Confidentiality vs. Transparency: The Supreme Court’s Stand on Mandate Letters
03/24/25 • 29 min
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
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
Previous Episode
Legal Bodychecks: Navigating Criminal and Civil Liability in Hockey
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.
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
Next Episode
Sue You Later: The Rise of Vexatious Litigants
Ever been sued for making it rain? In this thought-provoking episode of Beneath the Law, Gavin Tighe and Stephen Thiele dive into the murky waters of vexatious litigants—those who weaponize the justice system for personal vendettas, harassing opponents with endless, frivolous lawsuits.
From gladiator references to baby stroller briefcases, they unpack real-world cases, including a wild Ontario saga involving 13 lawsuits, social media rants, and accusations of a legal crime syndicate.
They explore the gatekeeping role of the courts, the need for better safeguards like a vexatious litigant registry, and the human cost of unchecked legal abuse.
Listen For
1:32 What Does “Vexatious Litigant” Even Mean?
4:13 A Wild Case of 13 Lawsuits and a Legal Crime Syndicate
6:06 How Courts Declare Someone Vexatious
11:04 The Missing Registry: How Do We Track These People?
12:24 The Baby Stroller Plaintiff: A Wild Legal Tale
20:39 SLAPP Suits and the Broader Problem
Leave a rating/review for this podcast with one click
Contact Us
Gardiner Roberts website | Gavin email | Stephen email
If you like this episode you’ll love
Episode Comments
Generate a badge
Get a badge for your website that links back to this episode
<a href="https://goodpods.com/podcasts/beneath-the-law-577483/confidentiality-vs-transparency-the-supreme-courts-stand-on-mandate-le-87975599"> <img src="https://storage.googleapis.com/goodpods-images-bucket/badges/generic-badge-1.svg" alt="listen to confidentiality vs. transparency: the supreme court’s stand on mandate letters on goodpods" style="width: 225px" /> </a>
Copy