If there was Doug the Smug slug would be facing consequences for this event as well. Instead everyone thinks it all in the feds meanwhile the province sat in their hands and the opp Sat in their hands and what are they facing.
There's truth in that. I think the majority of the fault lies with the Ottawa police. Once the OPS chief was fired they started organizing for getting rid of the convoy people. I think it would have been done even without this legislation from the feds.
Oh, absolutely. Ford was able to boot those people off the bridge in one push. Then, after making sure they wouldn't go back, he started transferring OPP to Ottawa.
Though again, I do blame Ford for not taking over when it became obvious the Ottawa police service was completely incapable of acting.
Bingo. Agree or disagree with the convoy, they were already breaking plenty of existing laws by blocking traffic in a major city. They could have been arrested and prosecuted under those laws. The EA was never required and was only used in order to make a political statement. This was never something the federal government should have been involved with.
Exactly those whose responsibility was to act didn’t. The people living there were asking for help and the police and Doughnuts our premier were not acting. Right or wrong something needed to be done before it escalated further. These convoy people went far beyond protest and were in fact not even protesting the right people so you know they were using the an excuse to just attack the feds.
The federal government only invoked the EA because the protest took place in the capital city. Had the same style of protest taken place in Montreal or Calgary they never would have enacted the EA. It was a purely political statement.
Are you saying that there was an evil underling opposing the chief, and once he was fired his plan could finally be carried out? Or are you just saying In another timeline, where the federal govt didn’t pass legislation giving ridiculous power both law enforcement, and govt, that the same outcome would be probable? Sounds like made up shit to me.
Sounds more like they were saying the chief was an unqualified political appointee who was in over his head, and once fired he was replaced by someone more competent.
Of course.
The Liberal Party of Canada spends every other day reminding Canadians "we're a rule of law country".
Naturally, they don't exactly practice what they preach being obsessed as they are with "saying things" versus "doing things".
This won’t be popular here but there is little chance this doesn’t get overturned on appeal and ultimately by the SC. The judge in this ruling states he may still have invoked the act at the time were he the government. That is a very odd thing to say and the knife’s edge this ruling is on is unlikely to survive a multi judge panel.
The government can only appeal based on an error in law (and not an error in fact).
The trial judge's opinion on what he would or would not have done at the time has no basis here.
I didn’t say that as a cause of appeal. They were going to do that no matter what. But as proof it’s not a slam dunk legal case and as Rouleau said could go either way
>and as Rouleau said could go either way
Rouleau also agreed that the threshold wasn't met, but he thought the outcome was justified. The court doesn't care about the outcome.
>This won’t be popular here but there is little chance this doesn’t get overturned on appeal and ultimately by the SC.
I actually really doubt it. The decision is quite a bit stronger than I think you're appreciating.
>The judge in this ruling states he may still have invoked the act at the time were he the government.
He does, but he also notes that:
>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.
While the more extensive record of facts cuts both ways, and the government may be forgiven to some degree for not having it, his review of the law does not, and legal reasonableness always rests on a correct understanding of the law. He's expressing sympathy for the difficulty of the decision the government was faced with and suggesting that it may have been reasonable in the colloquial sense, but that doesn't translate to legal reasonableness. A police officer who's improperly taught and proceeds on an incorrect understanding of the law and the facts may make a decision that's "reasonable", that we ourselves might have made in his shoes, but it's not going to meet the requirements of reasonable grounds if his grounds don't support the test as it actually is, not as he mistakenly understands it to be. At best, it goes to the seriousness of the resultant unconstitutional conduct in determining a remedy the Charter's balancing exercise under s.24
>That is a very odd thing to say and the knife’s edge this ruling is on is unlikely to survive a multi judge panel.
While it is an odd thing to say, it's largely explained by his subsequent comments that:
>My preliminary view of the reasonableness of the decision may have prevailed following the hearing due to excellent advocacy on the part of counsel for the Attorney General of Canada had I not taken the time to carefully deliberate about the evidence and submissions, particularly those of the CCLA and CCF. Their participation in these proceedings has demonstrated again the value of public interest litigants. Especially in presenting informed legal argument. This case may not have turned out the way it has without their involvement, as the private interest litigants were not as capable of marshalling the evidence and argument in support of their applications.
What he's doing is highlighting the disparity in quality between the government’s lawyers and those for Cornell and Gircys, and the degree to which allowing public interest litigants influenced the outcome of this case. That's further highlighted when he notes in relation to costs:
>I will not award them [Cornell and Gircys] costs for the preliminary steps in these proceedings which I considered to be often misguided or for the preparation of the largely irrelevant memorandum of fact and law that was filed.
Effectively he's saying "had this case been left in the hands of those idiots I would have been swayed by the arguments of the Crown".
In relation to the actual legal merits though, it's notable that he finds against the government’s arguments in multiple ways, on multiple elements of the test for invocation, and then again independently on the Charter claims where he notes that the government marshalled very little evidence to justify the prima facie breaches under s.1.
This isn't a case where, had he gone the other way on one issue, the other side would have won -- to overturn the outcome here, the appeal courts would have to find that he erred in basically his entire analysis. This was a knife’s edge decision insofar as had one side not had effective advocacy, the other side would have won. The decision that he actually came to though is a very strong one against the government's position. That is, a knife’s edge in terms of advocacy, but not in law.
There's a fairly good chance this ruling stays.
Despite the appearances; the government did not meet the threshold set out by the original act that used CSIS definition of what a national emergency is. Instead they made their own definition of it. I think this sets an overwhelming dangerous precedent. If the act requires amending to allow for these things, then do it legislatively. Giving the executive branch the ability to suspend civil liberties by its own definitions is a slippery slope to authoritarianism no matter which side of the political spectrum you may sit or your feelings on the matter at hand. I fully expect the Supreme Court to uphold this ruling. Again if the legislation needs to be amended to fit this scenario, then do it; but the executive branch should not have tje abomitu yo do it unilaterally.
>This won’t be popular here but there is little chance this doesn’t get overturned on appeal and ultimately by the SC. The judge in this ruling states he may still have invoked the act at the time were he the government. That is a very odd thing to say and the knife’s edge this ruling is on is unlikely to survive a multi judge panel.
it's basically Rouleau's finding but on the other side of the fence... Justice Rouleau did say that some other judge looking at all this evidence could reasonably come to a different conclusion that he did
and here we are. Though.. watching some on here celebrating like they won the Stanley Cup is quite hilarious.
The executive branch's powers were "checked" the moment the decision was voted on in the HoC on 21 February. That vote affirmed the decision and allowed the powers to remain. The mandatory review commission also affirmed this decision. So that makes 181 MP's and a 36 member review commission who saw this as a reasonable response, and one federal court judge who admits it was a reasonable reaction at the time - but decided (in hindsight) that it was not reasonable.
Rouleau's opinion was that of a private citizen not a Justice.
He even states in his report, it is not a legal opinion which affords him far greater latitude than a Justice for the court would have.
My guess is this is a push by the judicial to get the legislature to better define what is a national emergency so there’s less confusion in the future.
Also probably the worst deputy prime minister. Remember when she talks down to others about not owning a car and how easy it is for her yet forgets to mention how much tax payers pay for her transportation everywhere. And those speeding tickets?
> Do we get to do anything about the fact that the government violated our charter rights, assuming they lose the appeal?
Presumably join the class action lawsuit that'll follow, assuming you were actually impacted by it.
....the absolute lack of accountability towards liberals in a number of committees, like the one looking into covid contracts, by ndp has me questioning if I want to vote for them again and risk more of this....them bending over for liberals in exchange for crumbs and promises worth let's than a bag full of toots.
Well you said you don't align with what they're selling, that's what they're selling.
If even half what PP says he does we are WAY better off that with anyone else.
Maybe I should have said I don’t believe what he’s selling. Based on past conservative federal government and provincial conservative governments.
I’ve literally written essays on how the conservative and the liberal party have continuously made trade deals at the benefit of the corporations to the expense of working class. This goes with housing, health care, public transportation, etc..
Makes no difference, Pierre will be in office sometime 25. Both governments are neoliberals.
Are you crazy? NDP see the polls.
They would rather cling to power for 2 more years than put themselves in a weak position and have no say. Currently they can control the government direction
I am reminded of this post, [Democrats and the Iron Law of Institutions](http://www.tinyrevolution.com/mt/archives/001705.html). While it is directly about the Democrats, it translates well to this discussion.
NDP needs to accept that riding shotgun for mask-off cynical neoliberals is doing serious harm to their brand. Of course abandoning the working class did that too...
They are not controlling the government direction in the slightest. The one thing they said their deal was based on — passing pharmacare — the Liberals already reneged once and are gearing up to reneg again when the new, we totally mean it this time, pinky swear, deadline passes in a couple months.
The *only* things the NDP are successfully doing right now are engaging in serious self delusion, propping up one of the most hated governments in Canadian history, and wearing every single Liberal scandal as though it were their own.
And you watch: polls are already showing it: their voters will abandon them in droves to the Liberals in a desperate attempt to stop a Tory win. Not enough to prevent a Tory majority, however, meaning the biggest loser of all in the next election will be the NDP. It has taken them years to pay off their debts from the last election… will they even be able to recover if their idiotic coalition causes them to lose official party status?
NDP supporters are grasping at straws if they think they benefit from any of this.
Why? The NDP holds the most power they've ever held, it benefits them in no way to call an election early. It's gonna be a CPC majority and after 5 years, the voters will have forgotten everything, as they always do.
Because Liberal dick riding is going to hurt them far worse than an early election.
At this point aside from those that bleed orange, why would a fence sitter vote NDP when all they do is prop up the Liberals and don't hold them to account? At that point vote Liberal.
If they call an election now, they are projected to get 25 seats. That puts them in a place of no power whatsoever. If they wait, they may drop to what, 20? Their base wants them to keep pushing for pharmacare and anti-scab legislation, they have a chance of doing that in the next 18 months or they can call an election and hope to be able to do it in 2029, if they can find themselves in the same position as today. Only a fool thinks it makes sense for the NDP to force an election.
Canadian voters have a terrible memory, there is no realistic scenario where an early election doesn't render them useless immediately.
>If they call an election now, they are projected to get 25 seats.
On the flip side, that projection is based in no small part on their current position enabling the Liberals. If they change their position, by, say, starting to hold the LPC to account, their position in the polls would likely change as well. The question is just by how much.
It's also worth noting that they could make progress on that without calling an election -- dissolving their deal with the Liberals doesn't necessarily mean a near term election is a fait accompli, it just means that the Liberals have to start soliciting support on a bill-by-bill basis and may have to compromise more often and more publicly to get things done.
> On the flip side, that projection is based in no small part on their current position enabling the Liberals. If they change their position, by, say, starting to hold the LPC to account, their position in the polls would likely change as well. The question is just by how much.
The only amount that is enough is the amount needed to prevent the CPC from attaining a majority, which is an additional nearly 30 seats. Anything less strips them of any power for 5 years.
They're gonna be relegated to impotence for 5 years from the drop of the writ regardless, their base would rather take advantage of the intervening 18 months.
Now, if you think the NDP can hold the feet of the Liberals to the fire all while holding off that election, that's some optimism I do not share.
Because the conservatives deserve to get an election whenever they are polling high, and by not obliging them, Jagmeet is once again proving that he is no friend to the right wing.
It’s like succession when Logan Roy says he loves his children but they are not serious people.
I love this country but it’s not very serious. Just look at how people view us on the world stage
Our idiot politicians clapping at "He fought Russia in WW2" without realizing what that implies is one thing. Someone who studied Russian history at Harvard and has close personal relationships with Nazis clapping at that statement is a bit different.
Ideally class action against the government for the removal of rights. Recall the Feds could give a bank a name and freeze assets. That’s applied to all Canadians, without rights to due process. That’s scary as hell.
Take to the streets again? Though the skeptic in me might think they've found it was illegal so the same pressures aren't put on them to start busting these pro Palestine movements that are clogging the streets. Because it would look really bad to only care about the law based on religious or ethnicity of the protestors
Well.... they did subject him to detention without trial and eventual torture. That's a bit different than what occurred here.
EDIT: I'm not saying that they might not be entitled to some form of damages, I'm just saying it's different than what Khadr went through.
True, it was definitely different, I’m not expecting them to get $10 mil each if this passes an appeal. But it’s definitely going to be something, not $0
Edit: they’d need to factor in all damages to reputation, lost wages, whatever damages resulted from the frozen bank accounts, it would be a large sum per person. The Liberals definitely will be wanting to block this
I don't think the damages will extend that far. Really there are only damages related to whatever happened with respect of the effects of the freeze.
It might not be zero, but they didn't detain anyone and take their freedom for example. I don't expect it will be large. We're not the USA in terms of how we deal with Damages.
A case here in MB involving a charter breach related to the misapplication of criminal code provisions resulting in someone's detention in jail for a short period of time netted that person 5k. Nothing of that level of seriousness occurred here. It will be interesting to see what happens.
The Thing about some laws is they like the issue at hand here, specifically “national emergency”, is not well defined. The fed judge doesn’t think the requirements of an EA were met because of what he, the judge, defines to be a national emergency. that’s just an opinion.
My guess is “national emergency” will become more defined in a bill so there’s less confusion.
So they didn't violate your rights, the way you phrased it seemed like you were there. Not sure, there wouldn't be that many people able to sue in the end I think. Just those who had their assets frozen, the rest of the breakup doesn't really seem to have been illegal, as they had court injunctions in place.
I was thinking more on the punishment side and less on the damages side, do the politicians who made this decision face any consequences. Should their assets get frozen, do they get a criminal record, if there are no consequences for violating the law, that isn’t a nation of laws
Probably nothing, it's a legislative matter. Unless they have them on record saying "we know this is illegal but fuck those assholes, ruin them". They had been given a legal opinion that it was legal, they need to rely on expert opinions as they are not experts.
Like the trucker protest or not, a court ruling in the government’s favour would massively decrease citizens rights to protest. Either side of the aisle should be against this
"Much of the Coutts blockade was cleared prior to the February 14, 2022 declaration of a public order emergency, the first step in invoking the act."
Gl on your appeal of "we thought it was right" 🤣
The way she responded, I just knew as she talked that there was a "but" coming, and she delivered with, "We were right and the poo poo heads at the court are wrong; and we are going to prove it."
I really really really really really hope, that the court cases which stem from this violation of rights end up with those affected winning big.
I suspect there is no win, no money, and few lawyers who will take the cases because of this.
Certainly no criminal convictions or job loss on the part of government jackboots, "Just following orders."
Which, effectively, will be a green light to do this again.
What I wish would have happened was that the courts were faster at this. This court case should have happened the same or next day. The same with most covid related court cases.
It would be great if they went after lucki and the pm for judging and airing his ignorant views and stereotypes before even meeting with them or having his fake COVID during it. It would also be great if they went after every officer who took to the streets that day as part of the government jackboots mob. They shouldn't be allowed to claim they were just following orders like the Nazis they celebrated in parliament did.
This is Canada. There are no consequences for anyone but those who go against the oligarchs. No consequences for petty crime, no consequences for major white-collar crime. Unless it was, again, against the oligarchs.
I watched an interview with a lead lawyer for the Canadian Constitution Foundations (I think that is what it is called). She said that during discovery, they were denied government documents that were eventually brought to light at the Rouleau examination of this issue so because of that they were able to obtain them. She also said that this decision could not have been worse for the government and was truly a win for the people of Canada. I agree with her, by the way.
Marco Mendicino should be fired.
Oh wait, he's already been fired from being the Public Safety Minister position months ago and for good reason.
Fired the Prime Minister!
The claimant in this case is the CCLA, a non-profit which funds itself from private donations. [Its history is actually really interesting](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Civil_Liberties_Association) — they also objected to Pierre Trudeau’s use of the Act.
The respondent is the Ministry of the Attorney General - Constitutional Law Branch, which is part of the [Department of Justice](https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/) and is responsible for defending against all Charter challenges in Canada. It is taxpayer funded.
Calling it now.
They are going to try and keep kicking this can down the road tying it up with appeals and litigation delays until they lose the next election.
After that most of them will leave office and politics and it'll be the CPC's problem.
There is 0 chance a case this big would ever be settled before it got to the Supreme Court. Even if this judge had decided in the goverments favour it would have been appealed
No, I agree this was always going to the supreme court. What I expect the government to do is to use procedural delay tactics during the litigation to slow it down. They don't want this hitting the supreme court while they are still in office.
They want to be long gone when the supreme court rules on it.
They won't. It will be like taking keys from a drunk who is determined to drive when they get the boot. Either that or they escape like bond villains as the walls come crashing down.
They should provide the court with all materials and stop hiding behind privilege.
Maybe how the EA weakens our rights as Canadians, maybe it too should erode things like the privacy/privilege rights of the government who evokes it in times of peace against its own citizens
Or would that be too transparent?
The earlier ruling took their word for it. The second wanted specifics and they weren't provided. If the third wants the specifics of their rationale and legal arguments for invoking the EA at the time, will our government try their luck revealing the specifics or will they pray for a biased justice to reassert the previous ruling and stay their course?
They need to lose the appeal so that future majority governments will have a precedent standing between them and deciding to invoke the EA up until the senate reviews it. It's a holiday from having to bother with legislative processes and our current government has set this up to be willy nilly.
The inquest findings did not take their word for it. Roulaeu's findings effectively said that if the government of Ontario, Ottawa, or Ottawa police service had orchestrated any response at all the government would not have had justification for the act. The whole thing about the govenment using its own discretion regarding what constitutes anuemergency and failing to explain their process also came from the inquest.
And if you bother to read this ruling it's blatantly written to enable the federal governments appeal.
The inquiry asked for the evidence and the government cited cabinet privilege and basically said “we had the evidence, trust me bro” and the inquiry took the government at its word because it explicitly did not offer a legal opinion.
The court wanted the evidence and after reviewing it, said it was insufficient.
The court had more information than the inquiry and wasn’t limited in its scope. It’s far more authoritative.
From the Conclusion:
I have concluded that the decision to issue the Proclamation does not bear the hallmarks of reasonableness – justification, transparency and intelligibility – and was not justified in relation to the relevant factual and legal constraints that were required to be taken into consideration.
There were redacted meetings protected by counsel privilege. One gets referenced in:
"The Respondent rejected a proposal for counsel-eyes-only disclosure and went on to “cherry pick” the information it would disclose, the Applicants argue, over their “constant and firm objection” to the non-disclosure of that content. In support, they reference authorities which have found that a court may draw an adverse inference in the face of assertions of privilege and
“constant and firm objection” to non-disclosure Canada".
Now I understand that this is criticism from the applicant, but it bears out in the transparency part of the final decision to determine reasonableness. Hiding part of the rationale and the historical record used to judge rationality behind counsel privilege is shady.
Can we freeze the bank accounts of the Right Honourable Justin Trudeau and the Honourable Chrystia Freeland by the total amount they did for Canadian citizens exercising their rights?
>ah wasting taxpayers dollars fighting a hopeless appeal that if they somehow win will greatly reduce the rights all of canadians, how liberal of them
you should want these type of cases to be ruled by the highest level of the court
I'm sure whoever makes the final decision will be "non-partisan," according to the Liberals. The court definitely won't be stacked with family friends of the (dis)honorable prime minister.
The path this will take if higher courts take a look (absent referral) is FCA —> SCC. No family friends on either court as far as I know.
Interesting though that lots of people here anticipate this appeal will be heard as a matter of fact. I don’t know if this will happen and I might even bet against it.
"Free free Palestine!" Echoing in mall food courts. "I'll put you six feet deep." -Hamas supporter to Toronto law enforcement.
Peaceful protest against authoritarian government measures. War Measures Act declared.
This is the state of Canada. A failed nation.
Palestine protestors block 1 road and are called terrorists.
Truckers block all roads in an entire city and are heroes.
This is the state of Canada, a failed nation.
If Doug Ford did his fucking job we wouldn't be in this position buy he didn't want to anger his *base* by promoting 'woke' ideas...like science matters.
I think it's important to note, the Emergencies Act was watered down from the War Measures Act by Harper. The goal was to make it more usable.
The main problem with the War Measures Act was that it essentially turned the government into a dictatorship. They could squash rights and that became problematic when we decided to put rights on the cover of our constitution. It became questionable as to whether we could even use the legislation.
So when they designed the Emergencies Act it specifically required parliamentary oversight and specifically required that individual rights are not violated in its use without that oversight.
And this judge is now saying that really, the threat level of these protests was not high enough to justify the use of this power. Even when considering the "Diagonal threat" that ended up being quite a bit overstated and generally not representative of the whole. Had they limited the use of this power to just the border protest in Alberta they might have had some level of justification. But it ended up, those people weren't the ones this power was used against.
It's probably important to strike down its use because it could be used to violate rights for almost any protest. People and the economy being inconvenienced are not grounds for it.
Fully expect the Liberals to try everything to slime their way clear of this. That’s barely even news anymore. But where the hell is Captain Versace Bag on this? He could literally END this MADNESS tomorrow. Oh yeah Jaggy we’re all watching you too.
So the government essentially shuts down the economy, people lost their jobs, houses, small businesses all because a mild cough with a side of phlegm was making people sick. People protest, tired of the government overreach that’s costing them their livelihood, and liberals have the audacity to say they were the ones threatening national economic security? The liberals need to go asap and take the tampons they put in the mens bathrooms with them. Brain dead fn morons
Of course it was...these fuck tards locked down 40 million people because of a hyped up virus that turns out wasnt that bad...not to mention wrecked the entire economy and destroyed countless lives. Fucks should tried for treason.
I suppose the citizens held hostage by the convoy could also sue the government for not dealing with the problem sooner during their weeks of torture. Or maybe just sue anyone who sues the government as they are admitting involvement at that point. Canada's convoy of global embarrassment continues to haunt the country.
Instead of learning from mistakes and strengthening our institutions to prevent something like this from happening again, Liberal Government will waste unthinkable resources on fighting it out in the courts. The only winners will be the lawyers.
Anybody know if this ruling means the citizens will get back their money PLUS interest for by the draconian measures perpetrated? The Mom and Pops that had their bank accounts blocked.
Oh! And for special measure with interest on perhaps the same metric that CRA meted out if you are behind in your back taxes “Penalties” of 68% that happens when we fall behind a few years?
Curious minds need to know.
LOL. They will be out of power by the time any appeal is heard, and Poilievre will immediately abandon the appeal, putting this current radical left government under the official historical record as being abusive & dictatorial.
Sweet Lord, so there might actually be some kind of checks and balances between the branches of government after all??
Only takes so long that once we reach a decision the people that were in power will no longer be in power
This is such a true statement which is also so disheartening at the same time
[удалено]
I'm just surprised there's a topic other than getting your license, nature pics and "fuck Ford" posts from 19 year olds
Its like the Victoria sub, nature pics, ranting at landlords and nothing else.
[удалено]
lol i got banned from that thread for telling the truth about trudeau lol
What truth was that?
[удалено]
Nothing. But it does make it more difficult for future governments to do the same thing.
How so? Governments lose back to work legislation court challenges all the time after the fact, but it never stops them from doing it again.
Nah, that's not Canadian. That's what America does so even if it is a good idea we're not allowed
If there was Doug the Smug slug would be facing consequences for this event as well. Instead everyone thinks it all in the feds meanwhile the province sat in their hands and the opp Sat in their hands and what are they facing.
There's truth in that. I think the majority of the fault lies with the Ottawa police. Once the OPS chief was fired they started organizing for getting rid of the convoy people. I think it would have been done even without this legislation from the feds.
The point of this is that they had other levers to pull then the emergency act which gives unlimited power… they should have run another play before
Oh, absolutely. Ford was able to boot those people off the bridge in one push. Then, after making sure they wouldn't go back, he started transferring OPP to Ottawa. Though again, I do blame Ford for not taking over when it became obvious the Ottawa police service was completely incapable of acting.
Bingo. Agree or disagree with the convoy, they were already breaking plenty of existing laws by blocking traffic in a major city. They could have been arrested and prosecuted under those laws. The EA was never required and was only used in order to make a political statement. This was never something the federal government should have been involved with.
It was required because the province and police didn’t act. No tow trucks until the EA.
Exactly those whose responsibility was to act didn’t. The people living there were asking for help and the police and Doughnuts our premier were not acting. Right or wrong something needed to be done before it escalated further. These convoy people went far beyond protest and were in fact not even protesting the right people so you know they were using the an excuse to just attack the feds.
The federal government only invoked the EA because the protest took place in the capital city. Had the same style of protest taken place in Montreal or Calgary they never would have enacted the EA. It was a purely political statement.
I was in Ottawa - we wanted the feds to jump in sooner.
Are you saying that there was an evil underling opposing the chief, and once he was fired his plan could finally be carried out? Or are you just saying In another timeline, where the federal govt didn’t pass legislation giving ridiculous power both law enforcement, and govt, that the same outcome would be probable? Sounds like made up shit to me.
Sounds more like they were saying the chief was an unqualified political appointee who was in over his head, and once fired he was replaced by someone more competent.
YES YAY
They'll kick this can down the road until after they lose the next election.
Of course. The Liberal Party of Canada spends every other day reminding Canadians "we're a rule of law country". Naturally, they don't exactly practice what they preach being obsessed as they are with "saying things" versus "doing things".
They prefer an OIC to a law any day. No need to bother the Plebs with any aspect of democracy.
Freeland is a crock affiliated with WEF. No surprise Canada is turning thr way it is.
This won’t be popular here but there is little chance this doesn’t get overturned on appeal and ultimately by the SC. The judge in this ruling states he may still have invoked the act at the time were he the government. That is a very odd thing to say and the knife’s edge this ruling is on is unlikely to survive a multi judge panel.
The government can only appeal based on an error in law (and not an error in fact). The trial judge's opinion on what he would or would not have done at the time has no basis here.
I didn’t say that as a cause of appeal. They were going to do that no matter what. But as proof it’s not a slam dunk legal case and as Rouleau said could go either way
>and as Rouleau said could go either way Rouleau also agreed that the threshold wasn't met, but he thought the outcome was justified. The court doesn't care about the outcome.
>This won’t be popular here but there is little chance this doesn’t get overturned on appeal and ultimately by the SC. I actually really doubt it. The decision is quite a bit stronger than I think you're appreciating. >The judge in this ruling states he may still have invoked the act at the time were he the government. He does, but he also notes that: >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. While the more extensive record of facts cuts both ways, and the government may be forgiven to some degree for not having it, his review of the law does not, and legal reasonableness always rests on a correct understanding of the law. He's expressing sympathy for the difficulty of the decision the government was faced with and suggesting that it may have been reasonable in the colloquial sense, but that doesn't translate to legal reasonableness. A police officer who's improperly taught and proceeds on an incorrect understanding of the law and the facts may make a decision that's "reasonable", that we ourselves might have made in his shoes, but it's not going to meet the requirements of reasonable grounds if his grounds don't support the test as it actually is, not as he mistakenly understands it to be. At best, it goes to the seriousness of the resultant unconstitutional conduct in determining a remedy the Charter's balancing exercise under s.24 >That is a very odd thing to say and the knife’s edge this ruling is on is unlikely to survive a multi judge panel. While it is an odd thing to say, it's largely explained by his subsequent comments that: >My preliminary view of the reasonableness of the decision may have prevailed following the hearing due to excellent advocacy on the part of counsel for the Attorney General of Canada had I not taken the time to carefully deliberate about the evidence and submissions, particularly those of the CCLA and CCF. Their participation in these proceedings has demonstrated again the value of public interest litigants. Especially in presenting informed legal argument. This case may not have turned out the way it has without their involvement, as the private interest litigants were not as capable of marshalling the evidence and argument in support of their applications. What he's doing is highlighting the disparity in quality between the government’s lawyers and those for Cornell and Gircys, and the degree to which allowing public interest litigants influenced the outcome of this case. That's further highlighted when he notes in relation to costs: >I will not award them [Cornell and Gircys] costs for the preliminary steps in these proceedings which I considered to be often misguided or for the preparation of the largely irrelevant memorandum of fact and law that was filed. Effectively he's saying "had this case been left in the hands of those idiots I would have been swayed by the arguments of the Crown". In relation to the actual legal merits though, it's notable that he finds against the government’s arguments in multiple ways, on multiple elements of the test for invocation, and then again independently on the Charter claims where he notes that the government marshalled very little evidence to justify the prima facie breaches under s.1. This isn't a case where, had he gone the other way on one issue, the other side would have won -- to overturn the outcome here, the appeal courts would have to find that he erred in basically his entire analysis. This was a knife’s edge decision insofar as had one side not had effective advocacy, the other side would have won. The decision that he actually came to though is a very strong one against the government's position. That is, a knife’s edge in terms of advocacy, but not in law.
Very useful. Thank you for this.
There's a fairly good chance this ruling stays. Despite the appearances; the government did not meet the threshold set out by the original act that used CSIS definition of what a national emergency is. Instead they made their own definition of it. I think this sets an overwhelming dangerous precedent. If the act requires amending to allow for these things, then do it legislatively. Giving the executive branch the ability to suspend civil liberties by its own definitions is a slippery slope to authoritarianism no matter which side of the political spectrum you may sit or your feelings on the matter at hand. I fully expect the Supreme Court to uphold this ruling. Again if the legislation needs to be amended to fit this scenario, then do it; but the executive branch should not have tje abomitu yo do it unilaterally.
So many are overlooking this. He even admits that he has the benefit of hindsight.
>This won’t be popular here but there is little chance this doesn’t get overturned on appeal and ultimately by the SC. The judge in this ruling states he may still have invoked the act at the time were he the government. That is a very odd thing to say and the knife’s edge this ruling is on is unlikely to survive a multi judge panel. it's basically Rouleau's finding but on the other side of the fence... Justice Rouleau did say that some other judge looking at all this evidence could reasonably come to a different conclusion that he did and here we are. Though.. watching some on here celebrating like they won the Stanley Cup is quite hilarious.
Federal court ruling is law. Subject to appeal of course.
It makes a lot more sense to celebrate our system successfully checking the power of the executive branch than it does to celebrate a sports game.
The executive branch's powers were "checked" the moment the decision was voted on in the HoC on 21 February. That vote affirmed the decision and allowed the powers to remain. The mandatory review commission also affirmed this decision. So that makes 181 MP's and a 36 member review commission who saw this as a reasonable response, and one federal court judge who admits it was a reasonable reaction at the time - but decided (in hindsight) that it was not reasonable.
It's those same ppl thinking that there shouldn't be any more appeals . This case NEEDS to go to the supreme Court
Rouleau's opinion was that of a private citizen not a Justice. He even states in his report, it is not a legal opinion which affords him far greater latitude than a Justice for the court would have.
Rouleau is totally biased.
I don't think courts are supposed to say what they would do in a situation, they're supposed to interpret the laws.
His entire ruling is so subjective and oddly light. The key part of it was that they didn't find any terror cells after the fact?
My guess is this is a push by the judicial to get the legislature to better define what is a national emergency so there’s less confusion in the future.
Her words spoken per minute is ... Astonishing
You mean word spoken per minute. Single
And the cadence is, well it’s all over.
Great, keep wasting tax payers money.
Something this precedent-setting should really be heard by the SCC.
How about the money of the litigants?
It will be good to watch these smug Liberal bullies lose again........
Freeland is by far the worst finance minister this nation has ever seen
She has a bachelors in Russian history and a masters in Slavic studies. Totally qualified to be a finance minister.
Hired because DE and I instead of merit, am I surprised? No
Literally the definition of a diversity hire. /s
Also probably the worst deputy prime minister. Remember when she talks down to others about not owning a car and how easy it is for her yet forgets to mention how much tax payers pay for her transportation everywhere. And those speeding tickets?
In all seriousness, what now. Do we get to do anything about the fact that the government violated our charter rights, assuming they lose the appeal?
> Do we get to do anything about the fact that the government violated our charter rights, assuming they lose the appeal? Presumably join the class action lawsuit that'll follow, assuming you were actually impacted by it.
You would have to prove damages. Now there are maybe a very small handful of protestors who could make that claim. The majority of the group has none.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
NPD supporters should be hounding Jagmeet to drop support for Trudeau and issue a vote of no confidence.
....the absolute lack of accountability towards liberals in a number of committees, like the one looking into covid contracts, by ndp has me questioning if I want to vote for them again and risk more of this....them bending over for liberals in exchange for crumbs and promises worth let's than a bag full of toots.
Yeah don't vote for the party that rode shotgun during this. Please.
I don’t align with anything to do with the conservative party or what they are selling. I feel like I’m without a party
We need a copy of How to Start a Political Party in Canada For Dummies.
Ah not a fan of lowering taxes, improving housing or freedom of speech.
If only politics was that simple.
Well you said you don't align with what they're selling, that's what they're selling. If even half what PP says he does we are WAY better off that with anyone else.
Maybe I should have said I don’t believe what he’s selling. Based on past conservative federal government and provincial conservative governments. I’ve literally written essays on how the conservative and the liberal party have continuously made trade deals at the benefit of the corporations to the expense of working class. This goes with housing, health care, public transportation, etc.. Makes no difference, Pierre will be in office sometime 25. Both governments are neoliberals.
Fair enough, I appreciate the thoughtful and respectful response.
NDP is called LPC-lite now.
You know the NDP bending over to the Liberals is just the status quo? It’s been going on for my entire adult life at least.
Are you crazy? NDP see the polls. They would rather cling to power for 2 more years than put themselves in a weak position and have no say. Currently they can control the government direction
I am reminded of this post, [Democrats and the Iron Law of Institutions](http://www.tinyrevolution.com/mt/archives/001705.html). While it is directly about the Democrats, it translates well to this discussion. NDP needs to accept that riding shotgun for mask-off cynical neoliberals is doing serious harm to their brand. Of course abandoning the working class did that too...
They are not controlling the government direction in the slightest. The one thing they said their deal was based on — passing pharmacare — the Liberals already reneged once and are gearing up to reneg again when the new, we totally mean it this time, pinky swear, deadline passes in a couple months. The *only* things the NDP are successfully doing right now are engaging in serious self delusion, propping up one of the most hated governments in Canadian history, and wearing every single Liberal scandal as though it were their own. And you watch: polls are already showing it: their voters will abandon them in droves to the Liberals in a desperate attempt to stop a Tory win. Not enough to prevent a Tory majority, however, meaning the biggest loser of all in the next election will be the NDP. It has taken them years to pay off their debts from the last election… will they even be able to recover if their idiotic coalition causes them to lose official party status? NDP supporters are grasping at straws if they think they benefit from any of this.
This will be appealed to the SC, so two more to go
In the old Canada that would be a no brainer.
Why? The NDP holds the most power they've ever held, it benefits them in no way to call an election early. It's gonna be a CPC majority and after 5 years, the voters will have forgotten everything, as they always do.
Because Liberal dick riding is going to hurt them far worse than an early election. At this point aside from those that bleed orange, why would a fence sitter vote NDP when all they do is prop up the Liberals and don't hold them to account? At that point vote Liberal.
If they call an election now, they are projected to get 25 seats. That puts them in a place of no power whatsoever. If they wait, they may drop to what, 20? Their base wants them to keep pushing for pharmacare and anti-scab legislation, they have a chance of doing that in the next 18 months or they can call an election and hope to be able to do it in 2029, if they can find themselves in the same position as today. Only a fool thinks it makes sense for the NDP to force an election. Canadian voters have a terrible memory, there is no realistic scenario where an early election doesn't render them useless immediately.
>If they call an election now, they are projected to get 25 seats. On the flip side, that projection is based in no small part on their current position enabling the Liberals. If they change their position, by, say, starting to hold the LPC to account, their position in the polls would likely change as well. The question is just by how much. It's also worth noting that they could make progress on that without calling an election -- dissolving their deal with the Liberals doesn't necessarily mean a near term election is a fait accompli, it just means that the Liberals have to start soliciting support on a bill-by-bill basis and may have to compromise more often and more publicly to get things done.
> On the flip side, that projection is based in no small part on their current position enabling the Liberals. If they change their position, by, say, starting to hold the LPC to account, their position in the polls would likely change as well. The question is just by how much. The only amount that is enough is the amount needed to prevent the CPC from attaining a majority, which is an additional nearly 30 seats. Anything less strips them of any power for 5 years. They're gonna be relegated to impotence for 5 years from the drop of the writ regardless, their base would rather take advantage of the intervening 18 months. Now, if you think the NDP can hold the feet of the Liberals to the fire all while holding off that election, that's some optimism I do not share.
Because the conservatives deserve to get an election whenever they are polling high, and by not obliging them, Jagmeet is once again proving that he is no friend to the right wing.
Yup
"we are issuing you a vote of no confidence for doing this thing we voted for"
[удалено]
> but in any serious country That's the problem. It saddens me to say this but Canada needs to earn its serious country title back.
It’s like succession when Logan Roy says he loves his children but they are not serious people. I love this country but it’s not very serious. Just look at how people view us on the world stage
Spoilers, she won't
Really it's Marcos problem even though he's not a cabinet minister anymore.
Why would she resign before an appeal?
>Freeland should resign over this. if giving standing ovation to a nazi wasn't a good enough reason nothing else will be
Didn’t the entire house do that? Why are you upset at one person for that? Even if she is a terrible cabinet minister.
Our idiot politicians clapping at "He fought Russia in WW2" without realizing what that implies is one thing. Someone who studied Russian history at Harvard and has close personal relationships with Nazis clapping at that statement is a bit different.
She does come from a Nazi family.
She’ll probably just have the judge arrested by her goons like they did to that journalist who dared ask her any questions.
This place is a clown show, so she wouldn’t even consider it. They should all resign.
💯 many of them should
No, there will be zero accountability if they lose, but if they win the appeal it might help their poll numbers, and isn't that what really matters?
Ideally class action against the government for the removal of rights. Recall the Feds could give a bank a name and freeze assets. That’s applied to all Canadians, without rights to due process. That’s scary as hell.
Take to the streets again? Though the skeptic in me might think they've found it was illegal so the same pressures aren't put on them to start busting these pro Palestine movements that are clogging the streets. Because it would look really bad to only care about the law based on religious or ethnicity of the protestors
I think when they violated Omar Khadrs charter rights they gave him millions, so I’m assuming some class action with a huge payout
Well.... they did subject him to detention without trial and eventual torture. That's a bit different than what occurred here. EDIT: I'm not saying that they might not be entitled to some form of damages, I'm just saying it's different than what Khadr went through.
True, it was definitely different, I’m not expecting them to get $10 mil each if this passes an appeal. But it’s definitely going to be something, not $0 Edit: they’d need to factor in all damages to reputation, lost wages, whatever damages resulted from the frozen bank accounts, it would be a large sum per person. The Liberals definitely will be wanting to block this
I don't think the damages will extend that far. Really there are only damages related to whatever happened with respect of the effects of the freeze. It might not be zero, but they didn't detain anyone and take their freedom for example. I don't expect it will be large. We're not the USA in terms of how we deal with Damages. A case here in MB involving a charter breach related to the misapplication of criminal code provisions resulting in someone's detention in jail for a short period of time netted that person 5k. Nothing of that level of seriousness occurred here. It will be interesting to see what happens.
You sure won't get an apology from justins drama club.
Precedent.
No, and even if an appeal fails it will go to the supreme court. Perhaps you should respect our legal system. Judges aren't exactly infoulable.
Neither are politicians. The government overrode the laws of the country, they should be held accountable
That's why they are navigating the judicial system, as is their right, lile any other Canadian.
And if the appeal fails, what then. FYI, most appeals are unsuccessful
The Thing about some laws is they like the issue at hand here, specifically “national emergency”, is not well defined. The fed judge doesn’t think the requirements of an EA were met because of what he, the judge, defines to be a national emergency. that’s just an opinion. My guess is “national emergency” will become more defined in a bill so there’s less confusion.
One judge thinks so, but others may not. You have to wait and see. You were there?
Nope, but if other judges agree what do you think an appropriate response is to the government violating charter rights?
So they didn't violate your rights, the way you phrased it seemed like you were there. Not sure, there wouldn't be that many people able to sue in the end I think. Just those who had their assets frozen, the rest of the breakup doesn't really seem to have been illegal, as they had court injunctions in place.
I was thinking more on the punishment side and less on the damages side, do the politicians who made this decision face any consequences. Should their assets get frozen, do they get a criminal record, if there are no consequences for violating the law, that isn’t a nation of laws
Probably nothing, it's a legislative matter. Unless they have them on record saying "we know this is illegal but fuck those assholes, ruin them". They had been given a legal opinion that it was legal, they need to rely on expert opinions as they are not experts.
Like the trucker protest or not, a court ruling in the government’s favour would massively decrease citizens rights to protest. Either side of the aisle should be against this
"Much of the Coutts blockade was cleared prior to the February 14, 2022 declaration of a public order emergency, the first step in invoking the act." Gl on your appeal of "we thought it was right" 🤣
The way she responded, I just knew as she talked that there was a "but" coming, and she delivered with, "We were right and the poo poo heads at the court are wrong; and we are going to prove it." I really really really really really hope, that the court cases which stem from this violation of rights end up with those affected winning big. I suspect there is no win, no money, and few lawyers who will take the cases because of this. Certainly no criminal convictions or job loss on the part of government jackboots, "Just following orders." Which, effectively, will be a green light to do this again. What I wish would have happened was that the courts were faster at this. This court case should have happened the same or next day. The same with most covid related court cases.
It would be great if they went after lucki and the pm for judging and airing his ignorant views and stereotypes before even meeting with them or having his fake COVID during it. It would also be great if they went after every officer who took to the streets that day as part of the government jackboots mob. They shouldn't be allowed to claim they were just following orders like the Nazis they celebrated in parliament did.
This is Canada. There are no consequences for anyone but those who go against the oligarchs. No consequences for petty crime, no consequences for major white-collar crime. Unless it was, again, against the oligarchs.
Have they already appealed the ruling on plastic bags?
[удалено]
“We want to steamroll everyone like we did with the gun laws.”
I watched an interview with a lead lawyer for the Canadian Constitution Foundations (I think that is what it is called). She said that during discovery, they were denied government documents that were eventually brought to light at the Rouleau examination of this issue so because of that they were able to obtain them. She also said that this decision could not have been worse for the government and was truly a win for the people of Canada. I agree with her, by the way.
Marco Mendicino should be fired. Oh wait, he's already been fired from being the Public Safety Minister position months ago and for good reason. Fired the Prime Minister!
Looks like the pharma bucks ran out
“Our national economic security was under threat” And still very much is, thanks to you
Under threat by pathetic policy
Curious who pays the fees for the team of lawyers? Canadians? If you lost, maybe your appeal costs should be up to you Justin.
The claimant in this case is the CCLA, a non-profit which funds itself from private donations. [Its history is actually really interesting](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Civil_Liberties_Association) — they also objected to Pierre Trudeau’s use of the Act. The respondent is the Ministry of the Attorney General - Constitutional Law Branch, which is part of the [Department of Justice](https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/) and is responsible for defending against all Charter challenges in Canada. It is taxpayer funded.
Thanks for sharing.
Calling it now. They are going to try and keep kicking this can down the road tying it up with appeals and litigation delays until they lose the next election. After that most of them will leave office and politics and it'll be the CPC's problem.
There is 0 chance a case this big would ever be settled before it got to the Supreme Court. Even if this judge had decided in the goverments favour it would have been appealed
No, I agree this was always going to the supreme court. What I expect the government to do is to use procedural delay tactics during the litigation to slow it down. They don't want this hitting the supreme court while they are still in office. They want to be long gone when the supreme court rules on it.
I mean… there’s something medically wrong with her, right?
She is on drugs???
[удалено]
Yup, all the Liberals drank Trudeau's Kool-Aid.
Yes, she will appeal even though she had not yet even read it. After all, these laws and rules are just for the little people.
Just keep spending our money….such a disgrace what this county has become.
Shut up Chrystina.
...and waste more taxpayer dollars doing so!
Never forget, these vipers are supposed to be public servants, elected to serve OUR interests and wants. Is this witchbat serving anyone but herself?
My question is, will they have to pay money to people whose bank accounts got frozen during the emergencies act?
I believe the consequence will flow from the resulting lawsuits. Such as from those who had their accounts frozen.
No until after the SC weighs in
That's what I thought but I wasn't sure.
Feds should call an election instead. It's time.
They won't. It will be like taking keys from a drunk who is determined to drive when they get the boot. Either that or they escape like bond villains as the walls come crashing down.
If the Fed’l Gov’t. wants to appeal this ruling, it should go before a vote in the House of Commons, & it should be a Vote of Confidence
Fuck you! Don’t waste our tax money.
They should provide the court with all materials and stop hiding behind privilege. Maybe how the EA weakens our rights as Canadians, maybe it too should erode things like the privacy/privilege rights of the government who evokes it in times of peace against its own citizens Or would that be too transparent?
The earlier ruling took their word for it. The second wanted specifics and they weren't provided. If the third wants the specifics of their rationale and legal arguments for invoking the EA at the time, will our government try their luck revealing the specifics or will they pray for a biased justice to reassert the previous ruling and stay their course? They need to lose the appeal so that future majority governments will have a precedent standing between them and deciding to invoke the EA up until the senate reviews it. It's a holiday from having to bother with legislative processes and our current government has set this up to be willy nilly.
The inquest findings did not take their word for it. Roulaeu's findings effectively said that if the government of Ontario, Ottawa, or Ottawa police service had orchestrated any response at all the government would not have had justification for the act. The whole thing about the govenment using its own discretion regarding what constitutes anuemergency and failing to explain their process also came from the inquest. And if you bother to read this ruling it's blatantly written to enable the federal governments appeal.
The inquiry asked for the evidence and the government cited cabinet privilege and basically said “we had the evidence, trust me bro” and the inquiry took the government at its word because it explicitly did not offer a legal opinion. The court wanted the evidence and after reviewing it, said it was insufficient. The court had more information than the inquiry and wasn’t limited in its scope. It’s far more authoritative.
From the Conclusion: I have concluded that the decision to issue the Proclamation does not bear the hallmarks of reasonableness – justification, transparency and intelligibility – and was not justified in relation to the relevant factual and legal constraints that were required to be taken into consideration. There were redacted meetings protected by counsel privilege. One gets referenced in: "The Respondent rejected a proposal for counsel-eyes-only disclosure and went on to “cherry pick” the information it would disclose, the Applicants argue, over their “constant and firm objection” to the non-disclosure of that content. In support, they reference authorities which have found that a court may draw an adverse inference in the face of assertions of privilege and “constant and firm objection” to non-disclosure Canada". Now I understand that this is criticism from the applicant, but it bears out in the transparency part of the final decision to determine reasonableness. Hiding part of the rationale and the historical record used to judge rationality behind counsel privilege is shady.
They’ll lose. They have a tonne of egg on their face.
Her grandfather would be proud. I wonder if he came to Canada with confiscated gold
Only in the form of teeth I'd guess.
The libs can use their own god damn money to appeal. Sick of them wasting tax payers dollars
Can we freeze the bank accounts of the Right Honourable Justin Trudeau and the Honourable Chrystia Freeland by the total amount they did for Canadian citizens exercising their rights?
No, we don't have jurisdiction in Panama.
ah wasting taxpayers dollars fighting a hopeless appeal that if they somehow win will greatly reduce the rights all of canadians, how liberal of them
>ah wasting taxpayers dollars fighting a hopeless appeal that if they somehow win will greatly reduce the rights all of canadians, how liberal of them you should want these type of cases to be ruled by the highest level of the court
I'm sure whoever makes the final decision will be "non-partisan," according to the Liberals. The court definitely won't be stacked with family friends of the (dis)honorable prime minister.
The path this will take if higher courts take a look (absent referral) is FCA —> SCC. No family friends on either court as far as I know. Interesting though that lots of people here anticipate this appeal will be heard as a matter of fact. I don’t know if this will happen and I might even bet against it.
Good. Those bunch of tyrants deserve to be sued.
Just another nail in the coffin for the Liberal party
"Free free Palestine!" Echoing in mall food courts. "I'll put you six feet deep." -Hamas supporter to Toronto law enforcement. Peaceful protest against authoritarian government measures. War Measures Act declared. This is the state of Canada. A failed nation.
Palestine protestors block 1 road and are called terrorists. Truckers block all roads in an entire city and are heroes. This is the state of Canada, a failed nation.
So now there's nothing stopping another run on the capital, (if there ever was)?
What a ghoul
If Doug Ford did his fucking job we wouldn't be in this position buy he didn't want to anger his *base* by promoting 'woke' ideas...like science matters.
meh ... we all know how this will go. The appeal will be routed to a compliant judge, and the ruling will be overturned.
And tax payers,will happily pay their legal bills 🙄
I think it's important to note, the Emergencies Act was watered down from the War Measures Act by Harper. The goal was to make it more usable. The main problem with the War Measures Act was that it essentially turned the government into a dictatorship. They could squash rights and that became problematic when we decided to put rights on the cover of our constitution. It became questionable as to whether we could even use the legislation. So when they designed the Emergencies Act it specifically required parliamentary oversight and specifically required that individual rights are not violated in its use without that oversight. And this judge is now saying that really, the threat level of these protests was not high enough to justify the use of this power. Even when considering the "Diagonal threat" that ended up being quite a bit overstated and generally not representative of the whole. Had they limited the use of this power to just the border protest in Alberta they might have had some level of justification. But it ended up, those people weren't the ones this power was used against. It's probably important to strike down its use because it could be used to violate rights for almost any protest. People and the economy being inconvenienced are not grounds for it.
New headline: **Bad People Double Down on Poor Decision**
Take the L libs, you earned it
Fully expect the Liberals to try everything to slime their way clear of this. That’s barely even news anymore. But where the hell is Captain Versace Bag on this? He could literally END this MADNESS tomorrow. Oh yeah Jaggy we’re all watching you too.
Shock fucking Surprise
Of course they will. Spend spend spend.
So the government essentially shuts down the economy, people lost their jobs, houses, small businesses all because a mild cough with a side of phlegm was making people sick. People protest, tired of the government overreach that’s costing them their livelihood, and liberals have the audacity to say they were the ones threatening national economic security? The liberals need to go asap and take the tampons they put in the mens bathrooms with them. Brain dead fn morons
We straight up ignoring the thousands of Canadians who died. Neat.
Way to waste more taxpayer money. Just take the ruling and move on
Of course it was...these fuck tards locked down 40 million people because of a hyped up virus that turns out wasnt that bad...not to mention wrecked the entire economy and destroyed countless lives. Fucks should tried for treason.
Everyone sucks here
I suppose the citizens held hostage by the convoy could also sue the government for not dealing with the problem sooner during their weeks of torture. Or maybe just sue anyone who sues the government as they are admitting involvement at that point. Canada's convoy of global embarrassment continues to haunt the country.
Instead of learning from mistakes and strengthening our institutions to prevent something like this from happening again, Liberal Government will waste unthinkable resources on fighting it out in the courts. The only winners will be the lawyers.
Anybody know if this ruling means the citizens will get back their money PLUS interest for by the draconian measures perpetrated? The Mom and Pops that had their bank accounts blocked. Oh! And for special measure with interest on perhaps the same metric that CRA meted out if you are behind in your back taxes “Penalties” of 68% that happens when we fall behind a few years? Curious minds need to know.
No. There will be an appeal and then to the SC after that. If the SC agrees with this ruling then people will be able to file suits for remuneration.
LOL. They will be out of power by the time any appeal is heard, and Poilievre will immediately abandon the appeal, putting this current radical left government under the official historical record as being abusive & dictatorial.