May 21, 2023·edited May 21, 2023Liked by Brad Cran
It’s baffling that a Canadian woman lawyer can say without shame that a female accuser who admitted in a previous court hearing that she lied about CBC lawyers wasn’t lying. What are these allegedly intelligent lawyers learning in law school? Clearly they missed the classes on how to argue a case. Or they think the appellate judges and the public are so stupid they can say anything and call it a legal defence.
It’s really surprising that appellants’ counsel appeared to be unaware of the standard of review or unprepared to respond to questions about it. A submission in the BCCA will not succeed unless it fits within the appropriate standard of review. In other words, it’s pointless to try to reargue the case if the standard of review is error of law or palpable and overriding error of fact.
I listened to the submissions and was struck by the hypocritical commitment to free expression. These are the very activist lawyers who seek to censor when it suits their politics. Whitmore’s submission was a master class in motte and bailey style argumentation.
“Artistic expression about sexual assault and harassment,” Ms. Birenbaum told the court, “is the highest artistic expression.”
I am without words. And living on another planet. Obviously. (Gratefully, too.)
It’s baffling that a Canadian woman lawyer can say without shame that a female accuser who admitted in a previous court hearing that she lied about CBC lawyers wasn’t lying. What are these allegedly intelligent lawyers learning in law school? Clearly they missed the classes on how to argue a case. Or they think the appellate judges and the public are so stupid they can say anything and call it a legal defence.
Terrific work. Thanks.
Great, thorough analysis.
It’s really surprising that appellants’ counsel appeared to be unaware of the standard of review or unprepared to respond to questions about it. A submission in the BCCA will not succeed unless it fits within the appropriate standard of review. In other words, it’s pointless to try to reargue the case if the standard of review is error of law or palpable and overriding error of fact.
I listened to the submissions and was struck by the hypocritical commitment to free expression. These are the very activist lawyers who seek to censor when it suits their politics. Whitmore’s submission was a master class in motte and bailey style argumentation.
Brad, can you please email me at valiantskipper <@> the google email service?
Many thanks, Mark Schneider