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

The Docket

Content provided by Michael Spratt and Emilie Taman, Michael Spratt, and Emilie Taman. All podcast content including episodes, graphics, and podcast descriptions are uploaded and provided directly by Michael Spratt and Emilie Taman, Michael Spratt, and Emilie Taman or their podcast platform partner. If you believe someone is using your copyrighted work without your permission, you can follow the process outlined here https://player.fm/legal.

4+ y ago 49:13

MP3•Episode home

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 episodes