Today we bring you Part II of our 3-part release of R v Goldfinch. We have the concurring decision of Moldaver J (with Rowe J concurring), who agreed in outcome, but felt that a "friends with benefits" relationship could be relevant in certain circumstances - just not the current circumstances before the court.

Legal Listening - Where Audio Obiter is Our Thing!

Link to Decision: https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2019/2019scc38/2019scc38.html?autocompleteStr=R%20v%20Goldfinch&autocompletePos=1

We're now on Patreon! Become a patron, unlock fun bonus content, and support the project here: patreon.com/LegalListening

Check us out at legallistening.com, look for us on CanLii Connects, find us on twitter @legallistening or email us at legallistening@gmail.com

While you're here, check out our team!

Julie Lundy: https://www.julielundyart.com/

Rad & Kel: https://www.radandkell.com/

Remember we're always looking for guest readers to come on the podcast. Have a decision you love? Want to see it recorded? Reach out!

Episode 81: R v Goldfinch Part II (Concurring) 49:51 Share

Legal Listening

Shownotes Transcript

Episode 81: R v Goldfinch Part II (Concurring)