Discover and read the best of Twitter Threads about #SCC

Most recents (4)

As this came up in my timeline again today, here's what I think is the gist of the problem I see with consumer-driven-contracts (#CDC). Thread…
1/ With #CDC you fundamentally establish a customer / supplier relationship in DDD strategic design terms with the API provider ending up as customer (downstream) and the client as supplier (upstream). That means you end up with *multiple* upstreams for a *single* downstream.
2/ This might sound counterintuitive first and like a detail but has important consequences: there's significant coordinating and disambiguation work this setup imposes on the API provider. *It* has to moderate potentially conflicting requirements. It serves multiple masters.
Read 8 tweets
I wish to be crystal clear: Chief Justice Joyal should *never* have been put in the position of responding publicly to the scurrilous stories published today about an alleged disagreement between @Puglaas and PM @JustinTrudeau re the #SCC vacancy filled by Martin J.
He certainly should not have been placed in the position of sharing information that he and his wife should have been able to keep private. CJ Joyal CJ has always impressed me as a thoughtful, dedicated judge who is deeply committed to judicial integrity and to Canadian justice.
I am also on record as saying that Martin J's SCC appointment was the best in many, many years. I stand by that, and by my statement that we must continue to seek out Indigenous appointees, judges of colour - we must expand representativeness in every dimension.
Read 6 tweets
I don't rave about #SCC decisions often, but the majority opinion of Martin J in #Boudreault deserves our attention. Mandatory victim fine surcharge declared invalid with immediate effect. A few thoughts to follow. scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-cs…
The mandatory victim fine surcharge, one of many Harper-era punitive laws, is cruel and unusual punishment contrary to s. 12 of the Charter, not saved by s. 1. #Boudreault
Martin J easily vanquished the argument put forward by some AGs that the mandatory victim fine surcharge (MVFS) was not "punishment" for purposes of s. 12. #Boudreault
Read 19 tweets
This is a thread on disclosure post-Gubbins (scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-cs…) for evidence nerds and criminal lawyers. Please share if you find it useful.
Gubbins and its companion case Awashish (scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-cs…) clarify the distinction between 1st party disclosure (Stinchcombe/McNeil) and 3rd party disclosure (O'Connor).
As a reminder for those who aren't working regularly with these concepts, 1st party disclosure is provided by the Crown when it receives a (generic) request. 3rd party disclosure requires the accused to obtain a court order, on a showing of likely relevance, and is more onerous.
Read 24 tweets

Related hashtags

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just three indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3.00/month or $30.00/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!