Pro Bono Radio: Recent Episodes
Pro Bono Queen's
From Queen’s Faculty of Law, students from Pro Bono Canada tackle contemporary issues from a law students’ perspective.
Summer jobs are a part of almost every young adult’s life. As we leave behind the carefree innocence of our youth, we begin to take on the responsibilities of being an employee. Despite this, we often don’t stop to consider what responsibilities we are actually taking on. Whether you’re a scooper at your local ice cream shop, a coach for a soccer team, or a staff member at a day camp, you are not just challenged with the performance of these tasks, but also with the duty to ensure these tasks are being performed to an adequate standard.
In this episode, Gilad interviews Heidi Brown, a personal injury lawyer and partner at Bogoroch & Associates LLP, to give an overview of the field of Tort Liability. By providing a series of hypothetical problems that a summer camp counsellor may face on the job, this episode seeks to help people understand concepts like “Duty of Care” and “Standard of Care”, while clarifying what you should be reasonably able to expect to be held liable for in the workplace and who ends up being held responsible.
Will you be held liable? Will your boss? Should you even be liable at all? Through this conversation, Gilad and Heidi seek to address the general inquiries the average new employee may face before entering the workforce via a summer job.
Gilad Maianski – Producer, Host, Editor
Heidi R. Brown – Special Guest
Pro Bono Radio is part of the Queen’s chapter of Pro Bono Students Canada. The Pro Bono Radio team are not lawyers, and this is not legal advice.
Subscribe to this podcast on Apple Podcasts, Google Play, Spotify and Stitcher!
In 2020, the Supreme Court of Canada released its landmark decision in Nevsun Resources Ltd. v. Araya (Nevsun), a case that reshaped how Canadian courts engage with international law in domestic litigation. The case arose from allegations that a Canadian mining company, operating abroad, was complicit in serious human rights abuses, including forced labour, at the Bisha Mine in Eritrea.
The Court was tasked with answering a foundational question: how should international law be treated in Canadian courts? Specifically, must it be proven as fact through evidence, or can it be recognized and applied as law?
The Supreme Court held that customary international law forms part of Canadian common law and should generally be treated as law, not fact. This means that well-established international norms—such as prohibitions on slavery, forced labour, and torture—do not require proof through expert evidence. Courts may take judicial notice of them and apply them directly. This marked a significant procedural shift, lowering barriers for plaintiffs seeking to advance human rights claims tied to Canadian actors operating abroad.
In this episode, the discussion explores how Nevsun reframes the role of international law in Canadian litigation. After unpacking the Court’s reasoning, with a particular focus on Justice Abella’s interpretation of customary international law, the episode contrasts the majority’s emphasis on access to justice with the dissent’s concerns about judicial overreach and institutional limits.
While Nevsun does not guarantee successful claims or transform Canadian courts into global tribunals, it signals a shift in judicial confidence. International law is no longer something courts must be persuaded exists; it is something they are entitled to recognize.
Padraigh Brady – Producer, Host, Editor
Pro Bono Radio is part of the Queen’s chapter of Pro Bono Students Canada. The ProBono Radio team are not lawyers, and this is not legal advice.
Subscribe to this podcast on Apple Podcasts, Google Play, Spotify and Stitcher
Research Referred to in the Podcast:
Nevsun Resources Ltd v Araya, 2020 SCC 5, [2020] 1 S.C.R. 166.
R v Hape, 2007 SCC 26, [2007] 2 S.C.R. 292.
“Transnational Canadian Corporations Can Be Liable Under Customary International Law for Human Rights Abuses: The Phoenix Flies in Nevsun v Araya,” (12 January 2021)
In this episode, Mehik and Eniayo examine white-collar crime and, more specifically, Ponzi schemes. The discussion begins by challenging common assumptions about what crime looks like and who commits it. While crime is often associated with violence and visible harm, white-collar crime operates quietly, often within trusted community spaces, and can cause devastating financial and emotional consequences.
After explaining how Ponzi schemes function, including how early investors are paid using funds from later investors to create the illusion of profit, Mehik and Eniayo turn to R v Johnson, a 2010 decision of the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench. In Johnson, more than 50 individuals were defrauded of approximately $2.43 million through a Ponzi scheme that relied heavily on personal trust and community relationships. Many of the victims were members of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, where the offender served as an assistant pastor.
Following a close examination of the court’s reasoning and sentencing decision, including the 13-year custodial sentence and restitution order, Mehik and Eniayo consider broader themes of victim impact, deterrence, and the perception that white-collar offenders receive lenient treatment. The episode also explores the broader social implications of white-collar crime, particularly how fraud committed through positions of authority can weaken public trust in institutions and communities. The episode concludes by reflecting on a lyric from Woody Guthrie’s Pretty Boy Floyd, inviting listeners to reconsider how society defines crime, harm, and responsibility.
Mehik Khatra and Eniayo Akinyemi – Producers, Hosts, Editors
Music by: https://www.youtube.com
Artist: Bob Dylan
License code: N/A
Pro Bono Radio is part of the Queen’s chapter of Pro Bono Students Canada. The Pro Bono Radio team are not lawyers, and this is not legal advice.
Subscribe to this podcast on Apple Podcasts, Google Play, Spotify and Stitcher!
Research Referred to in the Podcast:
James Chen, “Ponzi Scheme: Definition, Examples, and Origins” (last modified 26 January 2025), online: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/ponzischeme.asp [https://web.archive.org/web/20251118085621/https://www.investopedia.com/ter ms/p/ponzischeme.asp].
Michelle de Hass, “Punishing White-Collar Crime in Canada: Issues with the Economic Model of Crime and Punishment” (2021) 59:1 Alberta Law Review 201.
R v Johnson,2010 ABQB 546.
When you hear of civil forfeiture, you may think back to John Oliver’s viral critique of its use in the United States. Perhaps you have never heard of this statutory scheme before. What few realize is that civil forfeiture has been the subject of public debate for decades, with policy objectives like crime deterrence forming the foundation of its supporters’ arguments and due process and property rights concerns animating its critics’.
In this episode, Host Gefen Shpil explores the two sides of the civil forfeiture debate to provide viewers with the tools to decide for themselves the answer to the following question: Does the current Canadian civil forfeiture scheme appropriately balance crime deterrence and individual rights so that its efficacy justifies possible intrusions on those rights? The episode will explore the arguments of both sides of the debate, starting with the policy rationales that proponents of civil forfeiture rely on to justify its use. Second, listeners will hear criticisms of the statutory schemes, focusing on concerns about due process and property rights. Along the way, listeners will hear how courts in Canada have treated civil forfeiture statutes and challenges to them. Lastly, the episode will explore whether Civil forfeiture has actually been successful in achieving its goal. Spoiler alert…it’s difficult to say!
By the end of this episode, you will have a strong understanding of how civil forfeiture operates in Ontario and the tools to decide where you stand on this debate. Do you think the ends justify the means?
Gefen Shpil – Producer, Host, Editor
Pro Bono Radio is part of the Queen’s chapter of Pro Bono Students Canada. The Pro Bono Radio team are not lawyers, and this is not legal advice.
Subscribe to this podcast on Apple Podcasts, Google Play, Spotify and Stitcher!
*Research Referred to in the Podcast:*
J. Simser, Civil Asset Forfeiture in Canada (December 2020)/
J. Simser, “Perspectives on Civil Forfeiture” in S.N.M. Yong, ed, Civil Forfeiture of Criminal Property (Edward Elgar Publishing, 2009).
M. Gallant & C. King, “The Seizure of Illicit Assets: Patterns of Civil Forfeiture in Canada and Ireland” (2013) 42:1 Common Law World Review.
Civil Remedies Act, 2001, SO 2001, c 28.
A.X. Fellmeth, “Civil and Criminal Sanctions in the Constitution and Courts” (2005) 94:1 Georgetown LJ.
Chatterjee v Ontario (Attorney General), 2009 SCC 19 [Chatterjee].
Ontario (Attorney General) v Cole-Watson, 2007 CanLII 15229.
R.T. Naylor, “License to Loot? A Critique of Follow-the-Money Methods in Crime Control Policy” (2001) 28:3 Social Justice.
R.T Naylor, “Criminal Profits, Terror Dollars and Nonsense” (2007) Transnational Institute.
Most consumers are unaware of how corporate law and antitrust enforcement directly shape the fairness of the marketplace they rely on. Practices such as price‑fixing, bid‑rigging, and market allocation can quietly distort competition, inflate prices, and limit consumer choice. Cartel cases and broader competition‑law disputes reveal how coordinated corporate behaviour can undermine free markets and harm the public.
In this episode, nationally acclaimed competition lawyer David Kent sits down with episode host Julian Trotto to discuss the origins and impacts of these cases. Following a discussion of the Competition Act and the dynamics of competition law class actions, the pair dives into specific topics relating to AI, hotel pricing algorithms, gas stations and auction houses, exploring the complexity and nuances in this field of law.
The conversation explores the roles of the Competition Bureau and the Department of Justice, as well as the specialized Competition Tribunal, which utilizes experts like economists to adjudicate complex regulatory matters. The episode concludes with a discussion on the complexities of class action litigation and looks forward to what the next wave of litigation might have in store.
David Kent, a partner at McMillan LLP, specializes in Corporate and Commercial Class Action litigation in several industries. He was defence counsel in two of the largest Canadian criminal cartel prosecutions and in many major Canadian civil cartel cases involving vitamins, computer components, and credit cards.
Julian Trotto – Producer, Host, Editor
Pro Bono Radio is part of the Queen’s chapter of Pro Bono Students Canada. The Pro Bono Radio team are not lawyers, and this is not legal advice.
Subscribe to this podcast on Apple Podcasts, Google Play, Spotify and Stitcher!
Research Referred to in the Podcast:
Competition Act R.S.C., 1985, c. C-34
“Competition Act Amendments” – Subrata Bhattacharjee, Denes Rothschild, Joshua Abaki and Mohit Sethi, BLG
A Neil Campbell, David Kent, D Martin Law QC, J William Rowley QC, Cartel Regulation, “Canada.” (McMillian Binch LLP, 2003)
David Kent Bio, McMillan LLP
DRAM Class Action article, https://nationalpost.com/news/the-price-is-right
McMillan Article on DRAM, https://mcmillan.ca/insights/certification-denied-an-important-win-for-competition-class-action-defendants/
Credit Card Class Action https://mcmillan.ca/deals-cases/most-extensive-class-action-settlement-approval-contest-in-canadian-class-action-history/
In 1999, the Supreme Court of Canada in R v Gladue described the over-incarceration of Indigenous peoples as a “crisis” and a “staggering injustice.” More than two decades later, that crisis has only deepened. According to the Office of the Correctional Investigator, the proportion of Indigenous people in federal prisons has continued to rise, with particularly alarming numbers for Indigenous women, who now account for roughly half of all women in Canadian penitentiaries despite representing only 4.9% of Canada’s total female population.
As early as the 1996 Arbour Report, it was recognized that federally sentenced Indigenous women have distinct needs requiring responses beyond incarceration. Yet these recommendations have not translated into lasting systemic change. The Final Report of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls makes clear that addressing over-incarceration is not merely a policy choice—it is a legal obligation tied to dismantling what Canadian Senator Kim Pate in her inaugural speech called a “racist and sexist legacy of colonization.”
More than a decade after the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada committed governments to eliminating this over-representation in 2015, that promise remains unmet. In this episode, hosts Neha Wankhede and Garyn Rickwood speak with Senator Pate about why this crisis persists, and what meaningful reform could look like.
“…in law school we’re taught that the law applies equally to everyone. You just have to walk into a prison or a courtroom [to] see that’s not true” [Senator Kim Pate, 2026]
Neha Wankhede and Garyn Rickwood – Producers, Hosts, and Editors
This episode contains discussion of incarceration, colonial violence, systemic discrimination, and solitary confinement. Some listeners may find these topics distressing. Please take care while listening.
We acknowledge our privilege to live and learn on the traditional, unceded territory of the Anishinaabe and Haudenosaunee people.
Pro Bono Radio is part of the Queen’s chapter of Pro Bono Students Canada. The Pro Bono Radio team are not lawyers, and this is not legal advice.
Subscribe to this podcast on Apple Podcasts, Google Play, Spotify and Stitcher!
Research Referred to in the Podcast:
Bill S-205 (Tona’s Law), An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, 45th Parl, 1st Sess, Vol 154, No 1 (26 May 2025), https://senpate.sencanada.ca/en/current-work/segregation/.
Bill S-206, An Act to develop a national framework for a guaranteed livable basic income, 45th Parl, 1st Sess, Vol 154, No 6 (4 June 2025), https://sencanada.ca/en/senators/pate-kim/interventions/665291/30.
Canada, Debates of the Senate, 42nd Parl, 1st Sess, Vol 150, No 85 (8 December 2016), https://sencanada.ca/en/speeches/speech-by-senator-kim-pate-on-the-over-representation-of-indig enous-women-in-canadian-prisons/.
Corrections and Conditional Release Act, SC 1992, c 20 at ss 29, 31-33, 81, 84.
Department of Justice via the Law Commission of Canada and/or the Miscarriages of Justice Commission, Injustices and Miscarriages of Justice Experienced by 12 Indigenous Women (October 2022), https://sencanada.ca/media/joph5la2/en_report_injustices-and-miscarriages-of-justice-experience d-by-12-indigenous-women_may-16-2022.pdf.
Government of Canada, “Advancing Reconciliation & Gender Equality” (modified 15 September 2025), https://www.canada.ca/en/women-gender-equality/indigenous-peoples-gender-equality/advancing-reconciliation-gender-equality.html.
Government of Canada, “Corrections and Conditional Release Statistical Overview: 2019 Annual Report” (2019) at p 29, https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/ccrso-2019/ccrso-2019-en.pdf.
Government of Canada, “The Daily: Overrepresentation of Indigenous and Black Adults in Provincial and Federal Custody,” (14 January 2026), https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/260114/dq260114b-eng.htm.
K. Pate, “Bill C-83 could worsen the rights situation for people in prison: Senator Pate” SenCA+ Magazine (6 June 2019), https://sencanada.ca/en/sencaplus/opinion/bill-c-83-could-worsen-the-rights-situation-for-peoplein-prison-senator-pate/.
National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, Reclaiming Power and Place: The Final Report of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls (2019) at p 201, https://www.mmiwg-ffada.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Final_Report_Vol_1a-1.pdf
Office of the Correctional Investigator, “Correctional Investigator Releases Updated Findings on the State of Indigenous Corrections in Canada: National Indigenous Organizations Issue Statements of Support” (2 November 2023), https://oci-bec.gc.ca/en/content/correctional-investigator-releases-updated-findings-state-indigen ous-corrections-canada.
Parliament of Canada, “Senator Kim Pate: Biography,” https://sencanada.ca/en/senators/pate-kim/.
Public Works & Government Services Canada, Commission of Inquiry into Certain Events at the Prison for Women in Kingston (Canada) (1996), https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/200/301/sgc-sgc/commission_inquiry_prison-e/199681-e.pdf?nodis claimer=1.
R. Murti, “The Sentencing of Indigenous People in Canada: Where We Are Two Decades After Gladue” (2023) 19:1 Indigenous Law Journal at p 17, https://www.canlii.org/en/commentary/doc/2023CanLIIDocs3497#!fragment//BQCwhgziBcwM YgK4DsDWszIQewE4BUBTADwBdoByCgSgBpltTCIBFRQ3AT0otokLC4EbDtyp8BQkAGU8 pAELcASgFEAMioBqAQQByAYRW1SYAEbRS2ONWpA.
R v Gladue, 1999 CanLII 679, 1 SCR 688 [SCC].
R v Sharma, 2022 CanLII 39, 3 SCR 147 [SCC].
As nearly 80 percent of Canadian households now include at least one pet, the role of animals in our lives has never been more significant. Yet under Ontario law, animals are still largely treated as personal property, a legal classification that fails to reflect their emotional, social, and even therapeutic value to their human companions.
In this episode, Misha Srnec explores the evolving landscape of animal law in Canada, with a focus on Ontario. Joined by Laurie Graham, a commercial litigator at Lundy Levy Eski Baum and passionate animal welfare advocate, the conversation delves into recent Canadian cases that challenge the traditional property framework and recognize animals as more than mere objects. Laurie shares her experiences representing individuals in pet-related disputes and offers insight into how courts are beginning to recognize the complexities of human-animal relationships.
The discussion also pays particular attention to legal issues arising in the equine industry, drawing from Laurie’s lifelong involvement in the world of horses and competitive riding.
Together, they examine whether the law is catching up with public sentiment whilst also discussing what still needs to change to ensure animals receive fair and meaningful legal protections.
Are we on the brink of a new legal era for animal rights in Ontario?
In this episode of Queen’s Pro Bono Radio, host Andrei Uzumtoma dives into the murky legal waters surrounding psilocybin, the psychoactive compound in magic mushrooms. Despite being illegal under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, mushroom dispensaries are cropping up across Canadian cities. So what gives?
Through an exploration of the relevant law, Andrei breaks down the penalties for possession, production, and trafficking psychedelics. This episode also explores two key court cases—Hartle v Canada, which challenges the constitutionality of denying psilocybin to terminally ill patients, and R v Brown, where psychedelic intoxication collided with criminal liability and prompted major reforms to Section 33.1 of the Criminal Code.
By examining recent legal developments and their broader context, Andrei highlights the legal questions and access-to-justice issues raised by Canada’s changing drug policy environment.
Are magic mushrooms Canada’s next legalization frontier? And what’s at stake for those seeking relief and accountability?
Andrei Uzumtoma – Producer, Host, Editor
Music by MorningLightMusic – Free YouTube / Non-Copyright background music
Pro Bono Radio is part of the Queen’s chapter of Pro Bono Students Canada. The Pro Bono Radio team are not lawyers, and this is not legal advice.
Subscribe to this podcast on Apple Podcasts, Google Play, Spotify and Stitcher!
Research Referred to in the Podcast:
Canadian Press Staff, Experts Doubt Whether Illegal Magic Mushroom Stores Will Advance Drug Policy, CTV NEWS (July 13, 2023), online: https://www.ctvnews.ca/montreal/article/experts-doubt-whether-illegal-magic-mushroom-stores-will-advance-drug-policy/.
Canadian Public Health Association. (2023). Forum on a Public Health Approach to Psychedelics: Summary Report.
Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, SC 1996, c 19
Hartle v Canada (AG), Federal Court, filed 2022
Jacobs, E., Earp, B. D., Appelbaum, P. S., Bruce, L., Cassidy, K., Celidwen, Y., … Yaden, D. B. (2024). The Hopkins-Oxford Psychedelics Ethics (HOPE) Working Group Consensus Statement. The American Journal of Bioethics, 1–7.
MacBride, K. (2023). “How Psychedelic Hype Is Hurting More People Than We Realize,” Daily Beast(Nov. 25, 2023).
Mike Hager, Magic Mushroom Stores Are Popping Up in Vancouver, Hoping to Open the Doors To Legalization, THE GLOBE AND MAIL (February 24, 2023), online: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/british-columbia/article-magic-mushroom-stores-vancouver/.
Monika Bar & Marc Z. Goldgrub, State of Canadian Psychedelic Law – 2024 Report (Toronto: Green Economy Law Professional Corporation, December 2023), online: https://www.psychedeliclaw.ca.
Monika Bar, Emma Pandy-Szekeres & Marc Z. Goldgrub, State of Canadian Psychedelic Law – 2025 Report (Toronto: Green Economy Law Professional Corporation, January 2025), online: https://www.psychedeliclaw.ca.
Nutt, D. J., King, L. A., & Phillips, L. D. (2010). Drug harms in the UK: a multicriteria decision analysis. Lancet, 376 (9752), 1558–1565.
“Psychedelic Medicines 2024 – Canada: Trends and Developments” (2024) Chambers Practice Guides, online: https://practiceguides.chambers.com/practice-guides/psychedelic-medicines-2024/canada/trends-and-developments
R v Brown, 2022 SCC 18.
Rush, B., Marcus, O., Shore, R., Cunningham, L., Thompson, N., & Rideout, K. (2022). Psychedelic medicine: A rapid review of therapeutic applications and implications for future research. Homewood Research Institute.
Saira Peesker, Magic Mushroom Store Previously Shut Down by Police Is Back Open in Hamilton’s East End,CBC NEWS (June 1, 2023), online: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/mushroom-cabinet-open-1.6859604.
Sean Lawlor, Psychedelic Exceptionalism and Reframing Drug Narratives: An Interview with Dr. Carl Hart, PSYCHEDELICS TODAY (accessible at https://psychedelicstoday.com/2020/02/18/psychedelic-exceptionalism-and-reframing-drug-narratives-an-interview-with-dr-carl-hart/).
Plea bargains play a vital role in Canada’s justice system. By reducing the number of cases that go to trial and providing greater certainty in outcomes for accused persons, they help improve the system’s overall efficiency. However, plea bargains present some serious concerns. When vulnerable individuals—facing financial hardship, inadequate legal support, and compelling evidence against them—are presented with a plea deal, are they truly being afforded the right to the presumption of innocence?
The presumption of innocence guarantees that every person charged with an offence is presumed innocent until proven guilty in a fair and public trial. Yet plea bargains can undermine this principle by pressuring accused persons to plead guilty in exchange for a reduced sentence. This is especially troubling considering documented false guilty pleas that have led to wrongful convictions in Canada. For those facing severe penalties, overwhelming evidence, or systemic disadvantages, a guilty plea may feel like their only viable option. In such cases, the presumption of innocence is effectively denied.
In this episode, Madelyn explores the key factors contributing to false guilty pleas, including limited legal resources, systemic discrimination, and evidentiary issues. Madelyn examines the cases of Dinesh Kumar and Anthony Hanemaayer—two individuals who were wrongfully convicted after pleading guilty to crimes they did not commit. These stories reveal how plea bargains, when accepted under coercive conditions, override the presumption of innocence.
Will the justice system find a balance between efficiency and fairness—or will the presumption of innocence continue to be a casualty of compromise?
Madelyn Pepper – Producer, Host, Editor
Pro Bono Radio is part of the Queen’s Chapter of Pro Bono Students Canada. The Pro Bono Radio team are not lawyers, and this is not legal advice.
Subscribe to this podcast on Apple Podcasts, Google Play, Spotify and Stitcher!
Research referred to in the Podcast:
JURISPRUDENCE
R. v. Brant, 2011 ONCA 362
R. v. Burlingham, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 206
R. v. Hanemaayer, 2008 ONCA 580
R. v. Kumar, 2011 ONCA 120
Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c. C-46, s. 606(1.1)
SECONDARY MATERIALS
Exonerations: Richard Brant. Innocence Canada. https://www.innocencecanada.com/the-latest/exoneration/richard-brant/
Exonerations: Dinesh Kumar. Innocence Canada. https://www.innocencecanada.com/the-latest/exoneration/dinesh-kumar/
Victim participation in the plea negotiation process in Canada. Retrieved from the Government of Canada website:https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/cj-jp/victim/rr02_5/p0.html
Causes of wrongful convictions. Innocence Canada, https://www.innocencecanada.com/causes-of-wrongful-convictions/
Exonerations: Anthony Hanemaayer. Innocence Canada. https://www.innocencecanada.com/the-latest/exoneration/anthony-hanemaayer/
Dr. Charles Smith: The man behind the public inquiry. CBC. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/dr-charles-smith-the-man-behind-the-public-inquiry-1.864004
Zina Lu Burke Scott, An Inconvenient Bargain: The Ethical Implications of Plea Bargaining in Canada, 2018 81-1 Saskatchewan Law Review 53, 2018 CanLIIDocs 372, https://canlii.ca/t/2fns
The world as we know it is rapidly transforming as artificial intelligence integrates into daily life; streamlining tasks, generating content, and even making decisions once reserved for humans. From self-driving cars to AI-powered customer service, the lines between human ingenuity and machine efficiency continue to blur. In the midst of it all is the music industry, where AI-generated songs threaten to replace struggling artists—because who needs an entire tortured poets department when an algorithm can churn out heartbreak ballads at a moment’s notice?
In this episode, hosts Kieffer and Scotty examine some of the latest alleged uses of artificial intelligence in music. In their discussion regarding legal issues that artificial intelligence poses to proprietary rights, they discuss previous cases that touched upon an individual’s proprietary rights, as well as new legislation aimed at containing the use of artificial intelligence. The discussion hopes to bring the attention of listeners towards the potential legal issues that courts will face as artificial intelligence continues to develop, whether they be the proprietary issues specific to the music sphere, or on a much larger scale.
Kieffer Beard and Scotty Sullivan – Producers, Hosts, Editors
Music: Prism by Theatre of Delays
Source: https://www.bensound.com/
License Code: B50UKLWZEC4ZTUC8
Pro Bono Radio is part of the Queen’s Chapter of Pro Bono Students Canada. The Pro Bono Radio team are not lawyers, and this is not legal advice.
Subscribe to this podcast on Apple Podcasts, Google Play, Spotify and Stitcher!
Research Referred to in the Podcast:
JURISPRUDENCE:
Krouse v. Chrysler Canada Ltd. et al., 1973 CanLII 574 (ON CA)
Athans v. Canadian Adventure Camps Ltd. et al., 1977 CanLII 1255 (ON SC)
SECONDARY MATERIALS:
Bill C-27, An Act to enact the Consumer Privacy Protection Act, the Personal Information and Data Protection Tribunal Act and the Artificial Intelligence and Data Act and to make consequential and related amendments to other Acts,1st Sess, 44th Parl, 2022 https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/C-27/first-reading
Ensuring Likeness, Voice, and Image Security Act, Pub L No 2091, Tenn, 2024. http://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/113/Bill/SB2096.pdf
Dahl et al., “AI in music: The Drake/Tupac case and beyond” (May 7, 2024) https://www.millerthomson.com/en/insights/publications/ai-in-music-drake-tupac-case/
“AI created a song mimicking the work of Drake and The Weeknd. What does that mean for copyright law?” (May 2, 2023) https://hls.harvard.edu/today/ai-created-a-song-mimicking-the-work-of-drake-and-the-weeknd-what-does-that-mean-for-copyright-law/
Gabriel Bras Nevares, “Playboi Carti Reportedly Denies Using AI On New Album “MUSIC” Amid Fans’ Outrage” (March 16, 2025) https://www.hotnewhiphop.com/894587-playboi-carti-denies-using-ai-new-album-music-hip-hop-news
Technology continues to advance with ever-increasing speed, and along with it, so too does the accompanying danger of cybersecurity risks in an increasingly digitized world. While in many ways our legal system has begun to engage with both new technologies and cybersecurity risks, I find that, as a law student, information encompassing these topics is often scarce at the school level. Considering how fascinating this topic is, this episode will aim to provide you with an accessible and candid discussion on the intersection of emerging technologies, data privacy and the Canadian legal system.
In this episode, I discuss one of the main avenues for recourse available to individuals who have had their privacy infringed; that is, the tort of “intrusion upon seclusion”. The foundational case that introduced this tort in the Canadian legal system, Jones v Tsige, will be discussed, as well as subsequent limits placed on the case’s breadth in more recent jurisprudence, like in the 2022 case of Owsianik, and the Canadian government Bill C-27. The discussion aims to serve as food for thought on the path forward for protecting individuals’ privacy, and how far liability should extend for corporate actors that fail to take necessary safeguards in protecting consumer information.
Aidan Brown – Producer, Host, Editor
Pro Bono Radio is part of the Queen’s chapter of Pro Bono Students Canada. The Pro Bono Radio team are not lawyers, and this is not legal advice.
Subscribe to this podcast on Apple Podcasts, Google Play, Spotify and Stitcher!
Research Referred to in the Podcast:
JURISPRUDENCE
Jones v. Tsige, 2012 ONCA 32.
Owsianik v. Equifax Canada Co., 2022 ONCA 813.
SECONDARY MATERIALS
Bill C-27, An Act to enact the Consumer Privacy Protection Act, the Personal Information and Data Protection Tribunal Act and the Artificial Intelligence and Data Act and to make consequential and related amendments to other Acts, 1st Sess, 44th Parl, 2022, cls 9(1) and 57(1) to 57(3) (first reading 16 June 2022), online: https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/C-27/first-reading.
Kawser Ahmed, “Canada’s Cyber Security in a Globalized Environment” in Romaniuk, Scott N & Mary Manjikian, eds, Routledge companion to global cyber-security strategy (London: Routledge, 2021).
Michael (Mike) Schafler & Luca Lucarini, A decade since the recognition of the tort of intrusion upon seclusion: How Jones v Tsige has impacted privacy class actions in Canada (Toronto: Dentons 2022), online: https://www.dentons.com/en/insights/articles/2022/july/27/-/media/408d4888b6964bca933409ee466c66a6.ashx.
Molly Reynolds, Nic Wall, Shalom Cumbo-Steinmetz, “Liability for cyber attacks clarified by Ontario Court of Appeal” (29 November 2022), online: https://www.torys.com/en/our-latest-thinking/publications/2022/11/liability-for-cyber-attacks-clarified-by-ontario-court-of-appeal.
In 2021, the Ontario Superior Court released the monumental decision, Klinck v Dorsay, which held that medical examinations involving genetic testing may be ordered in private civil actions. This decision was made in a medical malpractice lawsuit and raised much controversy due to the intrusiveness of this order, and the privacy concerns that this poses for Canadians.
The Court held that it would be unfair to deprive the parties from acquiring evidence that may assist in their defence. In other words, it would be unfair for the Court to deprive the Defence from evidence that may assist in their defence as genetic tests can provide information that is relevant to the claim. The request to allow the Court to order genetic testing was deemed to be warranted, legitimate and in the best interest of the most just and expeditious result. However, a defendant’s right to genetic testing is not infinite as the Plaintiff’s genetics must be a significant issue and the case and must be properly raised.
In this episode, Bobbie and Jodie discuss and break down this development, considering the policy implications of this decision. While genetic testing can provide certainty in establishing causation and allow for a full defence to be made, there are serious privacy concerns with the courts intervening so deeply in one’s life. Genetic testing is incredibly intrusive and can result in an individual uncovering information about themselves that they wish to not have known. Join our hosts in a discussion on the balancing of fairness to the Court and a right to individual privacy.
Bobbie Alvernaz & Jodie Koniuch – Producers, Hosts, Editors
Music: Music I Use: Bensound.com/free-music-for-videos
License code: IOFYF3HMR31ULQE8
Pro Bono Radio is part of the Queen’s chapter of Pro Bono Students Canada. The Pro Bono Radio team are not lawyers, and this is not legal advice.
Subscribe to this podcast on Apple Podcasts, Google Play, Spotify and Stitcher!
Research Referred to in the Podcast:
Klinck v. Dorsay, 2021 ONSC 6285
Benoit v Banfield, 2012 BCSC 26
Adacsi v Amin, 2013 ABCA 315
Preece v Nicholson et al., 2019 PESC 34
Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43
Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194
Bernise Caralino, Ontario court orders genetic testing in obstetrical malpractice action despite privacy concerns (October 2021), online: The Canadian Lawyer https://www.canadianlawyermag.com/practice-areas/medical-malpractice/ontario-court-orders-genetic-testing-in-obstetrical-malpractice-action-despite-privacy-concerns/360990
As the world’s attention continues to turn to the climate change crisis, innovative legal methods of environmental protection are beginning to emerge in response. This episode of Pro Bono Radio, hosted by Queen’s Law student Maeve McNaughton, focuses on two developing methods: environmental personhood and ecocide.
Environmental personhood, which grants legal rights to environmental structures, is being seen with increasing frequency in Canada and countries around the world. Meanwhile, the widespread destruction of ecosystems, dubbed “ecocide,” is proposed as the fifth international crime to be recognized by the ICC. Both of these methods of legally enforcing environmental protection have their pros and cons.
Professor Darryl Robinson has published work examining the proposed crime of ecocide and the possible difficulties of its implementation. He is a member of Stop Ecocide International and took part in UCLA’s Promise Institute project to create a proposed definition for ecocide. Professor Robinson joins us to discuss these methods and his research on protecting the environment through international and domestic law.
Maeve McNaughton- Producer, Host, Editor
Music: Music track: Option by Aylex
Source: https://freetouse.com/music
Pro Bono Radio is part of the Queen’s chapter of Pro Bono Students Canada. The Pro Bono Radio team are not lawyers, and this is not legal advice.
Subscribe to this podcast on Apple Podcasts, Google Play, Spotify and Stitcher!
Research Referred to in the Podcast:
Heller, Kevin Jon. “Skeptical thoughts on the proposed crime of ‘Ecocide’ (that isn’t)”, (28 June 2021), online: Opinio Juris https://opiniojuris.org/2021/06/23/skeptical-thoughts-on-the-proposed-crime-of-ecocide-that-isnt/.
Gordon, G. J. (2019). Environmental Personhood. Columbia Journal of Environmental Law, 43(1). https://doi.org/10.7916/cjel.v43i1.3742
Darryl Robinson, Ecocide — Puzzles and Possibilities, Journal of International Criminal Justice, Volume 20, Issue 2, May 2022, Pages 313–347, https://doi.org/10.1093/jicj/mqac021
Robinson, Darryl. “Your guide to ecocide: Part 1”, (21 July 2021), online: Opinio Juris http://opiniojuris.org/2021/07/16/your-guide-to-ecocide-part-1/.
“First Nations Quebec-Labrador resolution declaring legal personhood of the St. Lawrence River”, (2 December 2023), online: Eco Jurisprudence Monitor https://ecojurisprudence.org/initiatives/first-nations-resolution-recognizing-the-rights-of-the-st-lawrence-river/.
“Quebec River granted legal rights as part of Global ‘personhood’ movement | CBC News”, (28 February 2021), online: CBCnews https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/magpie-river-quebec-canada-personhood-1.5931067.
Government of Canada, Department of Justice. “The United Nations declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples”, (21 June 2023), online: Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 13 September 2007https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/declaration/decl_doc.html.
“Legal definition and commentary 2021”, online: Ecocide Law https://ecocidelaw.com/legal-definition-and-commentary-2021/.
Environmental crimes: Deal on new offences and reinforced sanctions: News: European parliament. Environmental crimes: deal on new offences and reinforced sanctions | News | European Parliament. (n.d.). https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20230929IPR06108/environmental-crimes-deal-on-new-offences-and-reinforced-sanctions
Times, T. B. (n.d.). Belgium becomes first in EU to recognise ecocide as international crime. The Brussels Times. https://www.brusselstimes.com/belgium/937229/belgium-becomes-first-in-eu-to-recognise-ecocide-as-international-crime-tbtb
Following a long history of social debate and discourse, Parliament legalized recreational cannabis across Canada on October 17th, 2018. Among the goals of this act was to put a halt to the illicit cannabis market while providing a safe supply for those who choose to smoke, and to protect the youth of Canada by limiting their access to cannabis. However, the restrictions laid out in the Cannabis Act make it difficult for it’s stated purposes to be carried out. If we want to put an end to the cannabis black market, while concurrently protecting Canadian youth, some changes may need to come to the legal Cannabis field.
In this episode, we discuss with our esteemed guests, lawyers Lewis Retik and Matt Maurer, the hurdles that cannabis businesses must overcome, and ponder changes that can be made in the Cannabis field that will aid in the goals of the Cannabis Act to be realized. Our first guest, Lewis Retik, co-leads the Cannabis group at Gowling WLG’s Ottawa office. He often works with his clients to develop marketing strategies as well as packaging and advertising designs that are both consumer-friendly and compliant with the law. Our second guest, Matt Maurer, is the chair of Torkin Manes LLP’s Cannabis group. He advises his clients on practical business and regulatory advice to counsel a wide range of cannabis industry stakeholders. Such as, licensed producers, people applying to be producers, startups, and foreign businesses looking to enter the Canadian market.
Quin Myles and Julian Shivprasad– Producers, Hosts, Editors
Pro Bono Radio is part of the Queen’s chapter of Pro Bono Students Canada. The Pro Bono Radio team are not lawyers, and this is not legal advice.
Subscribe to this podcast on Apple Podcasts, Google Play, Spotify and Stitcher!
Research Referred to in the Podcast:
Canada, Health Canada, About the Process: Cannabis Security Clearances https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/cannabis-regulations-licensed-producers/security-clearances/process.html#a1
Canada, Health Canada, Cannabis Act Legislative Review, 22 September 2022. https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/drugs-medication/cannabis/laws-regulations/cannabis-act-legislative-review.html
Canada, Health Canada, Legislative Review of the Cannabis Act: What We Heard Report, 10 October 2023 https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/drugs-medication/cannabis/laws-regulations/cannabis-act-legislative-review/expert-panel/legislative-review-cannabis-act-report.html
Canada, Public Safety Canada, Cannabis Black Market
https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/trnsprnc/brfng-mtrls/prlmntry-bndrs/20200930/026/index-en.aspx
Cannabis Act, SC 2018, c. 16.
CBC, Cannabis Law Review to Explore How Legalization Is Going, 2022. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6Y3tvy52IE
CBC, Feds to review Canada’s cannabis legislation after a year delay, 2022.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKBd3xzM5MQ&ab_channel=CBCNews
CBC, Push to Loosen Rules on Canadian cannabis sales, THC limits, 2023.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJB_FK8VRig&ab_channel=CBCNews%3ATheNational
Jeremy de Beer & Alyssa Gaffen, “Intellectual Property Rights in the Recreational Cannabis Market: Craft or Comoddity? (2017) 50:3 UBC LR 621
Ranjeev Dhillon, Rami Chalabi & Matthew Sanders, “Cannabis” in McCarthy Tetrault, Doing Business in Canada (2023)
Rob Matthews, Samantha Greer & Francois Desmarais, “Cannabis Debt Financing: Current Market Snapshot and Considerations for Lenders, Investors, and Underwriters” Baker McKenzie Leveraged Finance Newsletter (December 2019)
Nick Noonan, “High Time for a Change: Combatting the Black Market for Cannabis in Canada” (2021) 44:3 Manitoba LJ 257
Medical Assistance in Dying (MAID) has been the subject of much controversy, especially in the last few years, and it continues to generate great debate today. The service, which permits doctors and other medical practitioners to facilitate the deaths of consenting patients who are suffering from intolerable illness, was first decriminalized by the Carter v Canada decision in 2016. Since then, expansions for MAID have been proposed and implemented that widen the group of people who can access the service. What at first was perceived to be an effort to reduce the suffering of those persons who would opt to die rather than to continue living with an untreatable illness that causes them terrible pain, has since changed to include other types of patients for whom death may not even be foreseeable.
In this episode, we discuss another proposed expansion to MAID suggested by Bill C-39, which seeks to expand MAID availability to people suffering solely from mental illness. Joining us here at Pro Bono Radio is our esteemed and experienced guest, Mr. Julius Grey. Mr. Grey is a leading Constitutional and human rights lawyer in Canada and has appeared before the Supreme Court of Canada over 50 different times. He has vocally opposed the expansion of MAID to people suffering solely from mental illness and strongly believes that section 7 of the Charter, which guarantees the right to life of the person, should be protected with respect to MAID except only in the most necessary of circumstances.
Arjun Kapil – Producer, Host, Editor
Music: Royalty Free Music: Bensound.com/royalty-free-music
License code: JUFZOF0KAIBEJAON
Pro Bono Radio is part of the Queen’s chapter of Pro Bono Students Canada. The Pro Bono Radio team are not lawyers, and this is not legal advice.
Subscribe to this podcast on Apple Podcasts, Google Play, Spotify and Stitcher!
Research Referred to in Podcast:
Carter v Canada (AG), 2015 SCC 5
Truchon v. Procureur général du Canada, [2019] Q.J. No. 7750
Bill C-39: An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying). (2023). Online: Department of Justice Canada. https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/pl/charter-charte/c39.html
Bill C-7: An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying). (2020). Online: Department of Justice Canada. https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/pl/charter-charte/c7.html
Medical assistance in dying: Overview. (2023). Online: Department of Justice Canada. https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/health-services-benefits/medical-assistance-dying.html
Ryan Tanner, “An ethical-legal analysis of medical assistance in dying for those with mental illness.” (2018) 56:1 Alta L Rev 149 – 175.
Madeleine Archer et al, “What Domains of Belgian Euthanasia Practice are Governed and by Which Sources of Regulation: A Scoping Review” (2023) OMEGA – J Death and Dying, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/00302228231221839
Marc De Hert et al, “Improving control over euthanasia of persons with psychiatric illness: Lessons from the first Belgian criminal court case concerning euthanasia.” (2020) Front Psychiatry 13:933748. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2022.933748
Caroline Favron-Godbout & Eric Racine, “Medical assistance in dying for people living with mental disorders: a qualitative thematic review.” (2023) 24 BMC Med Ethics 86. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-023-00971-4
Diana Young, (2022) “Biopower, juridical power and the afterlife of rights: Medical assistance in dying and the Supreme Court of Canada.” (2022) 26:1 Theoretical Criminology 112-131. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362480620928329
Anna Farrow, “Lawyer to Challenge MAiD for Mentallty Ill”, (22 November, 2023), online: https://www.catholicregister.org/item/36153-lawyer-to-challenge-maid-for-mentally-ill
Masih Khalatbari, “Surge in medically assisted deaths under Canada’s MAID program outpaces every other country”, Toronto Star (27 January, 2024), online: https://www.thestar.com/news/investigations/surge-in-medically-assisted-deaths-under-canada-s-maid-program-outpaces-every-other-country/article_29028f96-bc6b-11ee-8f67-03bf29ac7d34.html
This episode explores the topic of children’s voices in the family law system. The common law has evolved tremendously when it comes to children’s rights. From children being treated as chattels to a focus on the protection of children’s best interests, it seems as though rights for children have come a long way, and it continues to evolve to this day. Raquel Medeiros takes on the discussion on the way children are heard, the duties of lawyers, and the perspective of children in family cases to evaluate the benefits and limitations of this evolving topic.
Producer, Host, and Editor: Raquel Medeiros
Music: https://app.soundstripe.com/songs/16762
Pro Bono Radio is part of the Queen’s chapter of Pro Bono Students Canada. The Pro Bono Radio team are not lawyers, and this is not legal advice.
Subscribe to this podcast on Apple Podcasts, Google Play, Spotify and Stitcher!
Research Referred to in the Podcast:
Michelle Fernando, “Family Law Proceedings and the Child’s Right to Be Heard in Australia, The United Kingdom, New Zealand, and Canada” (2014) 52:1 Family Court Review: An Interdisciplinary Journal (USA) pp. 46-59, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2627500
Nicholas Bala and Rachel Birnbaum, “Rethinking the Role of Lawyers for Children: Child Representation in Canadian Family Relationship Cases” (2018) 59 Les Cahiers de Droit 787-829, Queen’s University Legal Research Paper No.2018-103, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3342335
Nicholas Bala and Patrina Hebert, “Views, Perspectives and Experiences of Children in Family Cases” (2016) Queen’s University Legal Research Paper No. 082, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2887623
In this episode of Queen’s Law Pro Bono Radio, we delve into the evolution of British Columbia’s drug possession laws. Our host, Herleen Sharma, takes us on a compelling exploration of how British Columbia has spearheaded groundbreaking changes in response to the opioid crisis, a crisis that has left a profound impact on communities across the province.
Through insightful analysis and scholarly perspective, we unravel the complexities of British Columbia’s efforts towards drug decriminalization. From the origins of the opioid crisis to the practical implications of policy changes, we navigate through the legal, social, and political dimensions of this pressing issue. Join us as we embark on a journey to understand the nuances of drug decriminalization in British Columbia, exploring the intersection of law, public health, and social justice. Don’t miss this enlightening discussion that aims to inform and inspire action towards a more compassionate and equitable approach to drug policy.
Herleen Sharma – Producer, Host, Editor
Pro Bono Radio is part of the Queen’s chapter of Pro Bono Students Canada. The Pro Bono Radio team are not lawyers, and this is not legal advice.
Subscribe to this podcast on Apple Podcasts, Google Play, Spotify and Stitcher!
Research Referred to in the Podcast:
BC Gov News (2016) Provincial health officer declares public health emergency. Available at: https://news.gov.bc.ca/releases/2016HLTH0026-000568
Understanding the Epidemic (2023) Understanding the opioid overdose epidemic. Available at: https://www.cdc.gov/opioids/basics/epidemic.html
Hetter, K. (2023) What makes fentanyl so dangerous and how can people prevent overdoses? our expert explains, CNN. Available at: https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/23/health/fentanyl-heroin-opioids-naloxone-wellness/index.html
Overdose & drug poisoning data (2023) BC Emergency Health Services. Available at: http://www.bcehs.ca/about/accountability/data/overdose-drug-poisoning-data#Trends
“Power Bi Report.” Power BI. https://app.powerbi.com/view?r=eyJrIjoiY2ZkZTgxODAtMmE5Mi00MzNjLTlkNDYtMjRhNjU4Nzk2NGZmIiwidCI6IjZmZGI1MjAwLTNkMGQtNGE4YS1iMDM2LWQzNjg1ZTM1OWFkYyJ9
Engagement, Government Communications and Public Engagement. Decriminalizing People Who Use Drugs in B.C. Province of British Columbia, September 15, 2023. https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/overdose/decriminalization
Jesseman, Rebecca, and Doris Payer. Publication. Decriminalization: Options and Evidence, June 2018. https://www.ccsa.ca/sites/default/files/2019-04/CCSA-Decriminalization-Controlled-Substances-Policy-Brief-2018-en.pdf
McSheffrey, Elizabeth. “It’s Been More than 6 Months of Drug Decriminalization in B.C. What’s Changed?” Global News, September 8, 2023.https://globalnews.ca/news/9924506/drug-decriminalization-six-months-bc/
Vance, Emily. “B.C. Introduces Bill to Ban Illicit Drug Use in Many Public Spaces.” CBC News, October 4, 2023. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/bc-drug-use-changes-1.6987330
Xavier, Chloe, Lisa Liu, Heather Burgess, O Kara Loewen, Brooke Kinniburgh, and Alexis Crabtree. Rep. Baseline Decriminalization Findings from the 2022 Harm Reduction Client Survey: Interactions with Law Enforcement, September 14, 2023. http://www.bccdc.ca/resource-gallery/Documents/Statistics%20and%20Research/Statistics%20and%20Reports/Overdose/KnowledgeUpdate_Police_Interaction.pdf
Weichel, Andrew. “B.C.’s Prescribed Safer Drug Supply Saved Lives, Landmark Study Finds.” CTV News Vancouver, January 11, 2024. https://bc.ctvnews.ca/b-c-s-prescribed-safer-drug-supply-saved-lives-landmark-study-finds-1.6722703
Tattoos are a creative process, sometimes collaborative but ultimately require skill and creativity. Many are original works of art created by tattoo artists for the bearer. The right to expression is a protected right held by all Canadians. Tattoos are becoming more and more accepted as a form of self-expression, accepted socially and professionally. Artists have a copyright interest in the work they create. With the amount of detail and artistry that is involved with tattooing; tattoos are both an art and a form of personal expression.
These conflicting interests have the potential to produce some interesting legal questions. There have already been instances of celebrity civil suits regarding the use of tattoos in public facing ways. Canadian courts have not yet been faced with this issue. However foreign courts’ treatment of the question might provide some insight into the direction our courts will lean when deciding these issues. In this episode, Kwame helps us to use the context provided by our southern neighbors to imagine a path forward.
Kwame Skerritt-Williams– Producer, Host, Editor
Pro Bono Radio is part of the Queen’s chapter of Pro Bono Students Canada. The Pro Bono Radio team are not lawyers, and this is not legal advice.
Subscribe to this podcast on Apple Podcasts, Google Play, Spotify and Stitcher!
Research Referred to in the Podcast:
A Copyright on Tattoos: Where to draw the line? CBA National (2023) https://nationalmagazine.ca/en-ca/articles/law/hot-topics-in-law/2023/a-copyright-on-tattoos#:~:text=So%2C%20who%20owns%20copyright%20in,or%20acquire%20it%20by%20asignment
Canadian Admiral Corporation Ltd. v. Rediffusion Inc., 1954 CanLII 712 (CA EXC), [1954] Ex CR 382
Canada: PART I: Are Tattoos Protected By Copyright?, online: Fasken https://ip.fasken.com/part-i-are-tattoos-protected-by-copyright/?utm_source=mondaq&utm_medium=syndication&utm_term=Intellectual-Property&utm_content=articleoriginal&utm_campaign=article
Copyright Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. C-42)
Fixation on Flesh: Why Tattoos Should Not Garner Copyright Protection (2019) 30:1 NYSBA Entertainment, Arts and Sports Law Journal
https://nysba.org/NYSBA/Publications/Section%20Publications/EASL/Article-EASLJournalSpring2019.pdf
Marie Hadley, ‘Whitmill v Warner Bros. and the Visibility of Cultural Appropriation Claims in Copyright Law’ (2020) 42(4) European Intellectual Property Review, 42(4) pp 223-229 file:///Users/kwameskerritt-williams/Documents/SSRN-id3812828.pdf
The topic of the exchange of sexual services for consideration, more commonly referred to as prostitution, is quite controversial and often lends itself to strong opinions on both sides of the debate. However, the constitutionality of such work in Canada has developed rapidly, leaving many Canadians confused on its legality. A thorough answer to this seemingly simple question requires a journey with Bobbie Alvernaz through the development of the law on this issue; how Canada arrived at the laws on the books today, the claims in favour of the current laws, and how dignity and equality rights are ultimately central to these legal decisions.
In this episode, we discuss and break down this development with our esteemed guest, Professor Debra Haak. Professor Haak is currently an assistant professor at Queen’s law and has published several articles on the topic of the constitutionality of prostitution in Canada. Professor Haak’s research and publication focus specifically on how law and policy in Canada contend with the different interests of individuals and groups in a diverse society. Her work also explores how legal decision makers, including judges and policy makers, make difficult choices between and among these differing individuals and groups in a liberal and constitutional legal context.
Bobbie Alvernaz– Producer, Host, Editor
Music: https://www.bensound.com
Pro Bono Radio is part of the Queen’s chapter of Pro Bono Students Canada. The Pro Bono Radio team are not lawyers, and this is not legal advice.
Subscribe to this podcast on Apple Podcasts, Google Play, Spotify and Stitcher!
If possible, I would like to provide a list of publications of my host as follows:
Research of our guest, Professor Debra Haak (Peer-Reviewed):
“Revisiting the Analytical Distinction Between Section 7 and Section 1 of the Charter: Legislative Objectives, Policy Goals, and Public Interests” (forthcoming, Supreme Court Law Review)
“The Case of the Reasonable Hypothetical Sex Worker” (2022) 60:1 Alberta Law Review 205
“The Good Governance of Empirical Evidence about Prostitution, Sex Work, and Sex Trafficking in Constitutional Litigation” (2021) 46:2 Queen’s Law Journal 187
“Re(de)fining Prostitution and Sex Work: Conceptual Clarity for Legal Thinking” (2019) 40 Windsor Review of Legal & Social Issues 67
“The Initial Test of Constitutional Validity: Identifying the Legislative Objectives of Canada’s New Prostitution Laws” (2017) 50:3 UBC Law Review 657
Research Referred to in the Podcast:
The Good Governance of Empirical Evidence about Prostitution, Sex Work, and Sex Trafficking in Constitutional Litigation (2021) 46:2 Queen’s Law Journal 187 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3820090.
Re(de)fining Prostitution and Sex Work: Conceptual Clarity for Legal Thinking (2019) 40 Windsor Review of Legal & Social Issues 67 https://ssrn.com/abstract=3333280.
The Initial Test of Constitutional Validity: Identifying the Legislative Objectives of Canada’s New Prostitution Laws (2017) 50:3 UBC Law Review 657 https://ssrn.com/abstract=3031586.
Canada (Attorney General) v Bedford, 2013 SCC 72
Sex Work Laws Unconstitutional: Canada (Attorney General) v. Bedford, Supreme Court of Canada 2013. (2015), online: Ontario Women’s Justice Network https://owjn.org/2015/10/01/sex-work-laws-unconstitutional-canada-attorney-general-v-bedford-supreme-court-of-canada-2013/
Prostitution Criminal Law Reform: Bill C-36, the Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act. (2018), online: Department of Justice Canada. https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/other-autre/c36fs_fi/
Technical Paper: Bill C-36, An Act to amend the Criminal Code in response to the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Attorney General of Canada v. Bedford and to make consequential amendments to other Acts (Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act). (2014). Department of Justice Canada. https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/other-autre/protect/protect.pdf
This show explores the law of finders: This is the term used to refer to the collection of rules governing ownership of lost or abandoned property. Everybody learns a simple rule at an early age: finders keepers. But while the law does back this phrase to an extent, it’s often much more complicated. We explore some of the case law and look at the many factors that the courts consider when deciding which party gets to keep a found item. We also interview Professor Mohamed Khimji of Queen’s Law to gain his insight on why this area of law is so convoluted and how people should approach it.
Credits:
Producer, Host and Editor: Mukhtar Hindi
Music:
Intro Music – QubeSounds
https://pixabay.com/music/beats-abstract-fashion-pop-131283/
Gavel Sound Effect – FableCityRadio
https://pixabay.com/sound-effects/gavel-of-justice-124029/
Pro Bono Radio is part of the Queen’s chapter of Pro Bono Students Canada. The Pro Bono Radio team are not lawyers, and this is not legal advice.
Subscribe to this podcast on Apple Podcasts, Google Play, Spotify and Stitcher!
Internet regulation policies have huge implications for the Canadian public given the central role played by online platforms in our daily lives. Last year, the Canadian government put forth a series of proposals concerning internet regulation that proved to be quite contentious. There was Bill C-10 (now C-11) which would amend the Canadian Broadcasting Act to bring it up to speed with the internet age. There was also an online harms proposal that would regulate social media platforms in how they handle harmful content. These proposals touch on many important topics including freedom of expression, consumer choice, and the internet experiences that Read More ...
This episode provides an examination of tort reform in Canada, with an expert in the field. This episode examines the existing tort system, how it could be changed, who is seeking this change, and (in that vein) how different people will benefit from this. We examine common misconceptions about the law of torts, and how said misconceptions lead to calls for tort reform. We also examine how the movement for tort reform has spread into Canada from abroad. Joining the Pro Bono Radio team to discuss tort reform in Canada is Professor Mary-Jo Maur. Professor Maur is currently a professor at Read More ...
Britney Spears has made headlines in the media since 2008, most notably with the #FreeBritney movement to inspire the end to her conservatorship controlled by her father. Fans were concerned for the 13 years that her conservatorship lasted. She was still performing and recording albums, which many thought was strange as conservatorships are imposed on those who are incapable of making their own personal decisions. Her life has sparked conservation about similar laws in Canada and what might have happened if she were in Canada. Joining the Pro Bono Radio team to discuss Ontario’s legislation around decision-making laws is Professor Read More ...
“Governments are going to have to think more seriously about whether just a negative role in the freedom of expression is going to be enough”. Section 2(b) of the Charter of Canadian Rights and Freedoms is premised on values that have been recognized as essential to society for millennia. The context in which the freedom of expression is evoked, however, is changing before our eyes. Join a first-year queens law student, Austin Layng, and Associate Professor at Queen’s Faculty of Law, Cherie Metcalf, to learn about what activity is covered under the freedom of expression, how the government can justifiably infringe Read More ...
Ontario’s Succession Law Reform Act governs the province’s Wills & Estates law. As a statute, it deals with issues like the formalities for making a valid Will, how someone’s property is distributed when they die without a Will and the rules governing dependent support requirements for estate distribution. New changes to the SLRA came into effect in January of 2022 and could have some potentially profound implications. A few of these changes include; witnessing Wills with the help of audio-visual technology, a new definition for “separated,” and that one’s Will is no longer automatically revoked upon marriage. Joining the Pro Bono Radio team to discuss Read More ...
In the midst of the pandemic, it is clear that the Canadian prison system needs to change. The only question is how we should aim to change it. Some advocate for prison reform, while others stress the need for the abolition and replacement of the system altogether. Looming over this debate is the practice of solitary confinement, which has become increasingly common in Canadian prisons during the pandemic. In this episode, we discuss and break down this debate with our esteemed guest, Professor Lisa Kerr. Professor Kerr is currently an assistant professor at Queen’s law and has published several papers and Read More ...
In today’s digital age, social media has evolved to become an important, and sometime necessary, part of everyday life. With the boom of social media, personal information has become increasingly available and accessible. Correspondingly, some employers have begun to use social media to screen candidates during the hiring process and learn information about them beyond what is provided in their resume and cover letter. However, while candidates’ information may be just a few keystrokes away for many employers, there are many risks associated with employers’ use of social media. Joining the Pro Bono Radio team in the studio to discuss Read More ...
This episode takes a dive into the world of cryptocurrency, blockchain, and the new world of NFTs (or non-fungible tokens) and looks at their explosive growth in the past year as well as what the future holds for them. The focus of this episode will be to introduce what NFTs are as well as some of the current legal questions surrounding their use, particularly in the copyright, contract, and ownership settings. [This episode was recorded in April, 2021]. Production: Glen Harrison – Producers, Hosts and Editors Pro Bono Radio is part of the Queen’s chapter of Pro Bono Students Canada. Read More ...
Shoplifting Civil Recovery Letters present unique challenges to both consumers and the legal community. The legitimacy of Shoplifting Recovery Letters remains shrouded in the mystique of “The Law”; hidden from society at large, the practice is at best ethically questionable. Professor Amy Salyzyn explores the issues surrounding this practice in their paper: “Zealous Advocacy or Exploitative Shakedown: The Ethics of Civil Recovery Letters”. In today’s episode, Chris and Kevin are joined by Professor Salyzyn as they discuss the ethical conundrums that are Shoplifting Civil Recovery Letters. A special thank you to Ketsa, whose music was used in both the intro Read More ...
The advent of the internet and proliferation of social media has necessitated legislatures and courts around the globe to consider how to best address internet-based legal wrongs. On this week’s episode of Pro Bono Radio, Emily and Rebekah discuss the Canadian common law’s response to online harassment and the fashioning of cyber-based remedies. They will explore the recent Ontario Superior Court of Justice decision, Caplan v. Atas, which recognized the novel tort of internet harassment, the significant development it marks, and the implications of the decision going forward. Production: Emily Milana & Rebekah O’Hare – Producers, Hosts and Editors Pro Bono Read More ...
The debate surrounding NCAA athletes’ ability to profit off of their name, image and likeness (NIL) has been raging on for years. The NCAA has strongly resisted allowing athletes to do so, but with recent legislation passed by certain states, the debate has returned to the forefront of college sports. This episode examines the debate, first by looking at the history of NIL and the recent legislative developments surrounding it. Each side of the debate is then examined to attempt to give weight to the varying perspectives. Production: Justin Mendonza & Tony Yin – Producers, Hosts and Editors Pro Bono Read More ...
On this week’s episode of Pro Bono Radio the team sits down with Adam Goldenberg to discuss politicization of the Canadian judicial system. In contrast to the U.S., Canada’s courts and judicial appointment process are seemingly much less political and partisan – the names of Supreme Court of Canada nominees usually do not come up in casual conversation with the same ease as our American counterparts. Is it really because Canadians are just “nicer?” Or does it have to do with the fact that as a society, we are just less partisan and politically charged?
Our esteemed guest, Adam Goldenberg, is an Associate in the Litigation and National Appellate Litigation Groups at McCarthy Tétrault in Toronto. Adam has appeared as counsel in all levels of court in Ontarion, and in 16 appeals to the Supreme Court of Canada. Adam graduated from Yale Law School in 2014 and clerked for Justice James MacPherson, Janet Simmons, and Eleanore Cronk on the Ontario Court of Appeals and for Chief Justice Beverly McLachlin on the Supreme Court of Canada. Prior to attending law school, he worked as a speechwriter for Michael Ignatieff, as Acting Director of Communications, and as a Senior Advisor to the Minister for the Ontario Ministry of Research, Innovation, and Science.
Production:
Andrew Liang, Emily Milana & Rebekah O’Hare – Producers, Hosts and Editors
Pro Bono Radio is part of the Queen’s chapter of Pro Bono Students Canada. The Pro Bono Radio team are not lawyers, and this is not legal advice.
Subscribe to this podcast on Apple Podcasts, Google Play, Spotify and Stitcher!
The American judiciary can seem like a wild place for us Canadians. We don’t really speak of a liberal or conservative court in Canada, justices aren’t rushed to the SCC just before an election, and we’ve moved on from social issues as the core of our legal contentions. But are these things that can happen in Canada? This week’s show is a two parter as we explore why are American courts becoming so politicized? What’s the problem and is it a problem that can happen in Canada as well?
Today on Pro Bono Radio, we’re speaking with Professor Alyssa King of Queen’s Law and Professor Paul Gardner of the Queen’s Political Studies department. Professor King worked as a Law Clerk for Judge Barrington D. Parker of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals and Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis of the Eastern District of New York. Recently, Professor King has been working on keeping track as to how the COVID-19 pandemic is affecting procedural changes to courts and alternative dispute resolutions procedures. Professor Gardner was a visiting researcher at the Centre for Law in the Contemporary Workplace at Queen’s Law and he describes his work as “[sitting] at the interaction of a number of sub-disciplines of political science, including American institutions, judicial politics, American political development, law and society, and political behaviour.”
Production:
Andrew Liang– Producer, Host and Editor
Chris Ludwinski – Host
Glen Harrison – Host
Pro Bono Radio is part of the Queen’s chapter of Pro Bono Students Canada. The Pro Bono Radio team are not lawyers, and this is not legal advice.
Subscribe to this podcast on Apple Podcasts, Google Play, Spotify and Stitcher!
With over 17,000 Canadians dying of opioid overdose between 2016 and 2020, Canada is facing a national crisis. Provincial projects like supervised consumption sites and free naloxone are failing to address the growing numbers of Canadians dying from tainted drug supply.
This had led to growing calls for the federal government to decriminalize the possession of drugs for personal use and implement a model similar to Portugal’s approach, which led to an 80% decrease in overdose deaths.
On this episode, we talk with Member of Parliament Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, who has been a prominent voice for decriminalization in the House of Commons. He joins us to discuss his two private members bills, C-235 and C-236, which would decriminalize drugs and encourage the use of diversion methods in drug possession charges, respectively.
UPDATE:
Soon after this episode was recorded, the federal government announced new legislation on drug possession charges and minimum sentencing, using the diversion elements introduced in C-236.
Read more here: https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/justice-reform-drug-treatment-criminal-code-1.5917710
Production:
Maitland Shaheen – Producer, Host and Editor
Pro Bono Radio is part of the Queen’s chapter of Pro Bono Students Canada. The Pro Bono Radio team are not lawyers, and this is not legal advice.
Subscribe to this podcast on Apple Podcasts, Google Play, Spotify and Stitcher!
With the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg last year and the appointment of an anti-abortion judge in her place, Americans began to fear an overturn of Roe v Wade, the case that secured the right to abortion in the United States. Although the Supreme Courts of both Canada and the U.S. have found a constitutional right to abortion, Canadian politicians and adjudicators seem less interested in re-criminalizing abortion.
In this episode, we discuss some of the differences in reproductive justice movements in Canada and the U.S., and the benefits of using the reproductive justice framework over previous rights-centered movements. We’ll be joined by Professor Lisa Kelly, who teaches criminal law and evidence at Queen’s Law. She also teaches Queen’s first Sexual & Reproductive Justice course, and studied the topic at Harvard University, Columbia Law School, and the Centre for Reproductive Rights.
Production:
Maitland Shaheen-Akins – Producer, Host and Editor
Pro Bono Radio is part of the Queen’s chapter of Pro Bono Students Canada. The Pro Bono Radio team are not lawyers, and this is not legal advice.
Subscribe to this podcast on Apple Podcasts, Google Play, Spotify and Stitcher!