provided notice of constitutional question as required under law, but that Charter did not provide protection in a trespass case. In any event, Trespass Act was reasonable limit prescribed by law

As well, court noted that protestors were actually violating free expression of others because of their control of King’s College Circle and who was permitted entry

In connection with the injunction test, there was a clear trespass

In most cases, a clear trespass ends the inquiry and a party is not required to prove irreparable harm or satisfy the balance of convenience test

U of T, however, suffered irreparable harm because of damage to its property that would not be recoverable from the protestors; act of trespass on its own constituted strong irreparable harm

U of T also suffered reputational loss because of the protest

With respect to balance of convenience, court found that the protestors were not being absolutely prohibited from protesting; this weighed in favour of U of T who had established that it suffered harm

Public space of campus had been taken over by pro

Send us a text

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

Send us a text

It’s a concept known as Sugaring or Sugar Dating. A website service created to connect generally older males with younger females. Sugar Daddies.

The older men are generally expected to provide younger women with gifts and money. The expectations of the younger women can vary.

A very old (and somewhat creepy) concept.

But in this particular case, the Sugar Daddy, was a lawyer. And the issue was professional conduct.

Gardiner Roberts website https://www.grllp.com/

Email Gavin Tighe [email protected]

Email Stephen Thiele [email protected]

Send us a text

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 Unveiled
5:34 Regulatory Bodies React
7:40 The Civil Settlement Conundrum
23:56 Public Perception and Prejudice
Guest: Lad Kucis, Gardiner Roberts
Leave a rating/review for this podcast with one click
Contact Us
Gardiner Roberts website | Gavin email | Stephen email

Send us a text

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 click
Guest: May Warren, Toronto Star
Email | X
Contact Us
Gardiner Roberts website | Gavin email | Stephen email