Discover and read the best of Twitter Threads about #SCC
Most recents (24)
One of the more troubling aspects of the #SCC majority’s decision in R v Beaver is its departure from decades-old precedent on s. 24(2) of the Charter without acknowledging it. 1/
Police in Beaver had committed serious Charter violations. But the investigating officer told the accused during his interrogation, “let’s start over”, and proceeded to give him his Charter cautions. 2/
The majority said that this was a “fresh start”, which severed the connection between the original Charter breaches and the confession, and therefore this evidence was not “obtained in a manner” that breached Charter rights.
This is a departure from precedent. 3/
This is a departure from precedent. 3/
And I'm back in the hearing!
But I'm not sure where we are at. AG Counsel Robin Basu is talking. Will take a minute to catch up.
What are you all having for breakfast?
But I'm not sure where we are at. AG Counsel Robin Basu is talking. Will take a minute to catch up.
What are you all having for breakfast?
Was asked if OLRB hearings have ever gone this late before?
I remember this case involving 'unlawful strike' at TTC.
Chair Whitaker got the application at 4:30 a.m., held a phone hearing overnight (without union counsel present), & issued a decision.
canlii.ca/t/1nftc
I remember this case involving 'unlawful strike' at TTC.
Chair Whitaker got the application at 4:30 a.m., held a phone hearing overnight (without union counsel present), & issued a decision.
canlii.ca/t/1nftc
Basu is addressing CUPE's argument that OLRA must be interpreted consistent with "Charter values", which includes respecting rights to collective bargaining and to strike.
He argues that Charter values includes "notwithstanding clause". And Charter values are "fraught".
He argues that Charter values includes "notwithstanding clause". And Charter values are "fraught".
This morning's #OLRB hearing in Min. of Education v. CUPE begins at 9 am. Watch it here:
I will comment until I need to be a dad.
First up: OLRB decision on whether @Sflecce & another senior govt official can/should be ordered to appear as witnesses.
I will comment until I need to be a dad.
First up: OLRB decision on whether @Sflecce & another senior govt official can/should be ordered to appear as witnesses.
Recap:
1. OLRB denied intervenor status to other ONT unions. This will speed up the hearing, which is govt's goal.
2. OLRB permitted govt to fix a mistake in name of respondent, from CUPE-ONT to CUPE.
3. OLRB reserved on CUPE's request for @Sflecce to be summons to testify.
1. OLRB denied intervenor status to other ONT unions. This will speed up the hearing, which is govt's goal.
2. OLRB permitted govt to fix a mistake in name of respondent, from CUPE-ONT to CUPE.
3. OLRB reserved on CUPE's request for @Sflecce to be summons to testify.
Today the case will move into actual merits of case.
Govt is seeking a declaration that education workers are engaged in an unlawful strike supported & encouraged by CUPE leaders.
OLRA, s. 100 grants OLRB a discretion to make orders re unlawful strike
canlii.org/en/on/laws/sta…
Govt is seeking a declaration that education workers are engaged in an unlawful strike supported & encouraged by CUPE leaders.
OLRA, s. 100 grants OLRB a discretion to make orders re unlawful strike
canlii.org/en/on/laws/sta…
The legal history of diversity is not a simple tale of progress from intolerance to tolerance, nor did it just take place in the ‘West’. We asked our colleagues for lesser-known turning points (positive and negative) over the centuries.
#GDD22 #DiversityAtMPG
A thread 👇👇👇
#GDD22 #DiversityAtMPG
A thread 👇👇👇
15/01/1955: The Federal Labour Court ruled that the principle of equal rights and the prohibition of discrimination (art.3(2)(3) 🇩🇪 Basic Law) include the principle of equal pay for women and men for equal work and that this principle binds the parties to collective agreements.
18/10/1929: In Edwards v AG of Canada, the Privy Council affirms that women may be appointed to the 🇨🇦 Senate, overruling the Canadian Supreme Court decision that women were not ‘persons’ under the relevant statute. Diversity through literal & liberal statutory interpretation!
🏛 R. v. Colarusso, [1994] 1 S.C.R. 20
DIFFICULT QUESTION:
Does a "potential for improper complicity" (R v Colarusso) between the police and in this case, The Children's Aid Society of Ottawa exist in relation to #FreedomConvoyCanada2022 ?
Allow me to explain.
DIFFICULT QUESTION:
Does a "potential for improper complicity" (R v Colarusso) between the police and in this case, The Children's Aid Society of Ottawa exist in relation to #FreedomConvoyCanada2022 ?
Allow me to explain.
2/6
IF ANY CONSIDERATION is underway between @OttawaPolice and @CASO_SAEO whereupon the police seek to improperly buttress their investigative procedures (and overcome any case weaknesses), THEN such would run afoul of R v Colarusso.
LINK (earlier Tweet):
IF ANY CONSIDERATION is underway between @OttawaPolice and @CASO_SAEO whereupon the police seek to improperly buttress their investigative procedures (and overcome any case weaknesses), THEN such would run afoul of R v Colarusso.
LINK (earlier Tweet):
Starting new thread for the Respondents in #STCA #law case. Stellar legal team with submissions starting with Andrew Brouwer a seasoned #cdnimm #refugee lawyer.
Justice Rosalie Abella’s retirement will leave a huge hole on the #SCC bench. Her judicial expertise is broad and deep, her energy endless, and she’s the most fun in court. She treats counsel respectfully as she leads them to through their own logical unthought-of conclusions. 1/
When Abella joined the top court, sworn in at the same time as Louise Charron, it was a ceremony like/unlike, any other. “They. Are. Women.” That’s how then-chief justice McLachlin marked their arrival. Beyond women, they were badass judges. Abella lasted well after Charron. 2/
There’ll be lots of time for analysis of her judicial legacy, but her 1983 royal commission work on employment equity broke ground and shaped workplaces and Canadian equality law even today.
The EU Commission published the draft of the new #SCC for international data transfers today. Below, a first summary on the draft:
In short, the SCC now include “most” of the GDPR’s provisions. They will help large groups and limit business opportunities for SME. #EUDataP #GDPR
In short, the SCC now include “most” of the GDPR’s provisions. They will help large groups and limit business opportunities for SME. #EUDataP #GDPR
The main part is Section II – Obligations of the parties:
It contains detailed obligations on complying with GDPR requirements for Importers and – mainly – Exporters in Clauses 1, 4-9.
Clauses 2 and 3 describe the process of analyzing third countries’ laws.
It contains detailed obligations on complying with GDPR requirements for Importers and – mainly – Exporters in Clauses 1, 4-9.
Clauses 2 and 3 describe the process of analyzing third countries’ laws.
Clause 2 requires warranting the GDPR’s obligations: The Parties need to conduct an audit based on specific circumstances on the law in the third countries. Documentation and supplying the audit to the Supervisory authorities on request is necessary.
Ok...Honeymoon is over & now time to dissect the exciting new data presented @ #ESMO2020 for #GEC #KN590 #CM649 #ATTRCN4 #CM577
1st, thank you to all the pts who participated!
& 2nd, congrats to all the investigators involved!
It's fantastic to have +ve studies! Lets dive deep:
1st, thank you to all the pts who participated!
& 2nd, congrats to all the investigators involved!
It's fantastic to have +ve studies! Lets dive deep:
*Caution
I think the facts are accurate - please correct if not. (seeking the truth here)
My opinions are my opinions.
~15 min read (it's complicated)
No CME offered unfortunately 😒😉
Enjoy...
I think the facts are accurate - please correct if not. (seeking the truth here)
My opinions are my opinions.
~15 min read (it's complicated)
No CME offered unfortunately 😒😉
Enjoy...
Background:
IO monotx effective in a subgroup of GEC pts in 1L+:
1. MSI-H
2. High PDL1 (cut-off at least CPS 10 22C3)
3. low tumor burden
4. PS0
5. Asian > Western pts
6. SCC > AC
7. GC > EGJ
Outside of above, most pts are better-served w chemo based on crossing #yinyang curves
IO monotx effective in a subgroup of GEC pts in 1L+:
1. MSI-H
2. High PDL1 (cut-off at least CPS 10 22C3)
3. low tumor burden
4. PS0
5. Asian > Western pts
6. SCC > AC
7. GC > EGJ
Outside of above, most pts are better-served w chemo based on crossing #yinyang curves
There is that ― the former Chief Justice keeps talking about a "21st century justice system", but never once says what that actually looks like. But there's more, too.
There's the fact that she was the head of the judicial branch for 17 years, and a member of the Supreme Court for 10 years before that, and a Chief Justice of a provincial superior court for a spell before that, yet writes in a "truth to power" voice.
There's the hypocrisy of a judge who repeatedly signed onto or authored opinions urging judicial deference to bureaucrats saying that "If [administrative tribunals] make mistakes, reviewing courts correct them."
My latest, arguing that the "architecture" the #SCC entrenched in the Senate Reform Reference consists of constitutional conventions, which are now part of Canada's legal, not (only) political constitution―in a break with Diceyan orthodoxy the SCC once embraced.
Among other things, this paper begins the project of working out the relationship between originalism and the unwritten components of the constitution of Canada, drawing on @lsolum's work.
And of course it responds to other attempts to figure out what on earth "architecture" is by @kgberger, Noura Karazivan, @EmmMacfarlane, @mikepalcanada, and Christa Scholtz. (References in the paper, obviously.)
Also ICYMI, @MarkPMancini's post on the #SCC's first post-Vavilov case: doubleaspect.blog/2019/12/20/can…. As with Vavilov itself, I disagree with Mark.
@MarkPMancini Now, @MarkPMancini is quite right that the majority applies Vavilov as it is meant to be applied and that Abella J in dissent does disguised correctness review, for all her howls about reasonableness in Vavilov.
@MarkPMancini But in my view the administrative decision here re-wrote the statute. Practically, that was for the better. But as a simple textual matter, there's no basis for the distinction made by the decision-maker. And usually the administrative state will not be so wise.
New post by @MarkPMancini on the #SCC's decision in Vavilov: doubleaspect.blog/2019/12/19/vav…. It's a very good post, although I have substantial disagreements with Mark (and I take it most everyone else).
@MarkPMancini I will try to post my own thoughts on Vavilov tomorrow. In a nutshell, I think the majority's reasons are built on theoretical sand, and can be made to crumble quite easily by pro-deference judges.
@MarkPMancini No doubt the majority judgment is an improvement on the status quo, and infinitely better than the alternative, such as it is, proposed by the concurrence. But it's not good enough from a Rule of Law perspective.
A little thread: Corolyn Strom's has been heavily fined by her professional regulator for saying things other Canadians say all the time, but with more credibility. She was also told to write an essay confessing her wrongs! She bravely refused. cbc.ca/news/canada/sa… 1/
Ms. Strom's story is a reminder that the administrative state doesn't just consist of rainbows, unicorns, and expert labour arbitrators. It is also the meddling state, the carceral state and, as here, the censorious state. 2/
Under #SCC precedent, we ask, as @KeirVallance explains here, whether the regulator struck the right balance between its own power and a person's rights, and we are supposed to show deference to the regulator's decision on this. 3/
This is the heart of the issue, I think. Proponents of existing regulations on "third party" interventions in election campaigns will say "you can do anything provided you register"; but many "third parties" don't want to go through burdensome registration & intrusive reporting.
Are they just being lazy & capricious? I don't think so. The $500 threshold is exceedingly low. In New Zealand, the threshold for registration is $13,200 (that's about C$11,000), and detailed reporting requirements kick in at $100,000.
The Canada Elections Act imposes a real and quite unnecessary burden on people who want to incur fairly modest expenses to communicate their views on matters of public interest at the precise time when the public is most interested: during election campaigns.
Prof Cairns Way and I are excited to share @uocommonlaw #CMLOrientation 2019 program here: commonlaw.uottawa.ca/en/students/or… We have a stellar line up! #AdvantageFTX 1/
Keynote speaker: Elder Peter Decontie from the Algonquin Nation, Kitigan Zibi Anishinabeg w/ intro by Prof Aimee Craft #CMLOrientation @uocommonlaw #AdvantageFTX 2/
Keynote Alumni Panel w/ Honourable Giovanna Toscano-Roccamo & Katie Black #CMLOrientation @uocommonlaw #AdvantageFTX 3/
*thread*
Congratulations to my old @LawMcGill dean, Nicholas Kasirer, on his nomination to the #SupremeCourt. I am confident he will be a compassionate, discerning & rigorous justice.
That being said...
#SCC #cdnpoli
Congratulations to my old @LawMcGill dean, Nicholas Kasirer, on his nomination to the #SupremeCourt. I am confident he will be a compassionate, discerning & rigorous justice.
That being said...
#SCC #cdnpoli
@LawMcGill Let's meditate for a moment on the colonial structure of the Court, which is concerned with representation insofar as it aims at equity between Canada's two founding colonial powers, languages and legal traditions:
@LawMcGill The Supreme Court Act requires that 3/9 justices come from Québec. The official languages of the Court are English and French, and all justices are required to be functionally bilingual in both of Canada's colonial languages.
Irish data protection authority: U.S. law doesn't provide remedy for unlawful processing of personal data. There is no way of knowing when or by whom personal data has been accessed.
Irish data protection authority: U.S. legal regime doesn’t legal remedies such as access, erasure or rectification of the data. The Ombudsperson mechanism is not enough to make up for these "deficiencies."
Reminder: The Ombudsperson mechanism is also used for the #PrivacyShield.
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.
Lots of confusion, following #SCC's decision in Frank, about where long-term expatriates will be voting, and whether they can just pick any riding they like. The answer is already in the Canada Elections Act, s 223(1)(e). 1/n
This provision already dictates where short-term expats, Canadian diplomats and soldiers and members of their families, and some others vote. There's zero evidence of it having caused problems. 2/3
For my take on why the #SCC was right to find that disenfranchising Canadians abroad, see: doubleaspect.blog/2019/01/13/doi…. 3/3
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
If you are a Canadian in need of a quick smug self-satisfaction fix, look no further: nationalpost.com/news/canada/wh….
If, however, you think seriously about our Supreme Court, you probably already know that, contrary to popular belief, Canadian courts are ideological―even if their ideological homogeneity makes this easy to overlook: nationalmagazine.ca/Blog/September….
A rare defence of the #SCC's Comeau decision, from Yves Boisvert, on the basis that it prevented "a kind of constitutional chaos" and upheld provincial autonomy: plus.lapresse.ca/screens/ef6c6d… 1/
As if provinces (or, in another case, Parliament?) could acquire jurisdiction to act unconstitutionally by adverse possession, and as if autonomy were good in itself, and incapable of being used repressively. 2/
Mr. Boisvert writes that #FreeTheBeer was not a case about fundamental rights. But as @brianleecrowley argued, it very much is macdonaldlaurier.ca/supreme-court-… 3/4
Because of time difference, I'm 8 hours late to the #FreeTheBeer, and probably won't publish my blog post until tomorrow morning EDT. But, like others, I think the Comeau (canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/…) is an unprincipled, and in many ways self-contradictory decision.
Please see @MalcolmLavoie's op-ed: cbc.ca/news/opinion/s… (and also this thread: ), which explain many of the problems with the #SCC's decision.
See also the comments of @EmmMacfarlane: macleans.ca/opinion/in-its… and @cmathen: macleans.ca/news/canada/wh…, who make important points, though I do not fully agree with either of them.
