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/).

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: RSS

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>   

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: RSS

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

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: RSS

Have you ever bought something online, only to be surprised by hidden fees at checkout? That’s exactly what happened to Canadian moviegoers when Cineplex introduced an online booking fee—without making it clear upfront. In this episode of the Queen’s Law Pro Bono Radio Podcast, host Louna Aboud breaks down the landmark decision in Canada (Commissioner of Competition) v. Cineplex Inc., where the Competition Tribunal found Cineplex guilty of deceptive marketing under Canada’s Competition Act.

We explore what competition law in Canada is designed to protect and enforce, as well as how drip pricing—the practice of advertising a price that is unattainable due to hidden mandatory fees—violates these principles. We examine the facts of the case, including how Cineplex’s pricing strategy misled consumers and why the Tribunal ultimately ruled against the company, ordering it to pay a $38.9 million fine. Additionally, we discuss the broader implications of this decision, particularly how it could impact Canadian businesses, strengthen consumer protection, and set a precedent for future enforcement of pricing transparency.

This case is the first to test Canada’s new drip pricing provisions, making it a major milestone in competition law enforcement. Will this decision lead to better pricing transparency across industries? What does it mean for companies engaging in similar practices? Tune in to find out how this ruling could change the way businesses advertise their prices—and what it means for you as a consumer.

Louna Aboud – Producer, host, editor

Music by: https://pixabay.com/users/backgroundmusicforvideos-46459014/

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, RSC, 1985, c. C-35. 

Canada (Commissioner of Competition) v Cineplex Inc, 2024 Comp Trib 5. 

Canada (Commissioner of Competition) v Premier Career Management Group Corp. 2009 FCA 295. 

Competition Bureau, “Competition Bureau wins deceptive marketing case against Cineplex”, 23 September 2024, online (news release), <https://www.canada.ca/en/competition-bureau/news/2024/09/competition-bureau-wins-deceptive-marketing-case-against-cineplex.html> 

CBC News, “Cineplex says it will appeal $38.9M fine over $1.50 online booking fee”, (last updated 25 September 2024) 23 September 2024, online (website), https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/cineplex-online-booking-fee-fine-1.7332024

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: RSS

In 2022, the Ontario Superior Court released the decision of Ahluwalia v Ahulwalia (Ahluwalia), which recognized “family violence as a new tort. Mrs. Ahluwalia argued that there are no existing torts that recognize the pattern of emotional, physical, and financial abuse she suffered throughout their marriage. Given this, the trial judge recognized a new tort of “family violence” to appropriately compensate her for the harm suffered.

On appeal, the Ontario Court of Appeal, overturned this decision and rejected the creation of the new tort. Justice Benotto reasoned that existing torts, such as assault and battery, are enough for family violence victims to recover. The case has since been referred to the Supreme Court of Canada and is currently in progress.

In this episode, Aisha and Reine explore the decision in Ahluwalia and the need for a new tort to cover coercive patterns of abuse with their guest Professor Mary Jo Maur. Professor Maur’s research focuses on improving family law procedural system to better serve all parties in a family law dispute. After a deep dive into the current state of tort law, and the Ontario Superior Court and Court of Appeal decisions, the episode considers the future role of tort law in addressing family violence.

Will current torts be an adequate resource for family violence victims to claim recover for harm suffered or will there be a need to adopt a new tort?

Aisha Khalif and Reine Lolas – 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:

Ahluwalia v Ahluwalia, 2023 ONCA 476

Amnesty International, “Open Letter: Coalition of 100+ Organizations Urge Ontario to Declare Intimate Partner Violence an Epidemic” (2024) https://amnesty.ca/human-rights-news/open-letter100-organizations-call-for-a-declaration-of-intimate-partner-violence-as-an-epidemic-in-ontario/

Garrett, Sarah M, “Coercive Control Legislation: Using the Tort System to Empower Survivors of Domestic Violence” (2023) 111:5 California law review 1601–1632.

LEAF, “Ahluwalia v Ahluwalia” (2024),  https://www.leaf.ca/case_summary/ahluwalia-v-ahluwalia/

Maur, Mary-Jo, “The Ontario Court of Appeal’s Decision in Ahluwalia v. Ahluwalia – Prudence? Or Opportunity Missed?” (2023) 42:2 Canadian family law quarterly 107–129.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: RSS

Does provocation on the part of a murder victim reduce the responsibility of the murderer? Your answer to this question will greatly influence how you think about the subject matter of this podcast.

The partial defence of provocation for murder has a long history in the common law. Yet its use in Canada has been ripe with controversy. Under section 232 of the Criminal Code, the successful use of this defence can reduce a murder charge to a manslaughter charge. However, the circumstances under which the defence may be invoked has been subject to great scrutiny, particularly over the last decade. 2015 reforms to the provocation law greatly restricted the conditions in which it can be used. However, a B.C. Supreme Court decision in 2019 has thrown those reforms into question.

In this episode, Hemant takes a step back and asks some more basic questions: What is the history and rationale of the provocation defence in Canada; and whose interests does the existence of this defence ultimately serve? In answering these questions, we are forced to face many difficult subjects: the problematic historical origins of this defence; the relationship between the application of this defence and intimate partner violence; and whether or not all murderers truly deserve the most extreme punishment that the Canadian legal system has to offer.

To help navigate this difficult terrain, Hemant enlists the help of Christopher Nowlin, a Vancouver-based criminal defence lawyer, novelist and instructor at the Criminal Justice Department of Langara College. With his 2018 article concerning the provocation defence in the Canadian Criminal Law Review serving as a backdrop, Professor Nowlin expertly guides us through the past, present and potential future of the provocation defence.

Producer, Host, Editor: Hemant Gill

Music: Adrift Among Infinite Stars by Scott Buckley

Source: https://www.chosic.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 Sticher!

Research Referred to in the Podcast:

Taylor v. The King, 1947 CarswellOnt 13, [1947] SCR 462 (SCC).

R v. Stone, 1999 CanLII 688, [1999] 2 SCR 290 (SCC).

R v. Ruzic, 2001 CanLII 24, [2001] 1 SCR 687 (SCC).

R v. Tran, 2010 CanLII 58, [2010] 3 SCR 350 (SCC).

R v. Simard, 2019 BCSC 531.

R v. Brown, 2022 SCC 18.

Christopher Nowlin, “Canada’s Provocation Reform and the Need to Revisit Culpability in ‘Loss of Control’ Cases” (2018) 23:43, Canadian Criminal Law Review.

Don Stuart, “R. v. Simard: 2015 Limits to Provocation Defence Rightly Struck Down as Overbroad and Arbitrary” (2019) 55:7, Criminal Reports (Articles) at 134.

Jason Proctor, “Law changed to protect vulnerable women had opposite effect, B.C. judge finds” (April 17 2019) https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/provocation-defence-domestic-violence-1.5100281

Sullivan, G.R., “Anger and Excuse: Reassessing Provocation” (1993) 13:3 Oxford Journal of Legal Studies.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: RSS

In 2023, the Ontario Superior Court released the decision of Carcillo v Canadian Hockey League (Carcillo), which provided updated guidance to individuals deciding whether to pursue a claim as part of a class action. In Carcillo, a group of former junior hockey players initiated a lawsuit against 60 amateur teams and the leagues in which they played. The claim alleges widespread sexual, physical and racial abuse spanning from 1975 to present day perpetrated by players, coaches, and others affiliated with the teams and leagues. 

The court prevented the former junior hockey players from moving their claims forward as one class action proceeding and instead held that the players should proceed as 60 different actions, one against each team. The court found that, due to the complexity of the allegations and the number of parties involved, a single class action would be impossible for the court to effectively manage. Instead, the court preferred to split the actions up, finding that this method allowed for individualized justice and would help to ensure that each player’s case was considered.

In this episode, Bobbie discusses the decision in Carcillo and considers the benefits and drawbacks of class actions compared to mass tort actions. After a deep dive into the court’s reasoning, and the cases the court relies upon to justify their decision, Bobbie considers the access to justice concerns that can arise from both types of legal proceedings.

Will mass torts be an adequate alternative for former junior players to bring their claims, or will access to justice become even more difficult?

Bobbie Alvernaz – Producer, Host, Editor

Music by https://www.bensound.com

Artist: Roman Senyk

License code: UCFS3TLIMM42JATI

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:

Carcillo v. Canadian Hockey League, 2023 ONSC 886

Hudspeth v Whatcott, 2017 ONSC 1708

Joanisse v. Barker, 2003 CanLII 25791 (ON SC)

AIC Limited v. Fischer, 2013 SCC 69

Class Proceedings Act, 1992, S.O. 1992, c. 6

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: RSS

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, 1^st Sess, 44^th 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>.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: RSS

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

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: RSS

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 2007<https://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

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: RSS