Protests: Cases That Should Have Gone to the Supreme Court of Canada, But Didn't! скачать в хорошем качестве

Protests: Cases That Should Have Gone to the Supreme Court of Canada, But Didn't!

0:00 Intro 0:30 Skip Intro Welcome to "Cases That Should Have Gone to the Supreme Court of Canada, But Didn’t!" In this episode, Kyla Lee from Acumen Law Corporation examines a case involving protest-related charges during the COVID-19 pandemic. The accused refused to leave a protest area when asked by police and sat down in defiance. He was convicted of multiple offenses, including obstruction and mischief. On appeal, he argued that the convictions violated the “Kienapple principle”—the legal rule that a person should not be convicted of multiple offenses arising from the same act. The Supreme Court of Canada declined to hear the case, missing an important opportunity to clarify how this principle applies to protest-related conduct and constitutionally protected expression. Key Points Discussed – During a protest, the accused refused police instructions to leave and was arrested. – He was charged with obstruction and multiple counts of mischief. – At trial, he was convicted on all charges. – The defence argued that the obstruction and mischief counts were duplicative and violated the Kienapple principle. – The courts upheld both convictions, and the Supreme Court of Canada denied leave to appeal. Why This Case Matters The Kienapple principle prevents double convictions for the same act unless the legal elements of the offenses are significantly different. But courts across Canada have struggled to apply this principle consistently—especially in cases involving protest, where acts of civil disobedience often give rise to multiple overlapping charges. In cases involving constitutionally protected activity like protest, the risk of overcharging or duplicative convictions becomes especially concerning. Unclear legal standards may have a chilling effect on individuals seeking to exercise their Charter rights. Missed Opportunity for a National Standard The Supreme Court could have used this case to provide much-needed clarity on how the Kienapple principle should apply in protest situations. A national standard would have helped: – Define the boundaries between obstruction and mischief in protest contexts – Prevent unjust double convictions from a single act of civil disobedience – Clarify how protest-related charges should be framed in light of Charter protections – Offer guidance to trial courts and police on how to enforce the law without undermining rights Need for Clarity and Accountability Protests are a vital form of democratic expression. When individuals face multiple convictions for the same act of protest, it can undermine confidence in the legal system and deter others from participating in peaceful dissent. Legal clarity is essential to ensure that rights are respected and that the law is applied fairly. By refusing to hear this case, the Supreme Court missed a chance to protect expressive freedom and prevent the misuse of overlapping criminal charges in protest situations. Topics Covered – The Kienapple principle and double convictions – Obstruction and mischief charges in protest settings – Charter rights to freedom of expression and assembly – Criminal law and peaceful civil disobedience – Legal consequences of protest during COVID-19 restrictions 📅 New Episodes Weekly: Subscribe to our channel for weekly insights from lawyer Kyla Lee as she analyzes cases that should have been heard by the Supreme Court of Canada. 👉 Watch more episodes:    • Cases That Should Have Gone to the Supreme...   👉 Follow Kyla on Twitter: www.twitter.com/irplawyer 👉 Visit our website: www.vancouvercriminallaw.com 🎥 Credits: Thank you to Brazen Bull Creative for producing these videos. 👍 Like, Subscribe, and Share: If you found this video insightful, please like, subscribe, and share with your network to support our channel.