Google Got Summoned: Digital Privacy and Political Speech in Canada

Google Got Summoned: Digital Privacy and Political Speech in Canada

Send us Fan Mail [https://www.buzzsprout.com/2171686/fan_mail/new] What happens when governments start chasing anonymous online critics?   Gavin Tighe and Stephen Thiele dive into the controversial use of administrative subpoenas by the US Department of Homeland Security to identify anonymous social media users critical of the Trump administration.  The discussion explores the tension between freedom of speech, anonymity, national security, and government overreach, while drawing parallels between American constitutional history and modern online discourse.  From pseudonyms used during the American Revolution to today’s debates over surveillance, online threats, Norwich orders, and political polarization, the hosts unpack the legal and ethical questions surrounding free expression in the digital age.  The episode also examines how social media companies like Google navigate their responsibilities between protecting privacy and cooperating with law enforcement, while warning about the dangers of turning internet platforms into tools of political surveillance.   Listen For: 05:26 What exactly did the Department of Homeland Security demand from Google? 08:18 Why does the right to anonymous speech have deep constitutional roots? 21:25 How does a Norwich order differ from an administrative government summons? 24:29 When does using a government institution cross the line into political weaponization? 25:53 What responsibility do social media platforms have when harmful content appears online?   Leave a rating/review for this podcast with one click [https://ratethispodcast.com/beneaththelaw]   Contact Us Gardiner Roberts website [https://www.grllp.com/] | Gavin email [gjtighe@grllp.com] | Stephen email [sthiele@grllp.com]

When Judges Become Social Engineers

Send us Fan Mail [https://www.buzzsprout.com/2171686/fan_mail/new] When judges become social engineers, democracy starts to wobble. Gavin and Stephen examine the Waterloo homeless encampment decision as a major example of courts moving beyond traditional Charter review and into the realm of public policy design.  What began as a dispute over a municipal bylaw and a public parking lot becomes, in their view, a much larger warning about judicially engineered social outcomes, the constitutionalization of housing policy, the weakening of elected municipal authority, and the possibility that governments may increasingly respond with tools like the notwithstanding clause. Listen For: 00:00 Is housing now a protected Charter right in Canada? 7:15 Why did Waterloo lose the ability to clear a homeless encampment? 13:11 Could this decision create new constitutional rights around housing and income? 19:27 Are courts replacing elected governments in homelessness policy? 30:41 Could the notwithstanding clause become the next battleground?   Leave a rating/review for this podcast with one click [https://ratethispodcast.com/beneaththelaw]   Contact Us Gardiner Roberts website [https://www.grllp.com/] | Gavin email [gjtighe@grllp.com] | Stephen email [sthiele@grllp.com]

The Fake Case Crisis: How AI is Shaking Trust in the Courts

Send us Fan Mail [https://www.buzzsprout.com/2171686/fan_mail/new] The robot wrote the brief, but the lawyer pays the price. AI can draft a legal brief in seconds, but it can also torch a lawyer’s reputation just as fast.  Gavin and Stephen take on the legal profession’s uneasy embrace of generative AI and the very real fallout from fake cases, invented quotations, and AI-drafted arguments making their way into court filings.  What starts as a conversation about efficiency quickly becomes a warning about ethics, reputation, and responsibility. AI may be the newest tool in the legal toolbox, but every citation, authority, and argument filed with the court still belongs to the lawyer whose name is on the document. Use it carelessly, and the consequences can be brutal: wasted court time, harmed clients, personal cost awards, and a credibility hit that may never fully go away. Listen For: 05:07 Why Are Courts Seeing So Many AI-Hallucinated Cases? 10:25 How Risky Are Fake Quotes from Real Cases? 17:00 Who Pays When Lawyers File Unchecked AI Briefs? 21:18 Why Judges Can’t be the Last Line of Defence 23:28 Can Fake AI Cases Undo an Entire Arbitral Award? 25:54 How Can Lawyers Use AI Without Abdicating Judgment?   Leave a rating/review for this podcast with one click [https://ratethispodcast.com/beneaththelaw]   Contact Us Gardiner Roberts website [https://www.grllp.com/] | Gavin email [gjtighe@grllp.com] | Stephen email [sthiele@grllp.com]

Lied on Resume but Sued for Wrongful Dismissal Anyway

Send us Fan Mail [https://www.buzzsprout.com/2171686/fan_mail/new] One fake MBA. One real lawsuit. One unforgettable lesson.  In this episode Gavin and Stephen dig into the Alberta employment case Tutor v. Accurate Screen Limited, where a senior business-development employee allegedly misrepresented his academic credentials, was fired for cause, found another job within months, and still sued for wrongful dismissal.   They unpack why honesty is central to the employment relationship, how courts analyze just-cause terminations, why résumé fraud can destroy trust from the start, and why suing after being caught may be the boldest move of all. Along the way, they connect the case to broader employment-law principles, the difficulty of proving cause, the power imbalance courts recognize between employers and employees, and the growing challenge of fake credentials in an AI-driven world. Listen For: 00:00 What happens when someone with a fake MBA sues for wrongful dismissal? 2:42 Why did this Alberta résumé-fraud case become so surprising? 7:16 Can lying about academic credentials justify termination for cause? 13:16 How do burdens of proof work in employment-law dismissal cases? 23:24 Does an employer have a duty to verify a candidate’s résumé? Leave a rating/review for this podcast with one click [https://ratethispodcast.com/beneaththelaw]   Contact Us Gardiner Roberts website [https://www.grllp.com/] | Gavin email [gjtighe@grllp.com] | Stephen email [sthiele@grllp.com]

Absolute Privilege or Absolute Overreach: The Sex Tape That Broke Litigation Immunity

Send us Fan Mail [https://www.buzzsprout.com/2171686/fan_mail/new] A hidden camera, a secret recording, and a courtroom showdown.  Stephen Thiele and Gavin Tighe unpack a shocking case where a surreptitious sex tape made its way into a family law proceeding, raising serious legal and ethical questions.  What begins as an acrimonious separation quickly escalates into a debate about privacy, voyeurism, and the limits of legal protection under the doctrine of absolute privilege.  They explore whether lawyers can be held accountable for distributing deeply personal and arguably irrelevant material in court, and how the justice system balances open litigation with protecting individuals from harm.  With sharp insights and candid commentary, this “spicy” episode dives into the intersection of family law, professional conduct, and privacy rights, leaving listeners questioning where legal immunity should end. Listen For: 1:47 What is the doctrine of absolute privilege and how does it protect conduct in legal proceedings? 7:36 Why did the first instance judge refuse to strike the claim against the lawyers? 10:36 What makes this case so remarkable in terms of how the lawyers handled the evidence? 16:52 Can opposing lawyers ever owe a duty of care to the other side in a lawsuit? 19:48 Should personal cost awards against lawyers be the remedy when advocacy crosses the ethical line?   Leave a rating/review for this podcast with one click [https://ratethispodcast.com/beneaththelaw]   Contact Us Gardiner Roberts website [https://www.grllp.com/] | Gavin email [gjtighe@grllp.com] | Stephen email [sthiele@grllp.com]