Attorney General of British Columbia

For the Respondent, Information and Privacy Commissioner for British Columbia, Alex Hudson, Taryn Urquhart, and Ethan Plateau.

For the Respondent, Attorney General of British Columbia, Robert Danae, and Nicholas Isaac.

For the respondents, Gabrielle Liberty Wall et al., Kevin Smith, and Megan Walwin.

For the intervener, Attorney General of Canada, Joseph Chang, and Lindy Rouillard Labbé.

The general jurisdiction to answer questions of law cannot properly be interpreted to include the discretion to not apply the statute as written in order to countermand it with the charter consideration.

And so that all points to the proper object of charter review being the legislation itself, it being the legislative choice that's at issue.

Mr. Hudson, I'm wondering if you could answer here on the screen, you could answer the position taken by the Respondent Attorney General of British Columbia that in looking at 38 and I guess this is an extension of the point Justice Jamal has made on section 50 says that PIPA does not mandate a production order under 38.1b in every case, points to the soulless trust case dealing with solicitor-client privilege, and then says that it's paragraph 70 that in such cases before ordering production of a disputed record for their review the commissioner must assess whether doing so would infringe charter rights or values and if so whether that infringement is proportionate with the underlying statutory objectives that is the commissioner must conduct adore loyola analysis so i'm wondering if this problem If you acknowledge there's discretion in 38.1b, if you recognize that there are questions of law that are relevant to an inquiry under 50, why not focus on the source question? the alleged Charter violation being the discretion you know a ham-fisted exercise of discretion as opposed to the statute itself and then allow this that's a That issue is a question of correctness, and then allow at the second step for the proportionate balancing under DORE and reasonableness to apply at that stage to make sense of what AGBC calls the imprecise discretion afforded by 381B, which is potentially charter compliance.

With respect to 38 , Justice Kassir, 38 will very often have to be exercised, and it's exercised in the service of a quasi-constitutional right, which is set out in Section 23 .

For the intervener, Attorney General of Manitoba, Joelle Ann Miskew and Michael Bodner.

For the intervener, Attorney General of British Columbia, Leslie Rosica Casey and Mark Sheardown.

For the intervener, Director of Criminal and Penal Prosecution, Xavier Lyonnais and Daphne Godin-Garrito.

For the Intervenor, Battered Women's Support Services Association, Caitlin Oama-Darcus and Abby Fortin.

Thank you.

Leslie, Rosica?

Chief Justice, Justices, the Attorney General of British Columbia joins with the appellant in requesting modest modifications to the Jordan framework.

We submit that the Jordan framework could be modified in two ways to address the issues with complexity that have been raised today.

The company has previously apologised for not flagging Jesse Van Rootzelaar's account to law enforcement.

Well, earlier I spoke to the Attorney General of British Columbia, Nikki Sharma.

I asked her why she'd decided to take legal action against OpenAI.

We suffered a big tragedy on February 10th, and lots of young people lost their lives in the school shooting.