Author: Pro Bono Radio

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

Following a long history of social debate and discourse, Parliament legalized recreational cannabis across Canada on October 17th, 2018. Among the goals of this act was to put a halt to the illicit cannabis market while providing a safe supply for those who choose to smoke, and to protect the youth of Canada by limiting their access to cannabis. However, the restrictions laid out in the Cannabis Act make it difficult for it’s stated purposes to be carried out. If we want to put an end to the cannabis black market, while concurrently protecting Canadian youth, some changes may need to come to the legal Cannabis field.

In this episode, we discuss with our esteemed guests, lawyers Lewis Retik and Matt Maurer, the hurdles that cannabis businesses must overcome, and ponder changes that can be made in the Cannabis field that will aid in the goals of the Cannabis Act to be realized. Our first guest, Lewis Retik, co-leads the Cannabis group at Gowling WLG’s Ottawa office. He often works with his clients to develop marketing strategies as well as packaging and advertising designs that are both consumer-friendly and compliant with the law. Our second guest, Matt Maurer, is the chair of Torkin Manes LLP’s Cannabis group. He advises his clients on practical business and regulatory advice to counsel a wide range of cannabis industry stakeholders. Such as, licensed producers, people applying to be producers, startups, and foreign businesses looking to enter the Canadian market. 

Quin Myles and Julian Shivprasad– 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:

Canada, Health Canada, About the Process: Cannabis Security Clearances https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/cannabis-regulations-licensed-producers/security-clearances/process.html#a1

Canada, Health Canada, Cannabis Act Legislative Review, 22 September 2022. https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/drugs-medication/cannabis/laws-regulations/cannabis-act-legislative-review.html

Canada, Health Canada, Legislative Review of the Cannabis Act: What We Heard Report, 10 October 2023 https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/drugs-medication/cannabis/laws-regulations/cannabis-act-legislative-review/expert-panel/legislative-review-cannabis-act-report.html

Canada, Public Safety Canada, Cannabis Black Market
https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/trnsprnc/brfng-mtrls/prlmntry-bndrs/20200930/026/index-en.aspx

Cannabis Act, SC 2018, c. 16.

CBC, Cannabis Law Review to Explore How Legalization Is Going, 2022. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6Y3tvy52IE

CBC, Feds to review Canada’s cannabis legislation after a year delay, 2022.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKBd3xzM5MQ&ab_channel=CBCNews

CBC, Push to Loosen Rules on Canadian cannabis sales, THC limits, 2023.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJB_FK8VRig&ab_channel=CBCNews%3ATheNational

Jeremy de Beer & Alyssa Gaffen, “Intellectual Property Rights in the Recreational Cannabis Market: Craft or Comoddity? (2017) 50:3 UBC LR 621

Ranjeev Dhillon, Rami Chalabi & Matthew Sanders, “Cannabis” in McCarthy Tetrault, Doing Business in Canada (2023)

Rob Matthews, Samantha Greer & Francois Desmarais, “Cannabis Debt Financing: Current Market Snapshot and Considerations for Lenders, Investors, and Underwriters” Baker McKenzie Leveraged Finance Newsletter (December 2019)

Nick Noonan, “High Time for a Change: Combatting the Black Market for Cannabis in Canada” (2021) 44:3 Manitoba LJ 257

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: RSS

Medical Assistance in Dying (MAID) has been the subject of much controversy, especially in the last few years, and it continues to generate great debate today. The service, which permits doctors and other medical practitioners to facilitate the deaths of consenting patients who are suffering from intolerable illness, was first decriminalized by the Carter v Canada decision in 2016. Since then, expansions for MAID have been proposed and implemented that widen the group of people who can access the service. What at first was perceived to be an effort to reduce the suffering of those persons who would opt to die rather than to continue living with an untreatable illness that causes them terrible pain, has since changed to include other types of patients for whom death may not even be foreseeable.

In this episode, we discuss another proposed expansion to MAID suggested by Bill C-39, which seeks to expand MAID availability to people suffering solely from mental illness. Joining us here at Pro Bono Radio is our esteemed and experienced guest, Mr. Julius Grey. Mr. Grey is a leading Constitutional and human rights lawyer in Canada and has appeared before the Supreme Court of Canada over 50 different times. He has vocally opposed the expansion of MAID to people suffering solely from mental illness and strongly believes that section 7 of the Charter, which guarantees the right to life of the person, should be protected with respect to MAID except only in the most necessary of circumstances.

Arjun Kapil – Producer, Host, Editor

Music: Royalty Free Music: Bensound.com/royalty-free-music
License code: JUFZOF0KAIBEJAON

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 Podcast:
Carter v Canada (AG), 2015 SCC 5

Truchon v. Procureur général du Canada, [2019] Q.J. No. 7750

Bill C-39: An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying). (2023). Online: Department of Justice Canada. https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/pl/charter-charte/c39.html

Bill C-7: An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying). (2020). Online: Department of Justice Canada. https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/pl/charter-charte/c7.html

Medical assistance in dying: Overview. (2023). Online: Department of Justice Canada. https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/health-services-benefits/medical-assistance-dying.html

Ryan Tanner, “An ethical-legal analysis of medical assistance in dying for those with mental illness.” (2018) 56:1 Alta L Rev 149 – 175.

Madeleine Archer et al, “What Domains of Belgian Euthanasia Practice are Governed and by Which Sources of Regulation: A Scoping Review” (2023) OMEGA – J Death and Dying, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/00302228231221839

Marc De Hert et al, “Improving control over euthanasia of persons with psychiatric illness: Lessons from the first Belgian criminal court case concerning euthanasia.” (2020) Front Psychiatry 13:933748. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2022.933748

Caroline Favron-Godbout & Eric Racine, “Medical assistance in dying for people living with mental disorders: a qualitative thematic review.” (2023) 24 BMC Med Ethics 86. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-023-00971-4

Diana Young, (2022) “Biopower, juridical power and the afterlife of rights: Medical assistance in dying and the Supreme Court of Canada.” (2022) 26:1 Theoretical Criminology 112-131. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362480620928329

Anna Farrow, “Lawyer to Challenge MAiD for Mentallty Ill”, (22 November, 2023), online: https://www.catholicregister.org/item/36153-lawyer-to-challenge-maid-for-mentally-ill

Masih Khalatbari, “Surge in medically assisted deaths under Canada’s MAID program outpaces every other country”, Toronto Star (27 January, 2024), online: https://www.thestar.com/news/investigations/surge-in-medically-assisted-deaths-under-canada-s-maid-program-outpaces-every-other-country/article_29028f96-bc6b-11ee-8f67-03bf29ac7d34.html

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: RSS

This episode explores the topic of children’s voices in the family law system. The common law has evolved tremendously when it comes to children’s rights. From children being treated as chattels to a focus on the protection of children’s best interests, it seems as though rights for children have come a long way, and it continues to evolve to this day. Raquel Medeiros takes on the discussion on the way children are heard, the duties of lawyers, and the perspective of children in family cases to evaluate the benefits and limitations of this evolving topic. 

Producer, Host, and Editor: Raquel Medeiros 

Music: https://app.soundstripe.com/songs/16762

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: 

Michelle Fernando, “Family Law Proceedings and the Child’s Right to Be Heard in Australia, The United Kingdom, New Zealand, and Canada” (2014) 52:1 Family Court Review: An Interdisciplinary Journal (USA) pp. 46-59, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2627500

Nicholas Bala and Rachel Birnbaum, “Rethinking the Role of Lawyers for Children: Child Representation in Canadian Family Relationship Cases” (2018) 59  Les Cahiers de Droit 787-829, Queen’s University Legal Research Paper No.2018-103, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3342335

Nicholas Bala and Patrina Hebert, “Views, Perspectives and Experiences of Children in Family Cases” (2016) Queen’s University Legal Research Paper No. 082, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2887623

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: RSS