DOCSLIB.ORG

SUPREME COURT of CANADA 2014 Policy Maker of the Year

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
SUPREME COURT of CANADA 2014 Policy Maker of the Year DECEMBER 2014 SUPREME COURT OF CANADA 2014 Policy Maker of the Year Benjamin Perrin analyses the Court’s most significant rulings of the past 12 months Stanley Hartt examines the concept of ‘judge-made law’: is it fact or fiction? Also in this issue: Christian Leuprecht calls for a national discussion on how we can detain terrorist threats while still protecting civil liberties; Dwight Newman and Brian Lee Crowley on social licence, what it means, its limitations and its implications for resource development; Dwight Newman on whether governments should use legal tools to support development when facing continuing protests; and Brian Lee Crowley calls on middle powers to do more to defend liberal democratic values as the US takes a diminished role on the world stage. Published by the Macdonald-Laurier Institute Published by the Macdonald-Laurier Institute Brian Lee Crowley, Managing Director, [email protected] PublishedBrianJames Lee Anderson, byCrowley, the Macdonald-LaurierManaging Director, Editor, [email protected] Policy Institute James Anderson, Managing Editor, Inside Policy Contributing writers: Brian Lee Crowley, Managing Director, [email protected] James Anderson,Contributing Managing writers: Editor, Inside Policy ThomasThomas S. Axworthy S. Axworthy Tom FlanaganAndrew Griffith Audrey Laporte Benjamin PerrinMike Priaro Thomas S. Axworthy ContributingAndrew Griffith writers: Benjamin Perrin Donald Barry Chrystia Freeland Ian Lee Richard Remillard Donald Barry Stanley H. Hartt Mike Priaro Ken CoatesThomasDonald BarryS. Axworthy Guy Giorno StanleyAndrew H. HarttGriffithMeredith MacDonald MikeBenjamin Priaro Perrin Robin V. Sears Brian Lee CrowleyKen Coates Stephen GreenePaul KennedyJanice MacKinnon Colin RobertsonMunir Sheikh KenDonald Coates Barry PaulStanley Kennedy H. Hartt ColinMike Robertson Priaro Laura Dawson Andrew Griffith Linda Nazareth Alex Wilner Brian Lee Crowley Audrey Laporte Roger Robinson Elaine DepowBrian KenLee Crowley Coates Stanley H. HarttAudreyPaul LaporteKennedyDwight Newman RogerColin Robinson Robertson Jeremy Depow Carin Holroyd Geoff Norquay CarloBrianCarlo Dade Lee Dade Crowley AudreyIanIan Lee Laporte RobinRogerRobin V. Robinson Sears V. Sears Martha Hall Findlay Paul Kennedy Benjamin Perrin LauraLaura DawsonCarlo Dawson Dade JaniceJanice MacKinnonMacKinnonIan Lee MunirRobinMunir Sheikh V. Sheikh Sears PastGuy contributors: Giorno Mary-Jane Bennett,Linda Carolyn Nazareth Bennett, Massimo Bergamini,Alex Wilner Ken Boessenkool, Guy GiornoLaura Dawson LindaJanice Nazareth MacKinnon MunirAlex SheikhWilner Brian Bohunicky, Scott Brison, Derek Burney, Catherine Cano, Michael Chong , Dan Ciuriak, Scott Clark, Philip Cross, Stephen Greene Geoff Norquay StephenCeline GuyGreene Giorno Cooper, Andrew Davenport,GeoffLinda Peter NorquayNazareth DeVries, Brian Dijkema, AlexDon Wilner Drummond, John Duffy, Patrice Dutil, Joseph Fantino, Daniel Gagnier, Dean Karalekas, Tasha Kheiriddin, Stephen Greene Geoff Norquay Past contributors:Jeremy Mary-Jane Kinsman, Bennett, Steven Carolyn Langdon, Bennett, Brad Massimo Lavigne, Bergamini, Velma McColl,Ken Boessenkool, Ted Menzies, Brian Bohunicky,Robert P. Murphy, Scott Brison, PastDerek contributors: Burney, Catherine Mary-Jane Cano, Bennett,DanPeggy Ciuriak, Carolyn Nash, Scott Jeffrey Bennett,Clark, PhilipPhillips, Massimo Cross, John CelineBergamini, Thompson, Cooper, Ken Peter Gil Boessenkool, Troy,DeVries, Michael Don Brian Drummond, Watts. Bohunicky, John Scott Duffy, Brison, Past contributors: Mary-Jane Bennett, Carolyn Bennett, Massimo Bergamini, Ken Boessenkool, Brian Bohunicky, Scott Brison, Derek Burney,Patrice Dutil, Catherine Joseph Cano, Fantino, Dan Daniel Ciuriak, Gagnier, Scott Brad Clark, ProductionLavigne, Philip Tasha Cross, designer: Kheiriddin, Celine Renée Cooper, Jeremy Depocas Kinsman, Peter DeVries, Steven Langdon,Don Drummond, Velma McColl, John Duffy, Patrice Dutil,Derek Burney, Joseph CatherineFantino, Cano,DanielTed DanMenzies, Gagnier, Ciuriak, Robert Brad Scott P.Lavigne, Clark,Murphy, Philip Tasha Peggy Cross, Kheiriddin, Nash, Celine Gil Troy,Cooper, Jeremy Michael Peter Kinsman, DeVries,Watts. Steven Don Drummond,Langdon, Velma John Duffy,McColl, Patrice Dutil, Joseph Fantino, DanielCover Gagnier, photo: Brad P. Lavigne, Landreville, Tasha Courtesy Kheiriddin, Supreme Jeremy Kinsman,Court of StevenCanada Langdon, Velma McColl, Ted Menzies, Robert P. Murphy, Peggy Nash, Gil Troy, Michael Watts. The contributors to this Tedpublication Menzies, have Robert worked P. Murphy, independently Peggy Nash,and are Gil solely Troy, responsible Michael Watts.for the views presented here. The contributorsThe toopinions this publication are not necessarily have workedthose of independently the Macdonald-Laurier and are Institute,solely responsible its Directors for or the Supporters. views presented here. The contributors to this publication have worked independently and are solely responsible for the views presented here. The opinions are not necessarily those of the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, its Directors or Supporters. Inside Policy isThe published opinions six aretimes not a necessarilyyear by the those Macdonald-Laurier of the Macdonald-Laurier Institute. The Institute, contents its ofDirectors the magazine or Supporters. are copyrighted, but may be re-produced with permission in print, and downloaded free of charge from the MLI website: macdonaldlaurier.ca Inside PolicyInside is Policy published is published six times six timesa year a byyear the by Macdonald-Laurierthe Macdonald-Laurier Institute. Institute. The The contentscontents ofof the the magazinemagazine are arecopyrighted, copyrighted, but may butbe re-producedmay be re-produced withFor permission advertisingwith permission information,in print, in print, and please and downloaded downloaded email: [email protected] free free of of charge charge fromfrom the MLIMLI website: website: macdonaldlaurier.ca macdonaldlaurier.ca Subscriptions:For advertising $39.95For advertising per information,year; information,single issue, please $6.95.please email: email:| ISSN [email protected] [email protected] 1929-9095 (Print) | ISSN 1929-9109 (Online) Subscriptions: $39.95 per year; single issue, $6.95. | ISSN 1929-9095 (Print) | ISSN 1929-9109 (Online) Subscriptions:The Macdonald-Laurier $39.95 per year; Institute single is issue, grateful $6.95. to Intuit | ISSN Canada 1929-9095 for their support(Print) |of ISSN Inside Policy1929-9109 magazine. (Online) Inside Policy TheInside Macdonald-Laurier Policy: 8 York Street,Institute Suite is grateful 200, Ottawa to Intuit ON, Canada Canada for K1N their 5S6,support PH; of613-482-8327 magazine. The Macdonald-Laurier Institute is grateful to Intuit Canada for their support of Inside Policy magazine. Inside Policy: 8 York Street, Suite 200, Ottawa ON, Canada K1N 5S6, PH; 613-482-8327 2 Inside Policy — The Magazine of The Macdonald-Laurier Institute Inside Policy: 8 York Street, Suite 200, Ottawa ON, Canada K1N 5S6, PH; 613-482-8327 2 Inside2 Inside Policy Policy – The — Magazine The Magazine of The of The Macdonald-Laurier Macdonald-Laurier Institute Institute insidepolicy2 [march].inddInside Policy 2 — The Magazine of The Macdonald-Laurier Institute 14-04-01 10:00 AM insidepolicy [march].indd 2 14-04-01 10:00 AM insidepolicy [march].indd 2 14-04-01 10:00 AM Editor’s message Contents n this year-end issue of Inside Policy, as a tribute 4 “Judge-made law”: judicial excess to the Supreme Court of Canada – the Macdon- or sore losers’ sour grapes? Stanley Hartt ald-Laurier Institute’s Policy Maker of the Year Ifor 2014 – the focus is on law and justice. (Note: 7 The Supreme Court of Canada: previous MLI Policy Makers of the Year were John Policy Maker of the Year Baird (2013) and Mark Carney (2012).) Benjamin Perrin Our feature piece is by UBC law professor and MLI 12 Be Careful What You Wish For: Why senior fellow Ben Perrin, who suggests one would be Some Versions of “Social Licence” are hard-pressed to find another actor in Canada who has had Unlicensed and May Be Anti-Social a greater impact on such a wide range of issues than the Dwight Newman Court has in the last year. In a recent study, Perrin examined ten of the Court’s most 18 When Demands for “Social Licence” significant rulings of the past year and found a series of landmark legal decisions that may Become an Attack on Democracy prove to be of enduring significance. The areas of law and policy that were implicated Brian Lee Crowley include: the appointment of justices to the court from Quebec; aboriginal title and 24 Innocence Lost: Making good on Peace, treaty rights; Internet privacy; prostitution; security certificates and the protection of Order and Good Governance intelligence services informants; undercover police operations; and sentencing. Christian Leuprecht Interestingly, Perrin found evidence that, even though six (now seven) of 25 Will governments use legal tools to sup- the nine justices have been appointed by Prime Minister Stephen Harper, this port development, or let small “stacking” of the Court has had no discernible effect on improving the government’s dissident groups prevail? prospects for favourable rulings. The federal government or its proxies had only one Dwight Newman clear “win” in ten decisions. What’s more, eight of the ten cases were decided by 26 What’s a middle power to do? Protecting consensus, revealing “a remarkably united institution with consensus decisions on what matters in a dangerous world these significant
Load more

Recommended publications
  • COURT JUSTICES, 1985-2013 Jean-Christophe Bédard-Rubin
    Paper prepared for the 2018 CPSA Annual Conference – Please do not cite nor circulate without permission HOW MUCH FRENCH DO THEY SPEAK ANYWAY? A BILINGUALISM INDEX FOR SUPREME COURT JUSTICES, 1985-2013 Jean-Christophe Bédard-Rubin & Tiago Rubin Draft paper prepared for the CPSA 2018 Annual Conference. Please do not cite nor circulate without permission. Mandatory bilingualism for Supreme Court judges tantalizes Canadian politics for at least ten years now. The advocates of judicial bilingualism have repeatedly tried (and failed) to enshrine into law the requirement for Supreme Court justices to be functionally bilingual, i.e. the ability to “read materials and understand oral argument without the need for translation or interpretation in French and English”. For them, integrating mandatory bilingualism as a legislative requirement in the appointment process is a panacea. Their opponents argue that language proficiency in French should not be a sine qua non condition for Supreme Court justiceship and that requiring it would prevent excellent candidates from being appointed. However, despite the fact that empirical statements abound on both sides, there is very little empirical evidence regarding the actual impact of unilingualism and bilingualism on Canadian judicial institutions and simply no evidence whatsoever about its impact on individual judges’ behavior. Building on our ongoing research on judicial bilingualism, in this paper we try to evaluate the level of bilingualism of individual justices. What our findings suggest is that the behavior of Francophone and Anglophone bilinguals is influenced by the linguistic competency of their colleagues. Our findings also suggest that some Anglophone justices that are deemed to be bilinguals do not behave very differently from their unilingual colleagues.
    [Show full text]
  • Judicial Review, a Comparative Perspective: Israel, Canada, and the United States
    Yeshiva University, Cardozo School of Law LARC @ Cardozo Law Articles Faculty 2010 Judicial Review, a Comparative Perspective: Israel, Canada, and the United States Malvina Halberstam Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://larc.cardozo.yu.edu/faculty-articles Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Malvina Halberstam, Judicial Review, a Comparative Perspective: Israel, Canada, and the United States, 31 Cardozo Law Review 2393 (2010). Available at: https://larc.cardozo.yu.edu/faculty-articles/68 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty at LARC @ Cardozo Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Articles by an authorized administrator of LARC @ Cardozo Law. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. JUDICIAL REVIEW, A COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVE: ISRAEL, CANADA, AND THE UNITED STATES INTRODUCTION Malvina Halberstam∗ On April 26, 2009, the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law hosted a roundtable discussion, Judicial Review, a Comparative Perspective: Israel, Canada, and the United States, with prominent jurists, statesmen, academics, and practicing attorneys.∗∗ The panel was comprised of Justice Morris Fish of the Canadian Supreme Court; Justice Elyakim Rubinstein of the Israeli Supreme Court; Judge Richard Posner of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit; Hon. Irwin Cotler, a member of the Canadian Parliament and formerly Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada; Hon. Michael Eitan, a Minister in the government of Israel, a member of the Knesset (Israeli Parliament), and former chair of the Committee on the Constitution, Law and Justice; Professor Daniel Friedmann, formerly Minister of Justice of Israel, who proposed legislation to remedy what some view as serious problems with judicial review in Israel; Nathan Lewin, one of the most eminent attorneys in the United States, who has argued many cases before the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Special Series on the Federal Dimensions of Reforming the Supreme Court of Canada
    SPECIAL SERIES ON THE FEDERAL DIMENSIONS OF REFORMING THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA The Supreme Court of Canada: A Chronology of Change Jonathan Aiello Institute of Intergovernmental Relations School of Policy Studies, Queen’s University SC Working Paper 2011 21 May 1869 Intent on there being a final court of appeal in Canada following the Bill for creation of a Supreme country’s inception in 1867, John A. Macdonald, along with Court is withdrawn statesmen Télesphore Fournier, Alexander Mackenzie and Edward Blake propose a bill to establish the Supreme Court of Canada. However, the bill is withdrawn due to staunch support for the existing system under which disappointed litigants could appeal the decisions of Canadian courts to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (JCPC) sitting in London. 18 March 1870 A second attempt at establishing a final court of appeal is again Second bill for creation of a thwarted by traditionalists and Conservative members of Parliament Supreme Court is withdrawn from Quebec, although this time the bill passed first reading in the House. 8 April 1875 The third attempt is successful, thanks largely to the efforts of the Third bill for creation of a same leaders - John A. Macdonald, Télesphore Fournier, Alexander Supreme Court passes Mackenzie and Edward Blake. Governor General Sir O’Grady Haly gives the Supreme Court Act royal assent on September 17th. 30 September 1875 The Honourable William Johnstone Ritchie, Samuel Henry Strong, The first five puisne justices Jean-Thomas Taschereau, Télesphore Fournier, and William are appointed to the Court Alexander Henry are appointed puisne judges to the Supreme Court of Canada.
    [Show full text]
  • The Quintessential Trusted Advisor
    « THE VOICE OF MONTREAL ENGLISH-SPEAKING LAWYERS » Vol.1, No 4 $4 The quintessential trusted advisor Me Monique Mercier, Executive Vice-President, Corporate Affairs, Chief Legal Officer and Corporate Secretary, TELUS Suzanne Côté appointed to the Supreme Court of Canada Cross-examination of plaintiffs lost-profits damages expert-Part 1 By Richard M.Wise of MNP Made in Court Supreme Court Decisions that shaped Canada By Richard W.Pound of Stikeman Elliott The Eternal Beauty of the Jewelry of Carl Fabergé By Olga Shevchenko, FGA — Certified Gemmologist The new covered terrace DISCOVER THE SINCLAIR WORLD DISCOVERY MENU | WINE PAIRING BUSINESS LUNCH | URBAN BRUNCH TAILORED CORPORATE EVENTS BANQUET HALL | WEDDINGS [email protected] | RESTAURANTSINCLAIR.COM 514 284.3332 | 414, RUE SAINT-SULPICE Monique Mercier, Executive Vice-President, Corporate Affairs, Chief Legal Officer and Corporate Secretary, TELUS “General Counsel Emeritus of the Year 2014” “The quintessential trusted advisor” By André Gagnon onique Mercier, a corporate lawyer who prac- ticed at Stikeman Elliott in Montreal, with Mfiscal law stars such as Guy Masson and Mau- rice Régnier who introduced her to intricate tax and corporate matters, moved to become General Counsel of Bell Canada International and later on Executive Vice- President of Legal Services of Emergis and TELUS. According to Norm Steinberg, Global Vice Chair and Chair- man –Canada of Norton Rose Fulbright, who knows Mo- nique well (and from whom we borrowed the phrase) “She is the quintessential trusted advisor.” Norm praised her Report that may be consulted at http://about.telus.com/ legal talents at a recent recognition dinner held in her investors/ammialreport2013/files/pdf/en/ar.pdf honour at the Montreal University Club.
    [Show full text]
  • Carissima Mathen*
    C h o ic es a n d C o n t r o v e r sy : J udic ia l A ppointments in C a n a d a Carissima Mathen* P a r t I What do judges do? As an empirical matter, judges settle disputes. They act as a check on both the executive and legislative branches. They vindicate human rights and civil liberties. They arbitrate jurisdictional conflicts. They disagree. They bicker. They change their minds. In a normative sense, what judges “do” depends very much on one’s views of judging. If one thinks that judging is properly confined to the law’s “four comers”, then judges act as neutral, passive recipients of opinions and arguments about that law.1 They consider arguments, examine text, and render decisions that best honour the law that has been made. If judging also involves analysis of a society’s core (if implicit) political agreements—and the degree to which state laws or actions honour those agreements—then judges are critical players in the mechanisms through which such agreement is tested. In post-war Canada, the judiciary clearly has taken on the second role as well as the first. Year after year, judges are drawn into disputes over the very values of our society, a trend that shows no signs of abating.2 In view of judges’ continuing power, and the lack of political appetite to increase control over them (at least in Canada), it is natural that attention has turned to the process by which persons are nominated and ultimately appointed to the bench.
    [Show full text]
  • For Immediate Release – June 19, 2020 the ADVOCATES' SOCIETY
    For immediate release – June 19, 2020 THE ADVOCATES’ SOCIETY ESTABLISHES THE MODERN ADVOCACY TASK FORCE The Advocates’ Society has established a Modern Advocacy Task Force to make recommendations for the reform of the Canadian justice system. The recommendations of the Task Force will seek to combine the best measures by which Canadian courts have adapted to the COVID-19 pandemic with other measures designed to ensure meaningful and substantive access to justice for the long term. The Advocates’ Society believes that permanent changes to our justice system require careful research, analysis, consultation, and deliberation. “This is a pivotal moment for the Canadian justice system,” said Guy Pratte, incoming President of The Advocates’ Society. “There is no doubt that we are learning a great deal from the changes to the system brought about by necessity during this crisis. We have a unique opportunity to reflect on this experience and use it to enhance the efficiency and quality of the justice system. We must do that while preserving the fundamental right of litigants to have their cases put forward in a meaningful and direct way before courts and other decision-makers.” The Task Force is composed of members of The Advocates’ Society from across the country. They will be guided by an advisory panel of some of the most respected jurists and counsel in our country. The Task Force’s mandate is to provide insight and analysis to assist in the modernization of the justice system. It will be informed by experience, jurisprudence and Canadian societal norms. The Task Force will offer recommendations designed to ensure that the Canadian legal system provides a sustainable, accessible and transparent system of justice in which litigants and the public have confidence.
    [Show full text]
  • Reforming the Supreme Court Appointment Process, 2004-2014: a 10-Year Democratic Audit 2014 Canliidocs 33319 Adam M
    The Supreme Court Law Review: Osgoode’s Annual Constitutional Cases Conference Volume 67 (2014) Article 4 Reforming the Supreme Court Appointment Process, 2004-2014: A 10-Year Democratic Audit 2014 CanLIIDocs 33319 Adam M. Dodek Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/sclr This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 License. Citation Information Dodek, Adam M.. "Reforming the Supreme Court Appointment Process, 2004-2014: A 10-Year Democratic Audit." The Supreme Court Law Review: Osgoode’s Annual Constitutional Cases Conference 67. (2014). http://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/sclr/vol67/iss1/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Osgoode Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in The uS preme Court Law Review: Osgoode’s Annual Constitutional Cases Conference by an authorized editor of Osgoode Digital Commons. Reforming the Supreme Court Appointment Process, 2004-2014: A 10-Year Democratic Audit* Adam M. Dodek** 2014 CanLIIDocs 33319 The way in which Justice Rothstein was appointed marks an historic change in how we appoint judges in this country. It brought unprecedented openness and accountability to the process. The hearings allowed Canadians to get to know Justice Rothstein through their members of Parliament in a way that was not previously possible.1 — The Rt. Hon. Stephen Harper, PC [J]udicial appointments … [are] a critical part of the administration of justice in Canada … This is a legacy issue, and it will live on long after those who have the temporary stewardship of this position are no longer there.
    [Show full text]
  • “Canada” on the Supreme Court in 2016
    DRAFT | CPSA 2017 Please don’t cite without permission Competing Diversities: Representing “Canada” on the Supreme Court in 2016 Erin Crandall | Acadia University Robert Schertzer | University of Toronto The Supreme Court oF Canada’s (SCC) inFluence on politics and public policy – from deciding human rights cases to adjudicating Federal-provincial disputes – has long placed it in the spotlight oF political actors and watchers alike. Seeing the Court as activist or restrained, as siding with the Federal government or as balanced in its Federalism case law, as anti-democratic or the guardian oF the constitution, are all hallmarks oF the debate about its place in Canadian politics. Underpinning these debates is an often-critical focus on the justices’ themselves, the process by which they are selected, and the virtually unFettered power Prime Ministers have had in appointing individuals to the bench. In August 2016, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau clearly established his position within this debate by announcing a new way to choose SCC justices. Along with promoting more transparency and accountability in the process, the key elements oF Trudeau’s proposed reForms were to ensure that all future justices were functionally bilingual and that they represent the diversity of Canada (see Trudeau 2016b). In line with these new objectives, one oF the First things Trudeau highlighted in his announcement was a willingness to break with the convention of regional representation on the bench and move toward an open application process. With the upcoming retirement of Nova Scotia Justice Thomas Cromwell in September 2016, questions immediately emerged as to whether the government would deviate from the tradition of having one of the nine justices on the SCC come from Atlantic Canada.
    [Show full text]
  • Year in Review
    2 0 Year in Review 1Supreme 9 Court of Canada Cour suprême du Canada Find the Visit our Like us on Follow us on Supreme website at Facebook at Twitter at scc-csc.ca facebook.com/ twitter.com/SCC_eng Court of Supreme Canada CourtofCanada online! This was the very first photo ever taken of the current judges together. It was taken in the library of the Winnipeg Law Courts on September 23, 2019. © Supreme Court of Canada (2020) Front cover: Grand Hall, Supreme Court of Canada All photos (except pages 8-9, bottom photo on page 16, left-hand photos on page 17, and page 18): Supreme Court of Canada Collection Photo credits: Pages 4-5: Justices Abella and Côté – Philippe Landreville, photographer | Justice Karakatsanis – Jessica Deeks Photography | Justices Gascon, Brown, and Rowe – Andrew Balfour Photography Page 7: Cochrane Photography Page 8-9: True North Sports + Entertainment The Supreme Court of Canada emblem is a symbol of the Court as the highest judicial Page 16: Senate of Canada institution in Canada. It was designed nearly a century ago by the Page 17 - left side, top: Supreme Court of the United Kingdom distinguished Montreal architect Ernest Cormier, and can be found emblazoned Page 17 - left side, bottom: Embassy of Canada to Japan in the marble floor of the Court’s Grand Hall leading to the Main Courtroom. Page 18: Shannon VanRaes/Winnipeg Free Press As its emblem, it represents the Court’s key values of justice, independence, integrity, ISSN 2562-4776 (Online) transparency, and bilingualism. A Message from the Chief Justice When I became Chief Justice just over two years ago, I committed to making the Court more open and understandable, and to enhancing access to justice for everyone.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Court Cour Fédérale
    Federal Court Cour fédérale THE HONOURABLE SEAN J. HARRINGTON THE FEDERAL COURTS JURISDICTION CONFERENCE STEERING COMMITTEE PERSONAL REMINISCENCES At our Jurisdiction Conference Steering Committee meeting, held on Thursday, 22 July 2010, it was agreed that we should focus on the present and the future. However, it was also thought that some mention should be made of the original raison d’être of our courts and their history. As Chief Justice Lutfy is fond of pointing out, Mr. Justice Hughes and I are probably the only two sitting judges who not only appeared in the courts from day one, but also appeared in the Exchequer Court! This got me to thinking how important the Federal Courts were in my practice, and gave me a bad case of nostalgia. Maritime law has always been my speciality (although my first appearance in the Exchequer Court was before President Jackett on an Anti-Combines matter). The Federal Court had many advantages over provincial courts. Its writ ran nationwide. Cargo might be discharged in one province and delivered in another. Provincial courts were less prone at that time to take jurisdiction over defendants who could not be personally served within the jurisdiction. Provincial bars were very parochial, and in the days before inter-provincial law firms, if it were not for the Federal Court, maritime players and their underwriters sometimes had to hire two or more different law firms to pursue what was essentially one cause of action. Doc: Federal Courts_Personal Reminiscences_SJH_18-Aug-10.doc Page: 1 The Crown was a much bigger player in maritime matters in the 1970s.
    [Show full text]
  • Year in Review Supreme Court of Canada Cour Suprême Du Canada Find the Supreme Court of Canada Online
    2020Year in Review Supreme Court of Canada Cour suprême du Canada Find the Supreme Court of Canada online Like us on Facebook Follow us on Twitter Visit our website at SupremeCourtofCanada @SCC_eng www.scc-csc.ca Current bench of the Supreme Court of Canada Photo credits: All photos (except photo on page 9): Supreme Court of Canada Collection Page 3: Cochrane Photography Page 9: Speech from the Throne – PMO-CPM Pages 10 and 11: Justices Abella and Côté – Philippe Landreville, photographer | Justice Karakatsanis – Jessica Deeks Photography | Justices Brown and Rowe – Andrew Balfour Photography The Supreme Court of Canada emblem is a symbol of the Court as Page 28: Justices Brown, Abella et Kasirer – the highest judicial institution in Canada. It was designed nearly Justice Andromache Karakatsanis a century ago by the distinguished Montreal architect Ernest Supreme CourtSupreme Canada of Cormier, and can be found emblazoned in the marble floor of the Court’s Grand Hall leading to the Main Courtroom. © Supreme Court of Canada (2021) The emblem represents the Court’s key values of justice, ISSN 2562-4776 (Print) independence, integrity, transparency and bilingualism. Message from the Chief Justice Along with millions of Canadians in 2020, the Supreme Court of Canada found innovative ways to pivot, adapt and persevere through a global pandemic. Our dedicated employees introduced new technologies, streamlined processes and implemented protocols in collaboration with public health authorities to ensure everyone’s safety and health while serving Canadians. I am proud of the Court’s agility and commitment to maintain access to justice throughout a devastating public health crisis.
    [Show full text]
  • Amity Visit to Canada 2019 Ju
    Programme Overview Wednesday 18 September 2019 (Ottawa) 17:00 - Treasurer’s Lecture by The Hon Justice Rosalie Silberman Abella, Supreme Court of Canada at the National Arts Centre, followed by a reception and dinner CDN$195per ticket Friday 20 September 2019 (Toronto) 14:00 - Appellate Advocacy Discussion and Moot at the Rosalie Silberman Abella Moot Courtroom, University of Toronto Free to attend 19:00 - Bench Call (Chief Justice of Canada and Sheila Block) and dinner at Osgoode Hall CDN$225 per ticket Saturday 21 September 2019 (Toronto) 09:30 - Seminars at Osgoode Hall Free to attend 17:30 - Farewell reception at the CN Tower Free to attend For booking and payment information please click here For more information please contact the Inn’s Membership Manager, Oliver Muncey, at [email protected] 2 Wednesday 18 September 2019 (Ottawa) Treasurer’s Lecture The Hon Justice Rosalie Silberman Abella, Supreme Court of Canada A Generation of Justice’s Journey: Now what? Venue - National Arts Centre 17:00 - Lecture 18:00 - Reception 19:00 - Dinner 21:30 - Carriages Dress code – Lounge suite/business attire Guests welcome CDN$195per ticket For booking and payment information please click here 3 Friday 20 September 2019 (Toronto) Moot and Appellate Advocacy Discussion Venue - Rosalie Silberman Abella Moot Courtroom, University of Toronto 14:00 - Introduction and Appellate Advocacy Discussion Chair: Andrew Hochhauser QC, Essex Court Chambers Speakers: The Rt Hon The Lord Judge, former Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales The Hon Justice Graeme Mew, Superior Court of Justice 14:30 - Moot before the Supreme Court Judges: The Rt Hon Sir Stanley Burnton, One Essex Court and former Lord Justice of Appeal The Hon Justice Kathryn N.
    [Show full text]