Author Archives: teddyweinstein

Topic: Standards of Proof

Note: This is a “Topic” post, in which I will briefly cover a legal concept using a few leading cases. Topics will be found in their own category and may be updated in the future if necessary. Introduction It is common knowledge by this point that in order to convict someone in criminal court, theContinue reading “Topic: Standards of Proof”

June 28: Uber Technologies v Heller 2020 SCC 16

Key Takeaway: Forced arbitration clauses in standard form contracts are unconscionable and therefore unenforceable when they prevent the weaker party to an agreement from meaningfully pursuing a dispute against the stronger party. Overview H is a food delivery driver using Uber Eats. To become an Uber driver, H had to accept the terms of Uber’sContinue reading “June 28: Uber Technologies v Heller 2020 SCC 16”

Flashback Summary: Starson v Swayze 2003 SCC 32

[Note: Occasionally I will post summaries of landmark cases from the past that are of general or specific interest. These posts will be categorized as “Flashback” in addition to their regular categories.] CONTENT WARNING: This post contains discussions of psychiatric hospitals, involuntary detention, forced treatment, bipolar disorder and schizophrenia. Background. Professor Starson (born Scott JefferyContinue reading “Flashback Summary: Starson v Swayze 2003 SCC 32”

June 19th: R v Zora, 2020 SCC 14

Overview Z was charged with drug offences and was granted bail with conditions, including curfew and a requirement that he present himself at the door of his residence within five minutes of a peace officer or bail supervisor attending to confirm his compliance with the curfew. Z failed twice to present himself at the doorContinue reading “June 19th: R v Zora, 2020 SCC 14”

R v Kuzmich, 2020 ONCA 359

CONTENT WARNING: This summary concerns a sexual assault. It contains explicit details of a sexual assault, and discussions about the law of sexual assault. Key Takeaways 1. The full scope of s. 276 protections apply during preliminary inquiries. Furthermore, a s. 276 application is fundamentally flawed when it is based on answers to improper questionsContinue reading “R v Kuzmich, 2020 ONCA 359”

R v Sullivan, 2020 ONCA 333

Overview Section 33.1 of the Code legislated that a person is guilty of a violent offence even if they were so intoxicated that they did not know what they were doing, so long as that intoxication was self-induced. For 25 years this provision was active in Canadian Law. No longer in Ontario. It has been declared of noContinue reading “R v Sullivan, 2020 ONCA 333”