News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 9.6K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 41K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 5.4K     0 

It says the government will appeal right in the linked article.

I'm certainly no legal expert but my, admittedly very quick reading of the Federal Courts Act doesn't convince me that it has jurisdiction to review a Cabinet decision. No doubt smarter people will decide.
 
lenaitch said:
It says the government will appeal right in the linked article.

I'm certainly no legal expert but my, admittedly very quick reading of the Federal Courts Act doesn't convince me that it has jurisdiction to review a Cabinet decision. No doubt smarter people will decide.
Click to expand...

The Federal Court certainly does have that jurisdiction.
 
In respect of the Judicial Review of the invocation of The Emergencies Act; I think it would behoove everyone to have a read of the decision.

The text can be found here:


Its 126 pages, and an interesting read. One could agree or disagree with the ruling, but the judge does not come off as reactionary at all, his reasoning and the arguments he had before him merit due attention.
 
Northern Light said:
In respect of the Judicial Review of the invocation of The Emergencies Act; I think it would behoove everyone to have a read of the decision.

The text can be found here:


Its 126 pages, and an interesting read.
Click to expand...

Took a quick gander...It was quick so please play nice if I missed something.

Two things stood out for me:

The first was the suggestion that there were other means (other than evoking the Emergencies Act) that should have been explored that had been successful in other provinces. Ottawa (Ontario) tow truck drivers were reluctant to remove vehicles (some in fear or security), but were not legislatively forced to do so...It made me think about our current government, and our tow truck industry in Ontario (maybe its just a GTA thing?)...I'll leave it at that, and maybe nothing but an uneasy feeling. I wonder what Doug and team could have legislated to get things going...

The second was purely because it made me chuckle and good entertainment while reading through the legalese:

1706060796401.png



In the end, from what I gather, the judge agrees that the protest in Ottawa was a problem...but the government maybe didn't quite explore all opportunities - Even if it was rushed and appeared to be a serious threat. There are other points about charter rights and frozen bank accounts etc. that I'm omitting so please don't accept as a TLDR.

Northern Light said:
... but the judge does not come off as reactionary at all, his reasoning and the arguments he had before him merit due attention.
Click to expand...
I would certainly hope they aren't often reactionary; especially at that level...
 
Coolibop said:
Took a quick gander...It was quick so please play nice if I missed something.

Two things stood out for me:

The first was the suggestion that there were other means (other than evoking the Emergencies Act) that should have been explored that had been successful in other provinces. Ottawa (Ontario) tow truck drivers were reluctant to remove vehicles (some in fear or security), but were not legislatively forced to do so...It made me think about our current government, and our tow truck industry in Ontario (maybe its just a GTA thing?)...I'll leave it at that, and maybe nothing but an uneasy feeling. I wonder what Doug and team could have legislated to get things going...

The second was purely because it made me chuckle and good entertainment while reading through the legalese:

View attachment 534812


In the end, from what I gather, the judge agrees that the protest in Ottawa was a problem...but the government maybe didn't quite explore all opportunities - Even if it was rushed and appeared to be a serious threat. There are other points about charter rights and frozen bank accounts etc. that I'm omitting so please don't accept as a TLDR.


I would certainly hope they aren't often reactionary; especially at that level...
Click to expand...

Nothing amiss in your observations.

Clearly the legal arguments are a bit more elaborate, but you're on point in what you've discussed.
 
evandyk said:
The Federal Court certainly does have that jurisdiction.
Click to expand...
It seems this Court agrees with you.

[27] The Crown is not a federal board, commission or other tribunal for the purposes of sections 18 and 18.1 of the Federal Courts Act and cannot, therefore, be a respondent in these proceedings. Decisions by the Governor in Council and the Minister in the execution of their public duties are subject to judicial review. They are represented in these proceedings by the Attorney General of Canada as Respondent.​
​
Northern Light said:
In respect of the Judicial Review of the invocation of The Emergencies Act; I think it would behoove everyone to have a read of the decision.

The text can be found here:


Its 126 pages, and an interesting read. One could agree or disagree with the ruling, but the judge does not come off as reactionary at all, his reasoning and the arguments he had before him merit due attention.
Click to expand...
Interesting read (at 6 am!). Only two more levels of court to go. Given the judge's statement at [374]:

This case was not about the constitutionality of the Act but ,rather, how it was applied in this instance.​

depending on what the Federal Court of Appeal says, it will be interesting to see if the Supreme Court agrees to hear it.

Coolibop said:
The first was the suggestion that there were other means (other than evoking the Emergencies Act) that should have been explored that had been successful in other provinces. Ottawa (Ontario) tow truck drivers were reluctant to remove vehicles (some in fear or security), but were not legislatively forced to do so...It made me think about our current government, and our tow truck industry in Ontario (maybe its just a GTA thing?)...I'll leave it at that, and maybe nothing but an uneasy feeling. I wonder what Doug and team could have legislated to get things going...
Click to expand...
I'm not sure that was a central element in the decision. The judge does discuss the difference between 'authority' and 'capacity' of governments and other legislation.

Regarding the 'tow truck issue', there are obvious limits on how much the State can compel a private business to do its bidding. Whether or not they could have been compelled to assist the police under Ontario's Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act is just as untested as the federal Emergencies Act. In the end, I don't recall hauling dozens of protest trucks away ended up being a huge issue. If I recall the arguments in the early days of the protest, heavy tow operators were unwilling to get involved primarily because they didn't want to get on the wrong side of their client base, but also wanted some liability protection. If you look at most insurance policies, 'civil unrest' is not an insured risk.


​
​
 
Northern Light said:
Its 126 pages, and an interesting read. One could agree or disagree with the ruling, but the judge does not come off as reactionary at all, his reasoning and the arguments he had before him merit due attention.
Click to expand...

Amusingly, the judge appears to disagree with his own ruling, at para. 370, where he says:

[370] At the outset of these proceedings, while I had not reached a decision on any of the four applications, I was leaning to the view that the decision to invoke the EA was reasonable. I considered the events that occurred in Ottawa and other locations in January and February 2022 went beyond legitimate protest and reflected an unacceptable breakdown of public order. I had and continue to have considerable sympathy for those in government who were confronted with this situation. Had I been at their tables at that time, I may have agreed that it was necessary to invoke the Act. And I acknowledge that in conducting judicial review of that decision, I am revisiting that time with the benefit of hindsight and a more extensive record of the facts and law than that which was before the GIC.
Click to expand...

So he says that if he knew only what the government knew at the time, and was sitting at that table, he'd have done the same thing. But now, after everybody knows what actually happened after the emergency order was made, and they had months to fully argue the issue with no time constraints and with outside advocacy, he thinks differently. It seems to be hindsighting the analysis in a way that I wouldn't think is appropriate. Will be interesting to see what the FCA thinks of this on appeal.
 
evandyk said:
Amusingly, the judge appears to disagree with his own ruling, at para. 370, where he says:



So he says that if he knew only what the government knew at the time, and was sitting at that table, he'd have done the same thing. But now, after everybody knows what actually happened after the emergency order was made, and they had months to fully argue the issue with no time constraints and with outside advocacy, he thinks differently. It seems to be hindsighting the analysis in a way that I wouldn't think is appropriate. Will be interesting to see what the FCA thinks of this on appeal.
Click to expand...
And you may be right (and great observation) although this case is about process, policy and administrative matters, as opposed to, say an accused facing jeopardy. It may be determined that such hindsight is an appropriate analysis given the legislative implications. IDK.
 
A question for the mods, has a US Presidential election thread been created yet? I know it's ten months away, but big things are already happening with the primaries underway, but I don't want to dupe an existing thread but I couldn't see it.
 
Jonny5 said:
A question for the mods, has a US Presidential election thread been created yet? I know it's ten months away, but big things are already happening with the primaries underway, but I don't want to dupe an existing thread but I couldn't see it.
Click to expand...

Not a Mod; but I have had a good look, I don't see one either. So I think you're free and clear to start a 2024 U.S.Presidential Election thread; if it turns out there is a duplicate, the Mods can merge them.

Edit to add, it appears as though we've got a fair bit of U.S. Republican primary coverage in the Donald Trump thread.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top