dicta – law in audio

dicta
  • 0,0 (0)
  • ÉDUCATION
dicta – law in audio

We’re transforming legal learning through immersive audio streaming. Get access to all of dicta's content and features by subscribing to our premium channel at www.dicta.dev

  1. 2024 SCC 37 – TransAlta Generation Partnership v. Alberta

    -4 J

    2024 SCC 37 – TransAlta Generation Partnership v. Alberta

    To support us, please follow us wherever you're listening and visit ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠our website⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ to provide feedback. Judicial review — Standard of review — Subordinate legislation (00:00:41) Summary (00:06:54) Reasons for Judgment: Côté J. (Wagner C.J. and Karakatsanis, Rowe, Martin, Kasirer, Jamal, O’Bonsawin and Moreau JJ. concurring) (00:06:59) I. Overview – 1 (00:10:54) II. Facts – 8 (00:12:00) III. Judicial History – 9 (00:12:02) A. Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta, 2021 ABQB 37 – 9 (00:13:27) B. Court of Appeal of Alberta, 2022 ABCA 381 – 11 (00:14:27) IV. Issues – 13 (00:14:43) V. Standard of Review – 14 (00:17:08) VI. Overview of the Off‑Coal Agreement, the MGA and the Linear Guidelines – 19 (00:17:14) A. The Off‑Coal Agreement – 19 (00:18:53) B. The Municipal Government Act – 22 (00:23:08) C. The Linear Guidelines – 30 (00:25:30) VII. Analysis – 37 (00:27:21) A. The Common Law Rule Against Administrative Discrimination – 40 (00:29:39) B. The Linear Guidelines Discriminate Against Parties to Off‑Coal Agreements – 45 (00:32:43) C. The Minister Is Statutorily Authorized To Discriminate Against Parties to Off‑Coal Agreements – 50 (00:35:32) D. The Linear Guidelines Are Consistent With the Scheme and Purposes of the MGA – 55 (00:40:52) VIII. Conclusion – 62

    42 min
  2. 2024 SCC 36 – Auer v. Auer

    -4 J

    2024 SCC 36 – Auer v. Auer

    To support us, please follow us wherever you're listening and visit ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠our website⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ to provide feedback. Judicial review — Standard of review — Subordinate legislation (00:00:39) Summary (00:11:17) Reasons for Judgment: Côté J. (Wagner C.J. and Karakatsanis, Rowe, Martin, Kasirer, Jamal, O’Bonsawin and Moreau JJ. concurring) (00:11:21) I. Overview – 1 (00:15:14) II. Facts – 7 (00:16:28) III. Judicial History – 10 (00:16:30) A. Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta, 2021 ABQB 370, 32 Alta. L.R. (7th) 250 – 10 (00:18:57) B. Court of Appeal of Alberta, 2022 ABCA 375, 52 Alta. L.R. (7th) 8 – 14 (00:20:33) IV. Issues – 18 (00:20:50) V. Standard of Review – 19 (00:20:52) A. Vavilov Is the Starting Point for Determining the Appropriate Standard of Review – 19 (00:22:19) B. The Vavilov Framework Applies When Reviewing the Vires of Subordinate Legislation – 21 (00:24:51) C. Reasonableness Is the Presumptive Standard for Reviewing the Vires of Subordinate Legislation – 24 (00:24:54) D. What Is the Role of Katz Group? – 29 (00:24:57) (1) Many of the Principles From Katz Group Continue To Apply – 29 (00:31:56) (2) The “Irrelevant”, “Extraneous” or “Completely Unrelated” Threshold Is No Longer Relevant – 41 (00:38:01) E. How To Conduct a Reasonableness Review of the Vires of Subordinate Legislation Under the Vavilov Framework – 50 (00:39:04) (1) Reasonableness Review Is Possible in the Absence of Formal Reasons – 52 (00:41:27) (2) Reasonableness Review Is Not an Examination of Policy Merits – 55 (00:43:42) (3) The Relevant Constraints – 59 (00:44:21) (a) Governing Statutory Scheme – 61 (00:44:45) (b) Other Statutory or Common Law – 63 (00:45:09) (c) Principles of Statutory Interpretation – 64 (00:45:11) VI. Analysis – 67 (00:45:13) A. Overview of the Child Support Guidelines – 67 (00:47:03) B. Mr. Auer’s Challenge – 72 (00:47:09) C. The Child Support Guidelines Are Within the GIC’s Scope of Authority – 75 (00:47:15) (1) The GIC’s Statutory Grant of Authority Is Extremely Broad – 75 (00:50:44) (2) The GIC Was Authorized Not To Take Into Account the Recipient Parent’s Income in Calculating the Table Amounts – 80 (00:53:37) (3) The GIC Was Authorized To Assume That Parents Spend the Same Linear Percentage of Their Income on Their Children – 90 (00:55:20) (4) The GIC Was Authorized Not To Take Into Account Government Child Benefits Paid to the Recipient Parent in Calculating Child Support Awards – 95 (00:57:00) (5) The GIC Was Authorized Not To Take Into Account the Payer Parent’s Direct Spending When That Parent Exercises Less Than 40 Percent of Annual Parenting Time – 98 (01:01:46) (6) The GIC Was Authorized To Establish a Separate Category of Special or Extraordinary Expenses – 105 (01:03:51) VII. Conclusion – 114

    1 h 6 min

  3. -4 J

    2024 SCC 37 – Case in Brief – TransAlta Generation Partnership v. Alberta

    To support us, please follow us wherever you're listening and visit ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠our website⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ to provide feedback. Judicial review — Standard of review — Subordinate legislation

    5 min

  4. -4 J

    2024 SCC 36 – Case in Brief – Auer v. Auer

    To support us, please follow us wherever you're listening and visit ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠our website⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ to provide feedback. Judicial review — Standard of review — Subordinate legislation

    5 min
  5. 2024 NLCA 35 – Supreme Advocacy – Court of Appeal Decision of the Week Blog

    -6 J

    2024 NLCA 35 – Supreme Advocacy – Court of Appeal Decision of the Week Blog

    To support us, please follow us wherever you're listening and visit ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠our website⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ to provide feedback. Conflict of Laws: Substantive v. Procedural Law Supreme Advocacy's Court of Appeal Decision of the Week Blog is available on their ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠website⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠.

    5 min
  6. Mark Mancini – Sunday Evening Administrative Review – Issue 157

    3 NOV.

    Mark Mancini – Sunday Evening Administrative Review – Issue 157

    To support us, please follow us wherever you're listening and visit ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠our website⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ to provide feedback. Mark Mancini's Sunday Evening Administrative Review is available on ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Substack⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. (00:00:41) Southern Railway of British Columbia Limited v Vancouver Port Authority, 2024 FCA 175 (October 25, 2024) (00:03:59) Canada Nuclear Laboratories Ltd v Adams, 2024 FC 1697 (October 24, 2024) (00:08:01) Christie v Canada (Attorney General), 2024 FC 1722 (October 29, 2024)

    10 min
  7. 2024 SCC 35 – R. v. Archambault

    1 NOV.

    2024 SCC 35 – R. v. Archambault

    To support us, please follow us wherever you're listening and visit ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠our website⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ to provide feedback. Criminal law — Preliminary inquiry — Right to preliminary inquiry Legislation — Interpretation — Legislative amendment (00:00:40) Summary (00:35:28) Joint Reasons: Côté and Rowe JJ. (00:35:33) I. Overview – 1 (00:39:03) II. Factual Background and Judicial History – 7 (00:40:37) III. Legislative Background on the Preliminary Inquiry – 11 (00:50:44) IV. Analysis – 22 (00:51:42) A. The Legislative Amendment Does Not Eliminate the Right to a Preliminary Inquiry for Accused Persons Charged Before It Came Into Force – 24 (00:51:51) (1) Principles of Transitional Law Applicable in This Case – 24 (00:58:00) (2) The Abolition of the Preliminary Inquiry for Certain Offences Is Procedural in Nature but Affects a Substantive Right – 33 (01:04:56) (3) The Right to a Preliminary Inquiry Vests at the Time Charges Are Laid – 43 (01:18:09) B. An Accused Whose Alleged Offence, or Its Equivalent, Is Punishable by 14 Years or More of Imprisonment Has the Right to a Preliminary Inquiry – 59 (01:19:38) (1) Parliament Intended the Right to a Preliminary Inquiry To Be Tied to the Seriousness of the Offence – 62 (01:31:45) (2) An Accused’s Right to the Benefit of the Lesser Punishment Does Not Affect the Determination of the Right to a Preliminary Inquiry – 74 (01:35:02) (3) Application to the Facts – 78 (01:36:13) V. Conclusion – 80 (01:36:18) Concurring Reasons: Kasirer J. (Jamal J. concurring) (01:51:49) Concurring Reasons: Martin J. (01:51:53) I. Overview – 99 (01:56:38) II. Analysis – 106 (01:56:40) A. The New Section 535 of the Code Impacts Substantive Rights – 106 (02:02:52) B. The Proper Interpretive Approach for Legislation That Affects Substantive Rights – 115 (02:06:42) (1) Either Substantive or Vested Rights Will Trigger the Presumption Against Retrospectivity – 121 (02:15:35) (2) If the Accused’s Substantive Rights Are Affected, the Date of the Offence Should Govern – 132 (02:26:47) C. Summary – 144 (02:28:26) III. Disposition – 147 (02:28:30) Dissenting Reasons: Karakatsanis J. (Wagner C.J. and O’Bonsawin and Moreau JJ. concurring) (02:28:39) I. Overview – 148 (02:36:40) II. Background – 161 (02:38:14) III. Decisions Below – 166 (02:38:17) A. Court of Québec – 166 (02:39:15) B. Superior Court of Quebec – 168 (02:41:17) C. Court of Appeal of Quebec – 171 (02:42:50) IV. Issues – 174 (02:44:34) V. Analysis – 176 (02:44:37) A. The History and Availability of Preliminary Inquiries – 176 (02:49:24) B. Determining Whether the New Rule Applies – 186 (02:51:19) (1) Principles Governing the Temporal Application of Legislation – 190 (02:56:37) (a) The Presumptions of Temporal Application – 203 (03:03:07) (b) The Combined Effect of the Presumptions – 210 (03:09:15) (c) The Substantive Threshold – 219 (03:13:03) (d) The Vesting Threshold – 224 (03:17:14) (e) Conclusion on the Applicable Principles – 230 (03:19:01) (2) The Temporal Application of Section 535 – 234 (03:22:49) (a) Can the Limitation on the Right to a Preliminary Inquiry Impact a Substantive Legal Interest? – 241 (03:27:52) (b) When Does the Right to a Preliminary Inquiry Vest? – 248 (03:46:05) (c) Conclusion on the Temporal Application of Section 535 – 270 (03:46:48) (3) Application to the Respondents – 272 (03:48:50) C. Interpreting the New Rule – 276 (03:52:00) (1) The 14-Year Imprisonment Threshold – 282 (04:04:39) (2) Application to the Respondents – 302 (04:05:30) VI. Conclusion – 30

    4 h 6 min

  8. 1 NOV.

    2024 SCC 35 – Case in Brief – R. v. Archambault

    To support us, please follow us wherever you're listening and visit ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠our website⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ to provide feedback. Criminal law — Preliminary inquiry — Right to preliminary inquiry Legislation — Interpretation — Legislative amendment

    5 min
Tout afficher (438)

À propos

We’re transforming legal learning through immersive audio streaming. Get access to all of dicta's content and features by subscribing to our premium channel at www.dicta.dev

Informations

  • Création
    dicta
  • Années d’activité
    2022 - 2024
  • Épisodes
    438
  • Classification
    Contenu explicite
  • Copyright
    © dicta
  • Site web de l’émission
    dicta – law in audio

Vous aimeriez peut‑être aussi

Pour écouter des épisodes au contenu explicite, connectez‑vous.

Recevez les dernières actualités sur cette émission

Connectez‑vous ou inscrivez‑vous pour suivre des émissions, enregistrer des épisodes et recevoir les dernières actualités.
Choisissez un pays ou une région

Afrique, Moyen‑Orient et Inde

Asie‑Pacifique

Europe

Amérique latine et Caraïbes

États‑Unis et Canada