dicta

dicta – law in audio

Education EN ↓ 529 episodes

We’re transforming legal learning through immersive audio streaming. Find out more about us on our website: dicta.dev

Author

dicta

Episodes

Prof. Sewrattan – November 20 – Morris, 2021 ONCA 1:41:50

Introduction – (0:00:21) Overview – (0:01:05) Principal Conclusions – (0:07:02) The Evidence At Trial – (0:08:42) The Stay Application – (0:13:06) The Evidence On Sentencing – (0:16:22) The Social Context Evidence – (0:18:44) The Arguments – (0:29:04) A: The Relevance Of Evidence Of Anti-Black Racism On Sentencing – (0:29:06) one: The Statutory Framework – (0:29:51) two: The Proportionality Princi...

Prof. Sewrattan – November 20 – Sharma, 2022 SCC 1:16:08

One: Introduction – (0:00:28) Two: Facts – (0:03:10) Three: Legislative Framework – (0:04:27) Four: Judicial History – (0:10:32) A: The Sentencing Decision – Ontario Superior Court of Justice – (0:10:34) B: Court of Appeal for Ontario – (0:14:40) Five: Analysis – (0:18:33) A: Section 15 – (0:19:19) 1: Guidance on the Section 15 sub 1 Framework – (0:25:01) a: Preliminary Point About Substantive Equ...

Prof. Sewrattan – November 20 – Gladue, 1999 SCC 1:31:07

One: Factual Background – (0:01:06) Two: Relevant Statutory Provisions – (0:08:01) Three: Judicial History – (0:11:12) A: Supreme Court of British Columbia – (0:11:14) B: Court of Appeal for British Columbia – (0:13:24) Four: Issue – (0:17:18) Five: Analysis – (0:18:34) A: Introduction – (0:18:36) B: The Wording of Section 718.2 sub e and the Scheme of Part XXIII – (0:20:14) C: Legislative History...

Prof. Sewrattan – November 27 – JJ, 2022 SCC 1:58:39

I. – Overview – 1 – (00:00:29) II. – Relevant Statutory Provisions – 15 – (00:11:10) III. – Issues – 16 – (00:11:21) IV. – Analysis – 17 – (00:11:43) A. – Statutory Interpretation of the Provisions – 17 – (00:11:45) (1) – Overview of the Impugned Provisions – 19 – (00:12:34) (a) – Stage One – 22 – (00:13:51) (b) – Stage Two – 30 – (00:18:24) (c) – Overlap Between Section 276 Evidence and Private R...

Prof. Sewrattan – November 27 – Goldfinch, 2019 SCC 42:56

One: Facts – (0:03:31) Two: History of the Proceedings – (0:06:39) A: The Voir Dire, Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta – (0:06:42) B: The Trial, Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta – (0:07:58) C: The Alberta Court of Appeal – (0:11:27) Three: Analysis – (0:13:54) A: Section 276 – Text, History and Objectives – (0:14:07) B: Examining Relationship Evidence Under Section 276 – (0:21:54) 1: Section 276...

Prof. Harris – Unit 1 – Yanner v Eaton, 1999 HCA 19:53

Gleeson CJ, Gaudron, Kirby, and Hayne JJ McHugh J (dissenting): – (0:11:46)

Prof. Harris – Unit 1 – Harrison v Carswell, 1975 SCC 25:55

Laskin CJ, dissenting (Spence and Beetz JJ, concurring) Dickson J (Martland, Judson, Ritchie, Pigeon, and de Grandpré JJ, concurring) – (0:16:39)

Prof. Harris – Unit 1 – International News Service v Associated Press, 1918 USSC 22:23

Pitney J, reasons for judgment Holmes J, dissenting – (0:16:28) Brandeis J, dissenting – (0:19:58)

Prof. Harris – Unit 1 – Victoria Park Racing and Recreation Grounds Ltd. v Taylor, 1937 HCA 14:45

Latham CJ – (0:00:10) Rich J – (0:04:37) Dixon J – (0:08:01)

Prof. Harris – Unit 2 – Victoria (City) v Adams, 2008 BCSC 21:58

Introduction – (0:00:30) History of the Litigation – (0:04:28) The Bylaws – (0:08:03) Facts – (0:11:16) The Homeless in Victoria – (0:11:18) The Number of Homeless in Victoria – (0:11:20) Profile of the Homeless Population – (0:13:06) Shelter Beds in Victoria – (0:15:45) Analysis – (0:17:02) Is this Claim About Property Rights? – (0:17:04)

Prof. Harris – Unit 2 – Annapolis Group Inc., 2022 SCC 21:22

Judgment of Wagner C.J. and Moldaver, Côté, Brown and Rowe JJ. Two: Factual Background – (0:02:45) Three: Judicial History – (0:06:28) Four: Issues – (0:07:43) Five: Analysis – (0:08:13) Six: Disposition – (0:14:24) Reasons of Karakatsanis, Martin, Kasirer and Jamal JJ. – (0:14:44) One: Overview – (0:14:52)

Prof. Harris – Unit 3 – Scott v Filipovic, 2015 BCCA 10:44

Introduction – (0:00:35) Background – (0:00:51) Discussion – (0:03:15) Fixtures or chattels – (0:03:16) Assignment of the lease – (0:09:08) Disposition – (0:10:24)

Prof. Harris – Unit 3 – Didow v Alberta Power Ltd., 1988 ABCA 16:53

The judgment of Haddad JA.

Prof. Harris – Unit 3 – Edwards v Sims, 1929 Kentucky CA 12:25

The opinion of Commissioner Stanley – (0:00:31) The dissenting opinions of Judge Logan – (0:02:58)

Prof. Harris – Unit 3 – R v Nikal, 1996 SCC 16:57

Reasons for Judgment, Cory J (Lamer CJ and La Forest, Sopinka, Gonthier, Iacobucci, and Major JJ, concurring) – (0:00:31) Preamble – (0:00:41) The Application of the Ad Medium Filum Aquae Presumption – (0:01:57) When Does the Ad Medium Filum Aquae Presumption Apply? – (0:03:56) What is the Correct Test for Navigability, and Is the Bulkley River a Navigable River? – (0:07:51) The Fishery is Separat...

Prof. Harris – Unit 3 – Robertson v Wallace, 2000 ABQB 22:18

Introduction – (0:00:33) Issues – (0:01:52) Facts – (0:02:19) Does the Description on the Title Freeze the Boundary in 1893? – (0:08:58) If riparian rights apply, where is the boundary today? – (0:13:07)

Prof. Harris – Unit 4 – Downey v Nova Scotia, 2020 NSSC 15:31

Preamble – (0:00:10) Summary – (0:00:58) The Land Titles Clarification Act – (0:01:37) The Application – (0:07:22) The Issue – (0:10:11) Legislative Constraints – (0:10:20) Impact of the Decision – (0:14:27) Conclusion – (0:15:21)

Prof. Harris – Unit 4 – Nolan v Nolan & Anor, 2003 Victoria SC 23:16

Gifts of Chattels – (0:00:11) Intention to Make a Gift – (0:03:46) Are Words of Gift Essential? – (0:04:29) Delivery – (0:12:25) Delivery in Common Establishments – (0:16:15) Conclusion – (0:23:16)

Prof. Harris – Unit 4 – Beals v Nova Scotia (Attorney General), 2020 NSSC 21:47

The judgment of Bodurtha J.

Prof. Harris – Unit 4 – Trachuk v Olinek, 1995 ABQB 30:09

The judgment of Gallant J.

Prof. Harris – Unit 5 – Powers, 1999 NLSC 18:05

The judgment of Cameron JA.

Prof. Harris – Unit 5 – Thomas v. Murphy, 1990 NBQB 6:26

The judgment of Creaghan J.

Prof. Harris – Unit 6 – Southwark LPC, 2001 UKHL 9:52

The judgment of Lord Hoffman.

Prof. Harris – Unit 6 – Merger Restaurants, 1990 MBCA 8:47

The judgment of Philip JA.

Prof. Harris – Unit 6 – Fatac Ltd., 2002 NZCA 18:06

Introduction – (0:00:11) Distinction between tenancy and licence – (0:00:59) Developments in the tenancy/licence distinction in England – (0:02:16) Rationale for the exclusive possession test – (0:05:22) Refinements to the exclusive possession test – (0:07:25) Recent approaches to the tenancy/licence distinction in New Zealand – (0:11:33) Conclusions as to the tenancy/licence distinction in New Ze...