Did the Supreme Court say Canadian judges have been too soft on punishment

The Docket

Innehåll tillhandahållet av Michael Spratt and Emilie Taman, Michael Spratt, and Emilie Taman. Allt poddinnehåll inklusive avsnitt, grafik och podcastbeskrivningar laddas upp och tillhandahålls direkt av Michael Spratt and Emilie Taman, Michael Spratt, and Emilie Taman eller deras podcastplattformspartner. Om du tror att någon använder ditt upphovsrättsskyddade verk utan din tillåtelse kan du följa processen som beskrivs här https://sv.player.fm/legal.

5y ago 49:13

MP3•Episod hem

So, episode 98 - a new record. But you know that right? Because you subscribe and have already rated and reviewed the podcast - right? You should.

With Emilie on the campaign trial - and Oh My Goodness she has been killing it - special guest, former Supreme Court judge, and current mother-in-law Louise Arbour joins Michael and steps up to the mic to break down the latest Supreme Court case.

In R. v. Poulin the Supreme Court interprets 11(i) of the Charter - and it is super interesting - we promise!

The Globe and Mail reported that the Supreme Court ruled Canadian judges have been too soft on punishment for 30 years. But did the Court really say that? And does the split decision stand up to a critical analysis.

Louise pulls no punches and even pulls back the curtains about how she made decisions when she was on Canada’s highest court.

Now you can join The Docket’s Discord chatroom. Join the Discord channel, take part in the ongoing chat, and listen to live recordings with this link: https://discord.gg/2TzUamZ

152 episoder