Bringing Claims from Abroad: the Procedural Significance of Nevsun

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)

Understanding Ponzi Schemes and White-Collar Crime

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.

Objectives and Means: A Deep Dive into the Civil Forfeiture Debate

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.

Cartels, Corporations, and Competition Law

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/ 

“Don’t Look Away”: The Overrepresentation of Indigenous Women in Canadian Prisons

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].

Beyond Property: Rethinking the Legal Status of Animals in Ontario

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?

Magic Mushrooms and the Law: The Evolving Landscape of Canada’s Drug Laws

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 StatementThe 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 analysisLancet, 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/).

Do Plea Bargains Threaten the Presumption of Innocence?

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 Use of Artificial Intelligence in the Music Industry – Where Ownership is Threatened and Lines are Blurred

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

Canada (The Commissioner) v. Cineplex 2024: The Competition Tribunal Cracks Down on Drip Pricing

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