Coffee & Cases with Adi

Fresh brew, clear stories.

SIP WITH

Hi, my name is Adi and I’m the cup behind Coffee & Cases.I’m a student in Canada, and this project exists for one simple reason: awareness. I read criminal cases the way people drink coffee,slowly, thoughtfully, and with attention to what stays with you after the first sip. Coffee & Cases is not about verdicts or hot takes. It’s about sitting with cases long enough to understand how justice actually works through people, place, and time. Who was involved. Where power was exercised. When history, culture, and pressure shaped the outcome.This space is not legal advice.
It’s legal awareness brewed slowly, shared carefully, and meant to start conversations, not close them.

  • A Name That Wouldn’t Hold

    The Philadelphia Trial of H. H. Holmes

    A Trial Takes Shape :

    By the end of 1894, Philadelphia authorities were no longer chasing a man, they were circling a shadow.

    His name changed depending on where you asked. To some, he was Herman Webster Mudgett. To others, H.H. Holmes. Wherever he went, confusion followed, along with rumours that never seemed to fully attach to any single place. Holmes had already been taken into custody in Boston in November of 1894. On paper, he was arrested for fraud but paperwork has a way of hiding what everyone senses before they can prove it : prove that something far more serious sits underneath.

    That proof ladies and gentlemen emerged in Philadelphia.

    Investigators began piecing together a quiet, methodical killing tied to an insurance scheme, one that ended with the death of Holme’s business associate, Benjamin F. Pitezel. The plan, authorities alleged, was supposed to end with a payout. Instead It ended with a body.

    No spectacle. No public warning. Just a crime that refused to stay buried.

    As detectives followed the trial back to pennsylvania, the case stopped being about deception and became something colder. The fraud charge fell away, replaced by a single, unavoidable question : Who was Holmes, really?

    What followed was not just a prosecution, but an unmasking, one that would unfolld inside a Philadelphia courtroom and leave the city grapping with a man who seemed to treat truth as something optional.

    And in the final years of nineteenth century, Philadelphia prepared to put him on trial.

    The Murder at the Center of the Case

    At first, the scheme appeared almost ordinary, at least on paper

    Holmes and Benjamin F. Pitezel had arranged an insurance policy worth $10,000, built around a plan that depended on deception rather than violence. Pitezel’s “death” was meant to be temporary, staged just long enough to collect the payout before both men disappeared with the money.

    But the body that authorities found in Philadelphia told a different story.

    The death was real. And it had not unfolded the way the paperwork suggested. As Investigators looked closer, inconsistencies began to surface.The injuries didn’t align with an accident. The circumstances didn’t match the narrative Holmes offered. What had been framed as a clever fraud slowly revealed itself as something deliberate and irreversible.

    Then the case widened.

    Philadelphia detectives uncovered evidence tied not just to Pitezel, but to his children, whose disappearances traced a grim path across state lines. Each discovery added weight to a growing realization: this was no isolated crime, but part of something far more calculated.

    By the time the matter reached a Philadelphia courtroom, the question was no longer whether a scheme had gone wrong but how far its architect had been willing to go, and how much of the truth could ever be fully known.

    The Unusual Choice: Holmes Defends Himself

    What unsettled the courtroom wasn’t only what Holmes was accused of, it was how he chose to meet the accusations.

    Instead of leaning on the protection of counsel, Holmes stepped forward on his own. He declined the lawyers appointed to him and insisted on speaking for himself, invoking a right that existed long before courts fully understood its dangers: the right of self representation, or pro se.

    At first, the decision appeared deliberate, even calculated. Holmes questioned witnesses directly. He pressed for scientific explanations. He challenged the prosecution’s narrative in his own voice, as if confident that control of the room might still be within reach.

    But as the trial unfolded, that confidence began to fracture.

    Observers noted moments where his conduct seemed misaligned with the gravity of the proceedings : responses that arrived at the wrong time, interruptions that undercut his own position. In one striking instance, immediately following testimony describing the condition of Pitezel’s body, Holmes broke the tension not with argument, but with an ordinary request: a pause for lunch.

    To some, it looked like strategy gone awry. To others, something stranger, a man misreading the moment, or perhaps revealing more than he intended.

    Whether Holmes believed he could outthink the law, or simply could not stop performing, remained unclear. What was certain was this: by choosing to stand alone, he made himself the most unpredictable presence in the courtroom.

    And unpredictability, in a murder trial, rarely favors the accused.

    The Verdict

    Despite his objections and attempts to control the narrative, the jury was not persuaded. They ignored the expanding mythology that Holmes seemed eager to build around himself and focused instead on what could be anchored to evidence.

    Not rumors.
    Not numbers.
    Not spectacle.

    Just one death that could be proven.

    In 1895, Holmes was found guilty of murder. The following May, he was executed by hanging at Moyamensing Prison in Philadelphia. Contemporary accounts lingered on his final moments, describing them in careful detail, as if the public, having followed the trial so closely, needed reassurance that the story truly had an ending.

    But endings are rarely as complete as they appear.

    Why This Case Still Matters

    The Holmes trial endures not because of the violence associated with his name, but because of how deliberately the legal system narrowed its focus.

    At various points, Holmes claimed responsibility for dozens of killings possibly more than two dozen. The number shifted. The stories changed. Some were dramatic. Others implausibly vague. Historians still debate how much of what he said was true, and how much was invention.

    The Philadelphia jury, however, did not chase those uncertainties. It addressed only what could be verified, tested, and withstand scrutiny. The trial became a quiet reminder of a principle that still unsettles the public: confession alone does not equal proof.

    The case also stands as one of the earliest high-profile examples of a defendant asserting the right to represent himself decades before courts would formally define the boundaries of pro se defense. Holmes’s decision placed his own voice at the center of the proceedings, long before the law fully understood the risks of allowing it there.

    People. Place. Time.

    People

    Holmes understood attention. He knew how easily confidence could be mistaken for credibility, and how performance could blur into persuasion. By choosing to speak for himself, he placed his personality on the record along with its inconsistencies. The courtroom did not just hear a case; it watched a man reveal himself, piece by piece.

    Place

    Philadelphia was more than a setting. It was the point where a scattered trail of deception finally converged. Evidence was collected, witnesses testified, and the spectacle was forced into the narrow architecture of a courtroom where stories either held together or collapsed.

    Time

    The trial unfolded in an era before modern forensic certainty. Scientific tools were limited. Testimony carried enormous weight. In that environment, Holmes attempted to use uncertainty as leverage. But the same limitations that allowed myth to grow also forced the court to be precise.

    Closing Thought

    The story of Commonwealth v. Mudgett is not ultimately about how many lives Holmes claimed to have taken. It is about restraint.

    Faced with confession, contradiction, and public fascination, the law resisted the urge to indulge the spectacle. It chose instead to ask a narrower, colder question: what can be proven?

    And like a cup of coffee abandoned on a courtroom bench, the case leaves behind an aftertaste that lingers:

    Justice does not reward the loudest story.
    It survives on the smallest truth it can hold.

    References


  • The Backyard Mystery: R. v. Le (2019)

    A Strange Backyard Encounter

    Imagine this: It’s a warm evening in Toronto. Five young men gather in a private backyard, chatting. Suddenly, three police officers appear without a warrant, without permission. They begin asking questions.

    One of the men, Tom Le, is asked to hand over his ID and open his bag. The officers have no proof, only a vague tip that this place might be linked to drugs. Tension rises. Le bolts running for his freedom.

    But he doesn’t get far. He’s caught, searched, and in his bag the police find exactly what they feared: cash, cocaine, and a gun.

    Case closed? Not quite

    The Puzzle Behind the Evidence

    On the surface, the case seemed like a textbook win for the police. Drugs? Check. Weapon? Check. Suspect caught red-handed? Check.

    But something didn’t add up. Why were the police even in that backyard? They had no warrant, no invitation, and no clear grounds. The officers claimed they were “investigating” a tip, but the truth was murkier: the young men were all racialised as four Black, one Asian, and their mere presence seemed enough to trigger suspicion.

    And here’s where the mystery deepens: If the evidence was obtained unlawfully, does it still count?

    The Courtroom Drama

    When the case reached trial, the Crown argued it was simple: the police found drugs and a gun. Society shouldn’t let criminals walk free just because of “technicalities.”

    But the defence countered: this wasn’t a technicality, it was a fundamental rights violation. The men in the backyard weren’t free to walk away. They were cornered, interrogated, and pressured without cause. This wasn’t policing; it was intimidation.

    The courtroom hung on one question: Was Tom Le truly free to choose, or was he trapped by authority?

    The Supreme Court’s Verdict

    The final twist came in 2019, when the Supreme Court of Canada delivered its ruling on R. v. Le. What looked like a straightforward case of “catching a criminal” unraveled into something much bigger: a test of the balance between power and rights.

    The judges didn’t just glance at the evidence; they peeled back every layer of how it was obtained. And what they uncovered was troubling.

    • The backyard entry? Illegal. The officers had no warrant and no consent. In Canada, your backyard is considered a private space, protected by the law. Barging in without cause was an intrusion on privacy rights.
    • The demand for ID? Unlawful. Police cannot simply demand identification from someone without a clear legal basis. By surrounding the group of young men, the officers created a situation where compliance wasn’t voluntary; it was coerced.
    • The bag search? A violation of Section 9. Section 9 of the Charter protects against arbitrary detention. The Court made it clear: once the officers entered that backyard, those men were effectively detained. They weren’t free to leave, and any request to search was loaded with pressure.

    And then came the shocker: the evidence, the drugs, the gun, the cash, was all thrown out.

    To the public eye, it seemed outrageous. How could someone caught with cocaine and a weapon walk free? But the Court explained: justice isn’t just about punishing the guilty, it’s about protecting everyone’s rights. If police are allowed to cut corners, ignore boundaries, and trample over freedoms, then no one is safe from abuse of power.

    The ruling reminded Canadians of a harsh truth: evidence, no matter how incriminating, cannot stand if it is obtained through injustice.

    In that moment, the case wasn’t about Tom Le anymore; it was about the system itself. The Supreme Court chose principle over convenience, ensuring that the Charter remained a shield for all, not just a piece of paper.

    Why This Case Matters

    The mystery of R. v. Le isn’t about whether Tom Le had drugs. He did. It’s about something far bigger: what happens when police abuse their authority?

    The Supreme Court’s ruling sent a loud message:

    • Discretion has limits. Officers cannot stop people based on hunches, race, or stereotypes.
    • Accountability matters. Courts will throw out evidence if it’s obtained through rights violations.
    • Public trust is fragile. Over-policing racialised communities doesn’t create safety; it creates fear and resentment.

    People, Place, Time

    The Supreme Court’s ruling in R. v. Le wasn’t just about one man caught with drugs and a gun. It was about context: the people involved, the place it happened, and the time in which the case unfolded.

    • People: The Court recognised that Le and his friends were young men of racial minority backgrounds. Their lived experiences mattered. The justices acknowledged that race and social context affect how a person perceives authority. Surrounded by officers, Le wasn’t free to walk away; his compliance wasn’t voluntary. This recognition of human reality was central to declaring the detention arbitrary.
    • Place: The setting of a private backyard was pivotal. Unlike a public street, a backyard is a space of safety, intimacy, and privacy. By intruding without consent or a warrant, the officers violated not just legal boundaries but the social meaning of the space. The Court saw this as an unlawful breach of both privacy and trust, reinforcing why the encounter was unconstitutional.
    • Time: The judgment came in 2019, during growing public concern about systemic racism, carding, and over-policing in Canada. The timing pushed the Court to frame its decision not only as a ruling on evidence but as a broader statement about the limits of police power in a democratic society. The Court used the case to send a clear message: unchecked discretion cannot be tolerated, especially when it perpetuates discrimination.

    Closing Thought

    By weighing people, place, and time, the Supreme Court reached beyond the simple facts of drugs and weapons. It recognized a deeper truth: justice cannot survive if rights are ignored.

    Tom Le may have been caught with illegal items, but the police were guilty of something greater, undermining the very principles that keep society fair and free.

    And like a strong cup of coffee, this case leaves us with a bold aftertaste: sometimes justice isn’t about what you find in the bag, but how you brewed the process. If the method is flawed, the result will always be bitter.

  • The Butcher of British Columbia

    Whispers from a Farm

    On the outskirts of Port Coquitlam, British Columbia, there was a farm. To a stranger driving past, it looked like any other rural property: muddy fields sprawling out under grey skies, sagging barns with rust biting at their metal roofs, and pens filled with grunting pigs. The air carried that sour mix of manure, damp earth, and something else that lingered a little too long.

    Ordinary, almost forgettable.

    But the people who lived nearby knew better. They whispered about what went on behind those sagging fences. They spoke of the constant noise: the rev of motorcycles, the thump of music that rattled windows, the laughter of strangers who came in by the hundreds. Some said the farm hosted wild parties where bikers, drifters, and women from Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside mixed in a haze of alcohol, drugs, and chaos. The gatherings became infamous, Barns transformed into makeshift nightclubs, fields into parking lots crammed with cars.

    It was a place that lived loudly on the surface.

    And yet, beneath the noise, there was silence: the kind of silence no one wanted to name out loud.

    Because people also whispered about women. Women who were seen walking through the gates of the Pickton farm. Women who laughed under the neon lights, drank from plastic cups, and then slipped away into the night. Women who never came back out.

    The Man Behind the Gate

    At the centre of it all was a man who seemed, at first glance, utterly unremarkable. Robert William Pickton, “Willie” to some, shuffled through town with a shy smile and downcast eyes. He dressed plainly. He spoke softly, almost awkwardly. To many, he looked more like a farmhand than a predator. Forgettable.

    But Robert’s forgettable face was his camouflage. Behind the soft voice and timid mannerisms was something darker. Something patient. Something that had been growing, like rot beneath the surface, ever since his childhood in the filth of that same farm.

    Neighbours might wave to him on the street. Acquaintances might describe him as “odd” or “quiet.” But those who crossed into his world rarely crossed out again.

    A Predator in Plain Sight

    This wasn’t just a farm. It was a stage. And Robert Pickton wasn’t just another recluse living on family land.

    He was a predator hiding in plain sight, a man who turned that seemingly ordinary farm into one of the darkest crime scenes in Canadian history.

    The pigs were fed. The music was loud. The gates were open. But in the shadows of that property, something unspeakable was happening. Something no one wanted to believe until it was too late.

    Inside the Mind of Robert Pickton

    Robert Pickton was not a genius in the academic sense. His IQ hovered around 86, low-average but not impaired. He struggled in school, not only because of bullying and poor hygiene, but also because abstract learning seemed foreign to him. His thinking was concrete, practical, almost mechanical. He wasn’t clever with books, but he was cunning with people.

    Psychologists later described him as showing psychopathic traits: shallow emotions, an inability to empathize, manipulativeness. He could smile and act harmless while hiding his true urges. He also exhibited sadistic tendencies, deriving pleasure from cruelty, control, and mutilation.

    What made him more terrifying wasn’t brilliance; it was persistence, patience, and the cold calm of someone who thought he was untouchable.

    How He Did It

    Robert’s methods were as chilling as they were efficient.

    He would lure women from Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside, usually promising drugs, alcohol, or money. Many victims, struggling with poverty or addiction, saw the farm as a temporary escape or opportunity.

    Once inside, the gates closed.

    Robert would attack suddenly, sometimes stabbing, sometimes strangling. Once subdued, victims were killed in barns or trailers on the property. Dismemberment often followed; their remains were disposed of in ways that blurred the line between farm work and slaughterhouse routine.

    The pig farm gave him everything he needed: privacy, equipment, and a perfect cover story. To neighbors, the noise of machinery and the squeals of pigs were nothing unusual.

    But to Robert, they were the soundtrack of murder.

    Why He Did It

    The reasons weren’t simple, but layers of trauma, resentment, and twisted desire formed his motives.

    1. Childhood Trauma & Abuse
      His mother, Louise, was domineering, cold, and cruel. Neighbors remembered her as a hard woman, more dedicated to pigs than her children. Hygiene meant little. Affection meant nothing.
      • When Robert’s brother David killed a boy in a car accident, Louise allegedly disposed of the body in a slough, teaching her children that cover-ups were normal, that human life could be hidden like farm waste.
    2. Isolation & Mockery
      Robert was always the outsider. Bullied, teased, and ridiculed, he developed resentment toward people who dismissed him. Victims, marginalised women who society ignored, became his outlet for power.
    3. Psychological Hunger
      Sadism and psychopathy blended into a need for dominance. For Robert, killing wasn’t just an act; it became an achievement. He bragged to an undercover officer about wanting to kill 50 women, stopping at 49 because “that’s a nice round number.”
    4. Systemic Failures
      Police indifference reinforced his belief he could keep going. Missing women weren’t investigated seriously. Authorities dismissed warnings from criminologist Kim Rossmo, who insisted a serial killer was at work.
      To Robert, this silence wasn’t just luck. It was validation.

    Feeding the Horror

    The most disturbing detail of the Pickton case isn’t just that he killed. It’s what he did with the bodies afterward.

    Investigators found evidence suggesting he disposed of remains through farm equipment, mixing flesh and bone into the same machines used to process animal waste. Some remains, horrifyingly, were fed to the pigs.

    And pigs don’t leave much behind.

    Whispers even suggested that processed pork from his farm may have been sold or distributed in the community, a rumour that magnified the terror: Did people unknowingly consume his victims?

    The Legacy of Silence

    Robert Pickton’s crimes shocked the world, but the true horror lies not only in what he did, but in how long he got away with it.

    • Families begged for investigations.
    • Activists shouted that women were disappearing.
    • Detective Rossmo warned the police of a predator.

    And yet, society stayed silent until the evidence spilled out of the soil itself.

    Pickton thrived in that silence.

    People · Place · Time

    • People · Place · Time
      People
      Robert William Pickton – The pig farmer turned predator, responsible for one of Canada’s darkest serial killings.
      Louise Pickton (Mother) – Domineering, cold, emotionally abusive; taught Robert that cruelty and cover-ups were normal.
      David Pickton (Brother) – Co-ran the farm with Robert; linked to a fatal accident as a teen that the family allegedly covered up.
      Linda Pickton (Sister) – Sent away to live with relatives, largely absent from the farm’s chaos.
      Detective Kim Rossmo – Criminologist who warned police of a serial killer, but whose warnings were ignored.
      The Victims – Dozens of missing women, many Indigenous, from Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside; marginalised, silenced, and overlooked by authorities.

      Place
      The Pickton Pig Farm, Port Coquitlam, British Columbia – Muddy fields, rusted barns, endless parties; outwardly chaotic, inwardly a graveyard.

      Time
      Late 1980s–1990s – Murders and disappearances.
      1997 – Surviving victim escaped; charges dropped.
      2002 – Police raided the farm, uncovering Canada’s largest crime scene.
      2007 – Pickton convicted of six murders; sentenced to life without parole for 25 years.
      Beyond – The silence of authorities and society stretched far longer than the killings themselves.

    Closing Thought:
    Robert Pickton wasn’t a genius criminal mastermind. He was something far darker than an ordinary man forged in cruelty, fueled by resentment, and shielded by systemic neglect. His pig farm wasn’t just a setting. It was a mask, loud, filthy, and ordinary enough to hide a graveyard in plain sight.

    And with that, another cup is empty, another case is closed. But the bitter aftertaste of Robert Pickton’s farm still lingers… far longer than the coffee ever will.

  • The Cannabis Case : The Whole Story

    Ottawa, April 13, 2017
    A bill is tabled in Parliament that will change the country’s relationship with cannabis forever. Years of underground use, courtroom battles, and political promises converge into one law: the Cannabis Act (Bill C-45). By October 17, 2018, Canada becomes the second country in the world to legalize recreational marijuana.

    A Court Cracks the Wall

    For decades, marijuana in Canada sat in the Criminal Code as a forbidden drug, treated no differently than hard narcotics. Yet, out on the streets and in homes, people were still using it. The clash was sharpest for those who needed cannabis for medical reasons.

    Exhibit A: R v. Parker (2000, Ontario Court of Appeal)

    Terry Parker, a Toronto man, suffered from severe epilepsy. His seizures were unpredictable, violent, and life-threatening. Doctors prescribed traditional medications, but nothing worked. Cannabis was the only treatment that gave him relief.

    Police raided his home in 1996 and charged him for possession and cultivation. Parker fought back, not to be rebellious, but because his life depended on it.

    On July 31, 2000, the Ontario Court of Appeal agreed with him. In a landmark decision, the judges ruled that prohibiting cannabis without a medical exemption violated Section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the right to life, liberty, and security of the person).

    The Court gave Parliament a year to fix the law. That ruling forced Ottawa’s hand, leading to the creation of the Marihuana Medical Access Regulations (MMAR) in 2001 (Canada’s first legal framework for medical marijuana.)

    This was the first crack: cannabis could no longer be absolutely banned.

    Exhibit B: R v. Smith (2015, Supreme Court of Canada)

    Fast forward 15 years. The medical program still had huge gaps. Patients could legally possess dried cannabis only but couldn’t legally consume it in other forms like oils, capsules, or edibles. For people with chronic pain or cancer, smoking wasn’t just impractical, it was harmful.

    Enter Owen Smith, a cannabis baker in Victoria, B.C. In 2009, police raided his apartment and found hundreds of cookies, oils, and lotions he was producing for medical users. Charged under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, Smith fought the law in court.

    By 2015, the case reached the Supreme Court of Canada. The justices ruled unanimously: restricting patients to dried cannabis alone violated Section 7 rights again. Patients had the right to effective, safe, and dignified treatment, whether smoked, eaten, or applied.

    This ruling was another heavy blow. The medical system was too narrow, and prohibition was increasingly unconstitutional.

    Why These Cases Mattered

    Neither Parker nor Smith legalized recreational cannabis. But together, they showed the old system was unsustainable. Judges were recognizing that human rights and health needs outweighed absolute prohibition.

    Each ruling chipped away at the wall of criminalization:

    • Parker (2000): Cannabis must be allowed for medical purposes.
    • Smith (2015): Cannabis must be available in all medical forms, not just dried.

    By the time Trudeau promised legalization in 2015, the courts had already made it clear: the criminal ban on cannabis could not stand untouched.

    A Promise from Politics

    By the mid-2010s, the cracks left by the courts were showing. But it took a politician to turn cracks into a doorway.

    2015. On the campaign trail, Liberal leader Justin Trudeau stepped up with a promise that made headlines:
    “We will legalise, regulate, and restrict access to marijuana.”

    It wasn’t pitched as a free pass to smoke. Trudeau sold it as protection:

    • protect kids with age checks,
    • protect communities by cutting out gangs,
    • protect health with tested products,
    • protect the justice system from drowning in petty possession cases.

    To prove it wasn’t just talk, Trudeau tapped Bill Blair, once Toronto’s top cop, to lead the file. If a career police chief said prohibition failed, people listened.

    From there, the promise turned into motion: consultations in 2016, Bill C-45 tabled in 2017, Royal Assent in June 2018. And on October 17, 2018, Canada crossed the line from promise to law.

    Case note: This wasn’t just politics catching up; it was politics reframing the debate. From crime to control, from taboo to policy.

    Parliament Fights It Out

    April 13, 2017. Ottawa, Parliament Hill. Bill C-45, the Cannabis Act, hits the House of Commons. The promise Trudeau made in 2015 is now on paper. What follows isn’t quite policy work, it’s one of the loudest, most divisive debates Canada has seen in years.

    The House fills with warnings:

    • Conservatives rise again and again, saying legalization will turn highways into danger zones. They warn about impaired drivers, schoolyards filled with easier access, and the moral message Canada is sending to its youth.
    • Doctors and health advocates take their turn at committee hearings, pointing to risks of high-THC cannabis, especially on developing teenage brains. They argue Canada is moving too fast.
    • Indigenous leaders step forward, not against legalization itself, but demanding fair entry into the new economy. Many communities feared they’d be left out of licensing and revenue while still shouldering the social impacts.

    Every angle of the debate is raw. Critics say: Slow down, this is reckless. Supporters reply: Prohibition has already failed, and the black market controls billions. Regulation is the only way forward.

    Through it all, the Liberal majority holds steady. Bill Blair, the former Toronto police chief turned MP, becomes the steady voice at the centre. He reminds colleagues that prohibition hasn’t kept kids safe, hasn’t stopped organized crime, and hasn’t relieved the justice system.

    June 21, 2018. After months of arguments in the Commons and heated amendments in the Senate, the Cannabis Act clears both chambers. It receives Royal Assent, officially becoming law.

    October 17, 2018. The law comes into force. Across Canada, from Toronto to Vancouver, people line up outside the first legal dispensaries. Police, once tasked with chasing possession cases, stand down; possession of up to 30 grams is no longer a crime. Canada becomes the second country in the world (after Uruguay) to legalise recreational cannabis nationwide.

    Case note: The debates in Ottawa were fierce, but the writing was on the wall. Prohibition had already failed. With a majority government and a clear campaign mandate, the Liberals pushed legalisation through. On October 17, 2018, the fight ended not in compromise, but in a clean break with the past.

    People · Place · Time

    People

    • Terry Parker: The man who lit the first spark. A Toronto patient living with severe epilepsy, Parker, depended on cannabis to survive. When police raided his home, his fight led to R v. Parker (2000), where the Ontario Court of Appeal ruled that banning cannabis without medical exemptions violated the Charter. His case forced Ottawa to create the first medical access system.
    • Owen Smith: A cannabis baker from Victoria, B.C. Caught making cookies, oils, and capsules for medical patients, Smith took his case to the Supreme Court. In R v. Smith (2015), the Court ruled unanimously that patients deserved access to cannabis in all forms, not just dried marijuana. His case widened the legal crack into a real opening.
    • Justin Trudeau: The politician who turned pressure into policy. In 2015, he made cannabis legalisation a central campaign promise, not as a push for personal freedom but as a plan for public safety and control.
    • Bill Blair: The former Toronto police chief who became the architect of legalisation in Parliament. His background in law enforcement lent credibility to the policy. He argued legalisation wasn’t about promoting use, but about regulation, protection, and taking power away from criminals.

    Place

    • Toronto, Ontario Court of Appeal (2000): The courtroom where Terry Parker’s case cracked prohibition for the first time, forcing Ottawa to recognize medical use.
    • Victoria, British Columbia (2015): Where Owen Smith baked cannabis cookies that led to the Supreme Court’s ruling on edibles and oils, showing how deeply medical patients needed broader access.
    • Parliament Hill, Ottawa (2017–2018): The national stage where Bill C-45, the Cannabis Act, was introduced, debated, amended, and passed into law.
    • Across Canada (October 17, 2018): From dispensaries in Vancouver to queues in Toronto, Canadians witnessed legalization firsthand. What had been hidden in shadows became legal under bright storefront lights.

    Time

    • 2000 – R v. Parker: The first major crack. Courts rule medical cannabis must be permitted, forcing new regulations.
    • 2015 – R v. Smith + Trudeau’s Promise: Smith’s case widens medical access; Trudeau wins the election on a platform promising full legalization.
    • 2017 – Bill C-45 Introduced: The Cannabis Act is tabled in Parliament, sparking fierce debates about youth safety, public health, and Indigenous inclusion.
    • 2018 – Legalization Day: On October 17, Canada becomes the second country in the world to legalize recreational cannabis, turning a campaign promise into reality.

    Why It Mattered

    Youth protection. Before 2018, teenagers could buy cannabis from dealers in back alleys with no ID check, no age limit, and no oversight. Legalisation flipped that the law set 18 or 19 (depending on the province) as the minimum age, with mandatory ID checks. Cannabis didn’t vanish, but access became harder for youth than under prohibition.

    Crime reduction. For decades, organised crime made billions off the cannabis trade. Legalisation shifted that power. Licensed stores, producers, and distribution networks took a huge chunk of the market away from street dealers. The black market didn’t disappear overnight, but it shrank and its profits shrank with it.

    Public health. Prohibition meant users had no idea what was in their product. Legalization brought lab testing, packaging rules, and potency labels. Canadians could finally know the THC and CBD content of what they were consuming and avoid contamination or dangerous additives.

    Justice reform. Possession charges once clogged courts and branded thousands of young Canadians with criminal records. Legalization wiped that off the table. Police resources were freed for more serious crimes, and countless people avoided lifelong barriers tied to minor cannabis use.

    Revenue. Taxation turned cannabis into a source of public income instead of criminal profit. Billions now flow into federal and provincial budgets, funding health, education, and social programs.

    Case Closure

    • 2000: R v. Parker – medical cannabis rights recognised.
    • 2015: Trudeau campaigns on full legalization.
    • 2017: Cannabis Act introduced in Parliament.
    • 2018: Cannabis Act in force, Canada becomes the second country in the world to legalise recreational cannabis.

    Bottom line: Court rulings cracked prohibition, politics sealed the deal. Cannabis moved from crime to controlled commodity — not to encourage use, but to regulate it, protect Canadians, and modernize the law.

    That’s the brew. Case closed.

  • (Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, 1971)

    The David Milgaard Case: The Whole Story

    Saskatoon, before sunrise, January 31, 1969.
    A nursing student named Gail Miller is found in a snowbank, assaulted and stabbed. Panic hits the city, police are under heavy pressure to solve it in record time.

    A teenager becomes the focus.
    Police narrow in on David Milgaard, 16, who was passing through town with friends (Ron Wilson and Nichol John) while visiting Albert Cadrain. Their all-night road-trip stories don’t line up perfectly. Within months, David is charged. On January 31, 1970, exactly a year after the killing, a jury finds him guilty and he’s sentenced to life in prison. He keeps saying he’s innocent. His mother, Joyce Milgaard, refuses to stop fighting.

    How his friends’ testimony sank him

    Ron Wilson (road-trip friend)

    • At trial (1970): Wilson put David near the scene and supported details the Crown used to suggest guilt. He’d earlier told police an alibi, but by trial he backed off it. publications.gov.sk.ca
    • Later: Wilson recanted key parts. He said he’d been in custody for two days, coming down from drugs, and told officers what they seemed to want so he could get out. He also said he encouraged Nichol to “just give them what they want.” The Canadian EncyclopediaInnocence Canada

    Nichol John (road-trip friend)

    • At trial: The jury heard that Nichol said she’d found a compact/makeup bag in the car after leaving Saskatoon, something the Crown used to hint at stolen property. She had earlier given the police a much stronger statement (even claiming she’d seen the attack), but on the stand she did not say she saw David stab anyone; the Crown read her earlier statement to the jury. CanLIISCC DecisionsInnocence Canada
    • Later: Accounts presented to the Inquiry showed her story had shifted over time under interview pressure. publications.gov.sk.ca

    Albert Cadrain (the Saskatoon friend they visited)

    • At trial: Cadrain testified he saw blood on David’s pants and shirt when David changed clothes at the Cadrain house: very powerful evidence for the Crown. SCC Decisions
    • Later: Records show Cadrain received a C$2,000 reward related to his information (reported in media and noted in inquiry materials). That potential motive and other reliability issues were canvassed years later. The Christian Science Monitorpublications.gov.sk.ca+1

    Why this mattered

    • Those three pieces: blood on clothes (Cadrain), the compact (John), and Wilson’s trial testimony were the spine of the case that sent a 16-year-old to life in prison. isrcl.com
    • By 1992, the Supreme Court of Canada said the conviction should be set aside; by 1997–1999 DNA cleared David and Larry Fisher was convicted

    A key lead is missed.
    In 1980, Linda Fisher walks into the Saskatoon Police station and says she believes her ex-husband, Larry Fisher, might be the killer. He’d been living in the basement suite at the Cadrain house, near where Gail Miller was found. The tip isn’t properly pursued; David stays in prison.

    The case reopens at the top.
    After years of public pressure and legal work, the Supreme Court of Canada reviewed the case in 1992. It recommends that David’s conviction be set aside and a new trial be ordered. Saskatchewan decides not to retry and stays the proceedings. On April 16, 1992, after 23 years, David walks free, but not yet officially cleared

    Science speaks.
    In 1997, DNA testing shows the biological evidence isn’t David’s. In 1999, Larry Fisher is convicted of Gail Miller’s murder. Saskatchewan agrees to pay David $10 million for the years he lost. Wikipedia

    What went wrong (officially).
    A public Inquiry led by Justice Edward MacCallum releases its report in 2008. Findings: tunnel vision, missed leads (including Linda Fisher’s 1980 tip), and weak checks that let a bad theory harden into a conviction. The Inquiry urges Canada to create an independent body to review possible wrongful convictions. publications.gov.sk.ca+1

    The system changes.
    In December 2024, Parliament passes David and Joyce Milgaard’s Law, creating a national Miscarriage of Justice Review Commission so doubtful convictions can be reviewed faster and more independently. It’s literally named for the family that wouldn’t quit. Government of CanadaMinistère de la Justice

    People · Place · Time

    Why this happened, and how it got fixed

    People. Investigators under intense pressure; teen witnesses with messy memories; a mother (Joyce) who never let up; a tipster (Linda) whose warning was shelved; and the real offender (Larry Fisher), whose proximity and history fit the facts once the case finally widened. publications.gov.sk.caWikipedia

    Place. Saskatoon in deep winter, few witnesses, outdoor evidence in snow, a tight community demanding quick answers. That setting nudged the investigation toward speed over second looks. publications.gov.sk.ca

    Time. 1969 was pre-DNA, so cases leaned on eyewitness accounts and timelines. By the late 1990s, DNA could prove innocence and identify the right person. Later, the Inquiry (2008) and the new commission (2024) turned painful lessons into policy. Wikipediapublications.gov.sk.caGovernment of Canada

    Why it matters (quick lessons)

    • Test your first theory, don’t just confirm it. Make it a habit to look for facts that could prove you wrong. (The Inquiry’s core warning.) publications.gov.sk.ca
    • Follow tips, even late ones. Linda Fisher’s 1980 report should have been a turning point. publications.gov.sk.ca
    • Let science lead. DNA cleared Milgaard and helped convict Fisher. Wikipedia
    • Build in second looks. Independent review bodies make “miracles” routine, not random.

    Case Closure

    1992: The Supreme Court sets David Milgaard’s conviction aside; Saskatchewan stays the case. April 16, 1992: he walks free after 23 years.
    1997: DNA proves the evidence isn’t David’s.
    1999: Larry Fisher is convicted for Gail Miller’s murder. Saskatchewan pays David $10 million for the years lost.
    2008: A public inquiry maps the failures, tunnel vision, missed leads, and recommends an independent review body.
    2024: Parliament passes David and Joyce Milgaard’s Law, creating a national commission to review wrongful convictions.

    Bottom line: the wrong man was jailed; science and persistence cleared him—and changed the system so the next error is caught sooner.

    That’s the brew, case closed.

  • People. Places. Time. That’s Criminology

    Educational content only, not legal advice.
    Coffee and Cases with Adi

    Crime isn’t a cartoon villain thing. It’s people making choices in specific places at a moment in time. Change any one of those, and the odds change.

    People (psych).
    Feelings, stress, impulse, habits. What “worked” before gets repeated. Skills and support help: clear thinking tools, coping, treatment, a plan.

    Places (soc).
    Light or dark. Watched or ignored. Doors opening or slamming shut. Friends who pull you in or pull you out. Safer design and real chances cut risk for everyone.

    Time (history).
    Laws shift. New tech creates new scams. Systems swing between punishment, rehab, and repair. We learn, we adjust.

    What helps (for real)

    For people (the human stuff)

    • Counseling / CBT (cognitive-behavioral tools): learn to pause, check your thoughts, and pick a better move when stress spikes. Why it works: it turns “I reacted” into “I chose.”
    • Addiction care: detox + treatment + relapse support. Why it works: cravings drive dumb choices; treatment lowers the push.
    • Mentoring: a steady adult who texts back, shows up, and models better habits. Why it works: new behavior needs new examples.
    • School / work paths: GED programs, apprenticeships, record-friendly employers. Why it works: legal options > risky options.
    • Practical life help: IDs, housing, transport, childcare. Why it works: you can’t fix choices if your basics are on fire.

    For places (the setting)

    • Good lighting & clear sightlines: cut blind spots, trim bushes, move shelves. Why it works: fewer hidey-holes, more natural guardians.
    • Staff training & presence: greet people, know the “hey, can I help you?” script. Why it works: attention changes behavior.
    • Simple design fixes (CPTED vibes): locks that work, cameras that are obvious, tidy entrances, visible exits. Why it works: harder targets, fewer chances.
    • Community eyes & ownership: youth programs, tenant groups, shop-owner WhatsApp. Why it works: people protect what feels like theirs.

    For systems (the rules and responses)

    • Fair process: explain decisions, allow voice, treat people with dignity. Why it works: fairness builds trust → more compliance.
    • Certain and proportionate responses: small, predictable consequences beat rare, massive ones. Why it works: people adjust to certainty, not scary hypotheticals.
    • Restorative options: bring victim, person, and community together to name the harm and repair it. Why it works: accountability + repair = less reoffending.
    • Re-entry support: ID, a bed, a job lead, a doctor, a mentor—lined up before release. Why it works: day one determines week one.

    What Doesn’t Help

    People

    • Tough talk & “scared straight.”
      Loud speeches fade by Monday.
      Swap it for: teach calm-down + better choices (CBT), not push-ups and threats.
    • Public shaming.
      Embarrassing people wrecks jobs and housing.
      Swap it for: real accountability + a plan to fix the harm.
    • Drug tests with no help.
      Catching use isn’t curing it.
      Swap it for: treatment + relapse plan.
    • Probation with 20 tiny rules.
      It’s a gotcha game. Miss one, boom: violation.
      Swap it for: focus on the big 3 risks, not ankle-biters.
    • Info-only classes.
      The brain “knows,” the hands don’t.
      Swap it for: practice skills till they stick.

    Places (the setting)

    • Security theater.
      Fake cams, scary signs, zero humans: crime just smiles for the poster.
      Swap it for: real eyes, real follow-through.
    • Bad layout.
      Dark corners, tall shelves, maze vibes = hide and seek for adults.
      Swap it for: light it up, trim it down, see the space end to end.
    • Drive-by crackdowns.
      Flood a block, vanish next week. Trust down, calls for help down.
      Swap it for: steady presence + problem-solving with locals.
    • Ticket-everything sweeps.
      Courts jammed, wallets empty, nothing safer.
      Swap it for: fix the actual hot spots & patterns.
    • Tech with no people.
      Cameras nobody watches = HD replays of the same problem.
      Swap it for: tools + trained humans who respond fast.

    Systems (rules & responses)

    • One-size-fits-all punishments (mandatory mins).
      Looks tough, changes little; fairness tanks.
      Swap it for: certain, quick, proportionate responses.
    • Cash bail for low-risk folks.
      They lose job/home, then plead just to get out.
      Swap it for: release with smart check-ins unless there’s real risk.
    • Stacked fines & fees.
      Debt trap → warrants → repeat.
      Swap it for: fair costs or service, wipe junk fees.
    • Quotas/stop-and-frisk.
      Stats go up; trust (and real solves) go down.
      Swap it for: measure harm reduced and trust earned.
    • Jail as psych ward or shelter.
      Cells aren’t clinics or homes.
      Swap it for: crisis teams, treatment courts, supportive housing.
    • Unproven “smart” tools.
      Buzzwords + bias = confident mistakes.
      Swap it for: audited tools with known error rates (or skip ’em).
    • Law by headline.
      One awful case → rushed bill → long hangover.
      Swap it for: pilot first, measure, then scale

    Bottom Line

    Crime drops when we build real skills, fix risky places, and keep responses quick, certain, and fair. Skip the headline theatre. do what works and measure it. Finish your coffee; next case.

Welcome to a world of limitless possibilities, where the journey is as exhilarating as the destination, and where every moment is an opportunity to make your mark on the canvas of existence.

Advitya Nanda

Join Us