News   Apr 24, 2024
Latest Iteration of 50 Eglinton West Proposes 46- and 58-Storey Towers
 735     1 
News   Apr 24, 2024
Sustainability Month: Mass Timber Construction Showing Long-Term Economic Benefits
 960     1 
News   Apr 24, 2024
Aspen Ridge Freehold Townhomes at Crosstown in Master-Planned Community
 569     0 

PM Justin Trudeau's Canada

WislaHD said:
CERB is also allowing people to keep paying their rents.

The real question is, does the country have a contingency plan in place if there is a second wave in 2021?
Click to expand...
Yes but the teens and young adults living at home rent free getting cerb is blessed.

If cerb is extended going to apply too
 
lenaitch said:
There might well be a lot of political hubris, narcissism, naivety, etc. at play, but I'm not really surprised that Morneau might not have known who or how a trip was paid for. People with that amount of money simply don't live like we unwashed masses. They don't wonder where money comes from to pay things, sit down once a month and go over the bills, etc. They don't even see the bills, they have people for that. I dealt with a very wealthy father who's kid got drunk at a private club, drove home and killed somebody. He was livid to later find that the kid had a horrible driving record and the insurance was off the dial. He never saw the offence notices or insurance invoices. It was everybody else's fault.
Click to expand...

Precisely the kind of guy you want representing St. Jamestown, Moss Park, and Regent Park as your federal representative.
 
Jasmine18 said:
Yeah the judge pretty much said "trump sucks so a valid law is now bad bad"

Lol
Click to expand...
Legislation from the bench is an increasing problem (already so in the States), especially considering the gradual growth of intersectionality in groups like the Law Society of Ontario, and the increasing prevalence of special interest 'social' groups (i.e. the Halifax Refugee Clinic, No One is Illegal – Halifax/K’jipuktuk, Council for Refugees, who were involved in this suit) and the cottage industry that it generates for lawyers.
 
Last edited:
jje1000 said:
Legislation from the bench is an increasing problem (already so in the States), especially considering the gradual growth of intersectionality in groups like the Law Society of Ontario, and the increasing prevalence of special interest 'social' groups (i.e. the Halifax Refugee Clinic, No One is Illegal – Halifax/K’jipuktuk, Council for Refugees, who were involved in this suit) and the cottage industry that it generates for lawyers.
Click to expand...

I agree, although I'm not sure we've seen much of that up here in recent years. The Court (SCOC) was a bit more activist in the early years of the Charter which drew legitimate concerns surrounding interference with the supremacy of Parliament, but I think now that the foundational principles have been well hashed out it seems to more comfortable with simply striking laws or giving Parliament time to re-craft.

I will agree that the broadening of groups given intervenor status in the appellate courts is troubling. Whether that has influenced the Court (other than to complicate proceedings, empowering groups and enriching lawyers) is unclear. The Court is not an inquiry or inquest, where the goal is to make recommendations towards betterment; the Court is to arbitrate between the State and a citizen the State has aggrieved.

One problem the US has is the lack of widespread commitment to the concept of their Constitution being a living document. Couple that with absolute language (lacking and equivalent of our Charter Section 1).
 
Agreed! The CPC has no good leadership, the BQ leader is getting the Me Too treatment and the NDP is rudderless under Jagmeet Singh.
 
jje1000 said:
Legislation from the bench is an increasing problem (already so in the States), especially considering the gradual growth of intersectionality in groups like the Law Society of Ontario, and the increasing prevalence of special interest 'social' groups (i.e. the Halifax Refugee Clinic, No One is Illegal – Halifax/K’jipuktuk, Council for Refugees, who were involved in this suit) and the cottage industry that it generates for lawyers.
Click to expand...
Well the big issue is people dont mind judges making the law as long it's for their team.

The judiciary is increasingly becoming political which is a negative for society.
 
Jasmine18 said:
Well the big issue is people dont mind judges making the law as long it's for their team.

The judiciary is increasingly becoming political which is a negative for society.
Click to expand...

What evidence do you have that the Canadian judiciary is becoming 'more political'?

Citations please.

If judges in Canada are caught saying things on/off the bench that are overtly partisan or controversial they can be sanctioned, up to and including removal from the bench by the Canadian Judicial Council.

There are (rare) instances of this having happened (remember the idiot judge who wore a MAGA hat)

In respect of the decisions themselves; I don't see a whole lot of overt politics.

To the extent one views expansions of women's rights or gay rights as 'political' this happened a very long time ago in Canada.

Morgentaler (the decision that legalized abortion) was in 1988.

Ontario's definition of spouse was struck down in 1999.

Are you suggesting decisions since have been more political than those two?

If so please cite the relevant cases.
 
Northern Light said:
What evidence do you have that the Canadian judiciary is becoming 'more political'?

Citations please.

If judges in Canada are caught saying things on/off the bench that are overtly partisan or controversial they can be sanctioned, up to and including removal from the bench by the Canadian Judicial Council.

There are (rare) instances of this having happened (remember the idiot judge who wore a MAGA hat)

In respect of the decisions themselves; I don't see a whole lot of overt politics.

To the extent one views expansions of women's rights or gay rights as 'political' this happened a very long time ago in Canada.

Morgentaler (the decision that legalized abortion) was in 1988.

Ontario's definition of spouse was struck down in 1999.

Are you suggesting decisions since have been more political than those two?

If so please cite the relevant cases.
Click to expand...

I agree. I would like to see a recent example of the Court "making law". As posted, in earlier Charter days, the Court was known to take the position 'we think Parliament meant this' to interpret law but I can't think of a recent example.

To be clear, we (I) are talking about the senior courts. Antics of bench residents at the lower level don't set precedent or rule on constitutionality. If anyone really cares to research, the 'leanings' of a SCOC justice can be discerned from their case histories, but we don't have the distinct division of liberal vs. conservative judges like they have in the US based on which president appointed them. Even at that, senior jurists can have a nasty habit of acting just like their supposed to: i.e. ruling on legal principles, much to the chagrin of the folks who appointed them.
 
lenaitch said:
I agree. I would like to see a recent example of the Court "making law". As posted, in earlier Charter days, the Court was known to take the position 'we think Parliament meant this' to interpret law but I can't think of a recent example.

To be clear, we (I) are talking about the senior courts. Antics of bench residents at the lower level don't set precedent or rule on constitutionality. If anyone really cares to research, the 'leanings' of a SCOC justice can be discerned from their case histories, but we don't have the distinct division of liberal vs. conservative judges like they have in the US based on which president appointed them. Even at that, senior jurists can have a nasty habit of acting just like their supposed to: i.e. ruling on legal principles, much to the chagrin of the folks who appointed them.
Click to expand...

We have a history, especially since the McLachlin court of unanimous decisions on the Supreme Court.

While these are not always the case, and there are sometimes divisive splits.

Overall there is a desire not to show partisan or ideological lines by our senior courts who tend to prefer consensus with a clear understanding of the law and precedent.
 
Interesting poll out from Leger today. Liberals showing signs of bleeding to the Bloc and NDP.

leantossup.ca

Leger: Deceptively Horrible Poll For The Liberals

Leger has dropped, and while the big headline is that their vote fell 4%, with the NDP gaining 3% of it, the real story is that this is, legitimately, the worst non-Angus Reid poll for the Liberals…
leantossup.ca leantossup.ca
 
Northern Light said:
What evidence do you have that the Canadian judiciary is becoming 'more political'?

Citations please.

If judges in Canada are caught saying things on/off the bench that are overtly partisan or controversial they can be sanctioned, up to and including removal from the bench by the Canadian Judicial Council.

There are (rare) instances of this having happened (remember the idiot judge who wore a MAGA hat)

In respect of the decisions themselves; I don't see a whole lot of overt politics.

To the extent one views expansions of women's rights or gay rights as 'political' this happened a very long time ago in Canada.

Morgentaler (the decision that legalized abortion) was in 1988.

Ontario's definition of spouse was struck down in 1999.

Are you suggesting decisions since have been more political than those two?

If so please cite the relevant cases.
Click to expand...
The judge pretty much is deciding which country is safe or unsafe for immigration purposes.

A decision like that should remain a political based decision from politicians and bureaucrats who decide immigration policy.


And like its confusing how this works. Like the ford city council case...one judge pretty made policy from the bench and said this is wrong and the next judge said we have no role here.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top