Send us a text

Did Trump just rewrite the rules of international law by capturing Nicolás Maduro?

Gavin Tighe and Stephen Thiele unpack the shocking U.S. operation that saw the arrest of Venezuela’s controversial leader…without war, without permission, and without apology.

Was it a bold act of justice or a dangerous display of unchecked power?

Gavin and Stephen break down the legal, political, and historical implications of this high-stakes move, comparing it to past extractions like Noriega and Eichmann, while exploring the murky space between law and enforcement.

This conversation challenges everything you thought you knew about sovereign immunity, presidential power, and what it really means to be “above the law.”

Listen For

:12 Can a superpower legally seize a foreign head of state?
2:54 Does international law mean anything without enforcement?
6:13 Has the US done this before and does precedent justify it?
9:14 Can a president claim sovereign immunity after indictment?
26:34 Is American military power a dangerous precedent for the world?

Leave a rating/review for this podcast with one click

Contact Us

Gardiner Roberts website | Gavin email | Stephen email

Send us a text

What happens when a hockey hit crosses the line from rough play to criminal assault?

Gavin Tighe and Stephen Thiele unpack the legal chaos surrounding violence in hockey, sparked by a shocking stick attack in a recent Ontario Hockey League (OHL) game.

The lawyers break down when on-ice actions like body checks, fights, or brutal slashes step outside the game’s rules…and into the courtroom.

From historical NHL assaults to civil lawsuits and even potential criminal charges, this episode dives deep into the intersection between sports, consent, and the law.

Whether you're a die-hard hockey fan or just intrigued by legal grey zones, this discussion will make you rethink what it really means to "play the game."

Listen For

5:44 Can a Hockey Stick Become a Criminal Weapon?

8:47 How Do Consent and Rules Impact Legal Liability?

11:34 Should Pro Athletes Be Exempt from Criminal Charges?

18:19 What Civil Lawsuits Can Arise from On-Ice Injuries?

Leave a rating/review for this podcast with one click

Contact Us

Gardiner Roberts website | Gavin email | Stephen email

Send us a text

If becoming a lawyer no longer requires proving what you know, what does the profession really stand for?

Gavin Tighe and Stephen Thiele take on the Law Society of Ontario’s proposal to scrap bar exams in favor of a training course, arguing that removing substantive testing undermines both public protection and the meaning of being called to the bar.

Drawing on their own experiences in law school and practice, they explore how legal education has changed, why baseline legal knowledge is essential, and how lowering standards risks public confidence in the profession.

They discuss the concerns about competency, mentorship, AI misuse, and an increasingly saturated legal market, ultimately questioning whether a profession without rigorous gate-keeping can still claim legitimacy as a learned profession.

Listen For

:25 Should lawyers be licensed without proving substantive legal knowledge
5:41 Why is the Law Society of Ontario considering scrapping the bar exams
9:42 How does removing testing put the public at risk
14:10 Can lawyers rely on AI without strong foundational knowledge
21:01 What happens to a profession when no one is allowed to fail

Leave a rating/review for this podcast with one click

Contact Us

Gardiner Roberts website | Gavin email | Stephen email

Send us a text

Who owns your voice once it's out there?

Gavin Tighe and Stephen Thiele dive headfirst into the legal grey zone of podcasting, exposing the tangled web of copyright, guest rights, AI risks, and international enforcement.

In a world where anyone with a mic and Wi-Fi can become a broadcaster, the legal framework hasn’t caught up…and that’s a problem.

From defamation and moral rights to regulating cross-border content, this episode explores how the Wild West of digital media is clashing with legacy laws, and why even the simplest podcast might require a legal contract.

It's a sharp, witty, and timely discussion that will leave creators, lawyers, and listeners questioning: just who owns the content we consume and create?

Listen For

2:24 How has podcasting given everyone a voice compared to traditional media?

4:17 How big is the podcast industry and who’s listening in Canada and globally?

7:41 Can podcasting be regulated by agencies like the CRTC?

10:53 Do guests have copyright ownership over their podcast appearances?

19:45 What happens when AI is used to fake or manipulate a podcast guest’s voice?

Leave a rating/review for this podcast with one click

Contact Us

Gardiner Roberts website | Gavin email | Stephen email

Send us a text

What happens when one vote decides an election and that vote never makes it to the ballot box?

Gavin and Stephen dive deep into a razor-thin electoral result in Terrebonne, Quebec, where a federal seat was won by a single vote.

But here's the twist: a mail-in ballot that could have tied the race was rejected due to a postal code error, an error made not by the voter, but by an Elections Canada official.

Drawing on their own high-profile experience in the Opitz v. Wrzesnewskyj Supreme Court case, Gavin and Stephen debate voter disenfranchisement, electoral integrity, and whether democracy should aim for perfection or just “good enough.”

They explore the fragile balance between procedural error and intentional fraud, the role of Canada Post in protecting electoral rights, and whether a single mistake should or should not invalidate an entire election.

Listen For

1:32 What happens when an election is won by just one vote?

6:40 Should a rejected mail-in ballot count if it was the government's error?

10:35 Is the right to vote dependent on voter diligence?

17:00 Can you ever truly “redo” an election?

22:56 Did the Supreme Court's Opitz ruling get misinterpreted in this case?

Leave a rating/review for this podcast with one click

Contact Us

Gardiner Roberts website | Gavin email | Stephen email

Send us a text

What happens when a law meant to protect society’s most vulnerable ends up protecting the predators instead?

Gavin Tighe and Stephen Thiele tackle one of the most emotionally charged Supreme Court decisions in recent memory: the striking down of mandatory minimum sentences for child pornography possession.

With characteristic clarity and sharp legal insight, the hosts unpack the shocking facts of the Seville and Naud case, the controversial use of hypotheticals by the court, and how this ruling could shift Canadian politics and legislation.

Along the way, they explore the tension between sentencing discretion and public outrage, the use and misuse of the notwithstanding clause, and what this decision reveals about deeper flaws in the criminal code.

Listen For

00:00 Why did the Supreme Court of Canada strike down mandatory minimums for child porn cases?

5:48 What were the shocking facts of the Ville and Naud cases?

12:14 How did a hypothetical involving teens change the outcome of a child porn sentencing case?

20:02 Is the law flawed, or is judicial discretion the real issue?

25:22 Could this ruling spark a political storm over the notwithstanding clause?

Watch For

Leave a rating/review for this podcast with one click

Contact Us

Gardiner Roberts website | Gavin email | Stephen email

Send us a text

Who gets the last word in Canada’s democracy: judges or elected lawmakers?

Gavin Tighe and Stephen Thiele unpack the politics and law of the notwithstanding clause, tracing its 1982 origins as a grand bargain that paired constitutional rights with parliamentary supremacy and a five year sunset.

Using Quebec’s secularism law as a live test case, they explain why some rights like voting cannot be overridden and how current fights over bike lanes and speed cameras pull courts into policy making.

They debate proposed “guardrails” such as supermajority requirements, argue that any real limits would need a formal constitutional amendment, and warn that frequent use could normalize section 33 and water down the Charter.

The result is a sharp, timely primer on how law, politics, and accountability collide when governments invoke the clause.

Listen For

1:20 Who gets the last word in Canada’s democracy, courts or parliament?

3:50 Why can’t the notwithstanding clause override voting rights under section 3?

6:01 Could bike lanes or speed camera rollbacks trigger Charter challenges on safety?

7:26 Why was section 33 created and how does the five year sunset tie to elections?

14:16 Should Canada add guardrails like a supermajority to use the notwithstanding clause?

Send us a text

Can someone really steal land just by building a fence around it?

Gavin Tighe and Stephen Thiele dissect a controversial Supreme Court of Canada decision in Koki v. City of Toronto, where a private homeowner gained legal ownership of 3,600 square feet of municipal parkland through adverse possession.

They break down the complexities of Ontario’s real property laws, from the nuances of the land title system versus registry, to the doctrine of “squatter’s rights,” and how legal tactics and statutory interpretation shaped the surprising outcome.

With implications for public land use, municipal oversight, and homeowners who unknowingly benefit from historical quirks, this episode is a must-listen for anyone curious about how property law works… and sometimes doesn’t.

Listen For

1:27 What started the squatter’s rights case?
8:00 Why can’t you claim land under Land Titles?
13:16 How do squatter claims still happen?
17:03 Do cities need to watch all parkland?
22:09 Will this lead to more squatter cases?

Leave a rating/review for this podcast with one click

Contact Us

Gardiner Roberts website | Gavin email | Stephen email