We tend to think of history’s great atrocities as moral failures that are obvious in hindsight. Evil acts, evil people, and clear lines between right and wrong.

But the harder question (which still haunts legal systems today) is this: how do you turn moral certainty into legal accountability when the law itself doesn’t yet exist?

That question has been back in public conversation recently with the release of the film Nuremberg. But it was never theoretical for the Allies in the wake of World War II. They weren’t just confronting the scale of the crimes; they were operating in an almost impossible legal position.

No established crime for what we now call crimes against humanity. No clear roadmap for holding individuals responsible for actions carried out under the color of domestic law.

And nowhere was that tension more visible than in the trial of Hermann Göring.

What looks, at first glance, like a straightforward prosecution unravels into something far more complex. A courtroom filled with politics, ego, performance, and legal improvisation. A defendant who understood power, optics, and narrative better than many of the people questioning him. And a cross-examination that’s now infamous.

This case forces us to confront an uncomfortable truth: accountability doesn’t come from outrage alone. It comes from systems, structure, and the discipline to resist fighting on the wrong terrain.

Nuremberg wasn’t just a legal milestone. It was a test of whether law could rise to meet morality without collapsing into vengeance or theater.

To unpack all of this, I sat down with criminal lawyer and Crown prosecutor David Parry. He has spent years studying the Nuremberg trials and their legacy.

Together, we explored what Göring’s testimony reveals about human nature, why Robert Jackson’s cross-examination still matters, and how the innovations born at Nuremberg continue to shape international law today.

You’ll Also Learn

1. Why Nuremberg wasn’t inevitable, and how close the Allies came to abandoning trials altogether
2. How retroactive justice became one of the most controversial but necessary legal innovations of the 20th century
3. Why Göring’s charisma and ego made him such a dangerous witness on the stand
4. What not to do in cross-examination when facing a powerful, combative defendant
5. How “arguing with the witness” quietly hands them control of the courtroom
6. Why structure (not emotion) is the prosecutor’s most powerful tool
7. How film evidence changed the trial when words failed
8. What Nuremberg teaches us about accountability, power, and the fragility of democratic systems
9. Why law is ultimately an attempt to discipline our moral instincts, not replace them

About the Guest

David Parry is a criminal lawyer and Crown prosecutor who began his career in private practice before moving into public prosecution. He has a long-standing interest in international law, legal ethics, and the history of the Nuremberg Trials—particularly how the International Military Tribunal grappled with accountability, morality, and the limits of law in the aftermath of World War II. His work sits at the intersection of legal theory and real-world courtroom practice,...

Most people imagine undue influence as overt manipulation: a domineering child, a vulnerable parent, and a will that suddenly changes. But the reality, undue influence often looks like routine caregiving.

That’s what made Abbruzzese v Tucci so striking. At first glance, it looked like a typical estate dispute. Instead, what emerged was a rare, almost textbook convergence of every factor litigators usually struggle to prove: isolation, dependency, capacity concerns, and a sudden transfer of the family home for no consideration.

Then, everything changed when a single piece of evidence emerged; something you rarely see in these files.

Civil litigator David Delagran walked me through the moment the entire case took a sharp turn. A moment that revealed just how different this file was from the usual “she said / she said” estate dispute. What he uncovered suggested something more deliberate, more structured, and far more difficult to dismiss.

Then I sat with Justice Gilmore, the judge who ultimately had to make sense of it all. From her vantage point, this case wasn’t just unusual; it presented a combination of factors she rarely sees align so neatly in one file.

It all pointed to something beneath the surface that only became visible once she started asking the right questions.

Why do some cases that look “clean” on paper unravel the moment you peel back a single layer? What happens when the usual tools for assessing capacity and intent collide with the messy realities of family relationships?

In this episode, we explore all of it, from the litigation strategy to the judicial reasoning. We also talk about the deeper lessons this case offers for anyone navigating influence, vulnerability, and the fragile line between care and control.

You’ll Also Learn;

• How dependence, isolation, and family conflict quietly lay the groundwork for influence
• Why repeated phrases and “too-consistent” explanations can be a red flag in capacity cases
• How a drafting solicitor’s clean notes can mask deeper dynamics the lawyer never saw
• Why contemporaneous medical assessments often reveal what retrospective reports can’t
• How judges test whether a testator’s words were their own or shaped by someone else
• What credibility looks like when family stories, expert opinions, and documents all clash
• Why this case is becoming a reference point for spotting influence that hides in plain sight

Guest Bios

David Delagran is a civil litigator and partner at Beard Winter LLP in Toronto, with over 25 years of litigation experience across commercial, estates, and employment disputes. In contentious trusts and estates disputes, David represents personal and institutional estate trustees, as well as beneficiaries, in all matters arising out of the administration of trusts and estates, including administration, will challenges, dependent support claims, interpretation issues, and breaches of trust. David works together with the firm’s Estates and Trusts solicitors to form an effective multidisciplinary litigation team. Connect with David on LinkedIn.

Justice Gilmore is an Estates List judge and a specialist in estates litigation. She sits in Toronto and has presided over a large variety of civil, criminal, and family cases since her appointment. She was the President of the Ontario Superior Court Judges’ Association from December 2014 to June 2017 and sitting Past President until June 2019. Justice Gilmore has passed the Level C civil servant French exam, which permits her to hear trials in French, and has been a regular educational panel member on evidentiary and advocacy issues. Connect with her on

When we think of ballet, we think of grace, discipline, and the pursuit of perfection, not precedent-setting litigation. But within the walls of elite ballet institutions, the pursuit of perfection can blur into something darker: a culture of hierarchy, obedience, and silence.

That silence is what made this case possible.

Behind the curtain of one of Canada’s most prestigious ballet schools, a story unfolded that had nothing to do with art and everything to do with power. When the truth finally surfaced, the women seeking justice faced an even greater challenge…a justice system unequipped to name their harm.

This wasn’t just a story about a predator hiding in plain sight. It was a reckoning with how the legal system lags behind the realities of digital-age exploitation and gender-based harm. What happens when centuries-old torts can’t capture the trauma of having your body and trust violated on camera?

That’s where lawyer Gillian Hnatiw stepped in. As a leading advocate for victims of gender-based violence, she was able to recognize the deeper systemic failure beneath the case, a legal framework unprepared to address modern forms of harm.

In this episode, Gillian unpacks the complexities of the case and the creative lawyering it demanded. She also reflects on how the case reshaped the legal understanding of gender-based harm, and why its lessons remain urgent in an era where technology keeps outpacing the law.

Things You’ll Learn in This Episode;

• How the Royal Winnipeg Ballet class action broke new ground in recognizing psychological and gender-based harm from non-consensual image taking and sharing.
• Why arts institutions can enable abuse through culture, not just conduct, and how silence becomes complicity.
• The creative legal strategy behind a case with no clear precedent, from using privacy torts to invoking occupiers’ liability and breach of confidence.
• Why this case signals the next frontier of justice — as the law races to catch up to digital realities like voyeurism, deepfakes, and AI-generated abuse.

Guest Bio

Gillian is one of Canada's leading advocates for victims of gender-based violence. Although that is not her only area of practice, she maintains a diverse litigation practice at her eponymous law firm located in Toronto, with a national reach. Gillian is talented, fearless, hugely empathetic, and a huge risk-taker. You can learn all about her work on her website, gillianandco.ca.

About Your Host

Areta Lloyd practices estate and trust litigation, with a particular focus on capacity litigation. She participates in public speaking, mentoring junior lawyers and presenting courses on the topics of estates law, health law, and law practice management. Areta has written for several publications and wrote a column for the Alzheimer caregiver website ALZlive.com.

Resources

Have a suggestion for a great case to feature on the show? Email me at onegreatcasepodcast@yahoo.com

Looking for support in your legal career? The Toronto Lawyers Association offers resources, networking, and legal research at no cost. Visit TLA.org

Follow One Great Case on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or your preferred app to stay up to date with the latest cases and conversations. If you’ve found the show valuable, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts or share it with a colleague. Each time you do, you help another professional discover insights that can shape their practice.