🎙️ Law on Trial: When Does Power Deserve Obedience?
Law on Trial
When Does Power Deserve Obedience?
Every day, courts make decisions that shape the relationship between individuals, institutions, and the law. Beneath the legal arguments lies a deeper question:
When does power deserve obedience?
Law on Trial explores significant Canadian court decisions that illuminate how legal authority is exercised, challenged, justified, and reviewed. Rather than simply summarizing cases, each episode examines why a decision matters, what it reveals about the administration of justice, and how it affects lawyers, litigants, public institutions, and the public.
Episodes are drawn from selected Brookshire Case Commentaries prepared under the editorial direction of Shawn A. Scott and Brookshire Law Office. The conversations are presented using AI-generated synthetic voices as a way of making complex legal issues more accessible and engaging. The synthetic speakers are not real hosts and should not be understood as speaking on their own behalf.
The series considers judicial review, procedural fairness, access to justice, constitutional principles, family law, administrative law, institutional accountability, reasons and reviewability, and other areas where courts define the limits of legal power and the responsibilities that accompany it.
Each episode distinguishes the court’s actual holding from broader legal commentary and aims to make important legal decisions understandable without sacrificing accuracy.
Law on Trial is created and produced under the editorial direction of Shawn A. Scott and published by Brookshire Law Office.
Disclaimer: Law on Trial provides general legal information and commentary only. It is not legal advice. Every legal issue depends on its own facts and the applicable law. Anyone requiring advice about their own circumstances should consult a lawyer. The audio conversations are AI-generated and the voices are synthetic, not real people.
For Brookshire Case Commentaries, podcast episodes, and additional legal publications, visit:
https://brookshirelawoffice.com
🎙️ Law on Trial: When Does Power Deserve Obedience?
Ahluwalia and the tort of coercive control
Use Left/Right to seek, Home/End to jump to start or end. Hold shift to jump forward or backward.
In this episode, we examine the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Ahluwalia v. Ahluwalia and what it reveals about the creation of new legal wrongs.
The striking feature of the case is that the Court recognized a distinct tort relating to intimate partner violence even though the amount of damages awarded to the claimant did not change. That raises an important question: if the financial result remains the same, does changing the legal basis of the award really matter?
Shawn A. Scott argues that it does. He develops the idea of non-substitutability: a new legal category is justified only where existing doctrines cannot recognize a particular wrong or injury without being fundamentally altered.
The established torts could compensate some of the claimant’s injuries. But they did not fully capture coercive control as a distinct violation of personal autonomy. By changing the legal basis of the award, the Court did more than attach a new label to an existing remedy. It identified a form of wrongdoing that the law had not previously treated as an independent basis for liability.
At the same time, recognizing a new tort creates risks. Scott argues that it must be confined to the specific gap that justified its creation. Without clear limits, the doctrine could expand beyond intimate partner violence and give courts an excessively broad role in regulating harmful conduct within personal relationships.
The decision therefore illustrates a central principle of corrective justice: the legal reason for awarding a remedy can be as important as the amount awarded. Damages do not simply compensate loss. The legal basis of the award identifies the injustice the state has recognized and undertaken to correct.
The unchanged damages award becomes a revealing lens through which to understand the evolution of the common law. The outcome may remain financially identical, while the law’s understanding of the wrong changes profoundly.
The Legal Commentary of Shawn A. Scott, Barrister of the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia
Podcasts we love
Check out these other fine podcasts recommended by us, not an algorithm.
Talking Politics: HISTORY OF IDEAS
Talking Politics
Philosophy Bites
Edmonds and Warburton
New Books in Law
New Books Network
The Law for Lawmakers Podcast
JUSTICE