Month: June 2026

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)

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: RSS

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.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: RSS

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.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: RSS

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/ 

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: RSS