First Case, First Post

Hello friends!

Welcome to the IndigiBot. As seen elsewhere on this site, it is a simple concept about making case law more accessible by allowing two “apps” to communicate with each other. You can follow the IndigiBot on twitter, @IndigiBot.

For the first post, I thought to outline the area of law that the IndigiBot is currently tweeting, why I picked it and how I hope this space can grow, along with one case that may interest you.

The IndigiBot is currently tweeting out administrative law cases from Ontario and at the federal level. Some non-administrative law cases sneak in there but I have done my best to weed those out. Technology is a love/hate relationship.

The reason I choose administrative law was 1) that energy law was too limiting and 2) that I love administrative law! It’s really that simple. Also, I felt that administrative law is broad enough and applicable enough to your everyday life, even for non-lawyers, that you might enjoy administrative law one day too!

I hope that this space can grow into a resource for other people and help people interact with the law in a more helpful and accessible manner.


Here is one case that the IndigiBot tweeted this past week that may interest you: Canada v Bannister, 2019 CMAC 2.

Brief summary:

A military judge did not find a Captain’s language toward a young woman, who was also a cadet, as disgraceful, and prejudice of good order and discipline. The Captain asked the cadet to “fuck” on his desk and again, on a field trip. The military judge did not find the language as constituting disgraceful conduct or conduct to the prejudice good order and discipline. The Court Martial Appeals Court of Canada found that the military judge erred in his finding, applying a standard of correctness. Particularly, the Court examined whether the military judge was entitled to use his military experience and general service knowledge, including whether that constituted judicial notice. The Court held, among other things, that the military judge conflated the two. The Court set aside the decision of the first military judge and directed a new trial to take place before a different military judge.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s