Imagine the balls on Trudeau to give a spot on the Supreme Court to the guy whom he **knows** would then rule on a case he himself brought to the courts.
The Justice would need to decide if the CCLA’s case has merit… Which puts him in a direct conflict of interests between his Presidency of the CCLA and his job as a Supreme Court Justice.
Imagine if your neighbor accused you of letting your dog shit on his lawn and when you got to court, you discovered the judge is the same neighbor…
Dry-Membership8141 on
>The Court of Appeal had also affirmed that Quebec had the right to use the notwithstanding clause preemptively, as it did in the case of Bill 21. This was a major setback for opponents of this legislation.
This was always such a bizarre argument. There’s no jurisprudence to support a requirement that the NWC be used only in response to an adverse court finding, nor does the provision itself suggest one.
I tend to think Bill 21 advances a vision of secularism inconsistent with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and of prevailing Supreme Court jurisprudence both pre- and post-dating it (ex., Saumur v. City of Quebec, 1953 CanLII 3, where the Court struck down restrictions on religious rights as falling outside the ambit of civil rights and thus *ultra vires* the provincial legislature), but even I can see that particular argument was bullshit.
4 Comments
Imagine the balls on Trudeau to give a spot on the Supreme Court to the guy whom he **knows** would then rule on a case he himself brought to the courts.
[deleted]
>Justice Jamal was the president of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA) at the time the association filed an action in Superior Court to challenge the Loi sur la laïcité de l’État in June 2019
The Justice would need to decide if the CCLA’s case has merit… Which puts him in a direct conflict of interests between his Presidency of the CCLA and his job as a Supreme Court Justice.
Imagine if your neighbor accused you of letting your dog shit on his lawn and when you got to court, you discovered the judge is the same neighbor…
>The Court of Appeal had also affirmed that Quebec had the right to use the notwithstanding clause preemptively, as it did in the case of Bill 21. This was a major setback for opponents of this legislation.
This was always such a bizarre argument. There’s no jurisprudence to support a requirement that the NWC be used only in response to an adverse court finding, nor does the provision itself suggest one.
I tend to think Bill 21 advances a vision of secularism inconsistent with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and of prevailing Supreme Court jurisprudence both pre- and post-dating it (ex., Saumur v. City of Quebec, 1953 CanLII 3, where the Court struck down restrictions on religious rights as falling outside the ambit of civil rights and thus *ultra vires* the provincial legislature), but even I can see that particular argument was bullshit.