Pubdate: Sat, 13 Jun 2015
Source: Moose Jaw Times-Herald (CN SN)
Copyright: 2015 The Moose Jaw Times-Herald Group Inc.
Contact:  http://www.mjtimes.sk.ca/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/2154
Author: Corey Atkinson
Page: A4
Referenced: (R. v. Smith): http://mapinc.org/url/d2dzMbjW

WHEN SUPREMES TALK, WE SHOULD LISTEN

The Supreme Court of Canada is perhaps one of the most misunderstood
bodies in this country's system of laws and how they are made.
Misunderstood particularly, it seems, by our very own federal government.

The Supremes are ultimate defenders of the Constitution and the
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Their rulings are based
primarily on those documents as well as a fundamental understanding of
law as it ought to apply in this country.

While the federal government has rights to pass legislation, they are
still bound by the statutes in the Charter. If they are seen to be
overstepping those boundaries, the Supremes are well within their
jurisdiction to virtually strike down these laws.

Some members of the government have had their feathers ruffled when
the courts rule against various bills. Earlier this week, the Supremes
ruled 7-0 against the government when it came to limiting medical
marijuana to that which is only smoked. They signed their ruling as
'the court,' as a sign of their unanimity. Health Minister Rona
Ambrose wasn't happy with this.

"This expansion of a pre-existing court-imposed program to now include
cookies and candies makes marijuana more attractive and accessible to
youth and reflects Justin Trudeau's campaign to legalize and normalize
marijuana," she said in a Corey's Context prepared statement.

Of course, referring a medicinal drug that has benefitted many with
many diseases in the past as a court imposed program is like saying
someone has been sentenced to penicillin, but that's almost beside the
point. Ambrose is expecting the Supremes to bend to the will of a
government that has been seen unanimously by the defenders of the
Charter and the Constitution to have gone too far.

The Supremes aren't nearly as politically partisan as they used to be.
Back in the pre-Charter era, prime ministers who had already stacked
the Senate, (a column perhaps for another time), could also stack the
Supremes with judges who would be more friendly to their arguments.

The Supremes have nine members, seven of which were appointed by Prime
Minister Stephen Harper. One, Marshall Rothstein, has announced he is
retiring at the end of August, giving Harper ample time between that
date and the expected fall election to plop in another one.

Four of the Supremes are women. Chief Justice Beverly McLachlin is
seen by many as centrist and as one seeks unanimity. Dissenting
opinions are fewer during her era. She puts her judgments where her
mouth is, frequently writing the judgments where there isn't unanimity.

That hasn't stopped Harper and retiring MP Peter Mackay to complain
about her. In 2013, he made a phone call to point out potential
problems with the appointment of a judge (Marc Nadon) who would not
have been qualified to sit as a Quebec judge on the Supreme Court.
Quebec appointments to the Supreme Court must either be sitting on the
Quebec Court of Appeal or the Quebec Superior Court or a member of the
Barreau du Quebec (that province's bar association), none of which
reflected Nadon.

Within a year, Nadon has been sworn in but was out of the Supremes,
having never actually sat with them.

McLachlin has been given 31 honorary doctorates from Universities all
across Canada and also in five different countries. In short, she is
likely the best legal mind any of us will see in a lifetime. How any
government can think they should be able to control the Chief Justice
through misguided legislation and subvert the Constitution and Charter
is beyond anyone capable rational thought.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Matt