As predicted, the federal government will take this case to the Supreme Court to get a final decision.
To expect otherwise is foolish and fails to acknowledge the multiple precedents these rulings will set.
Anyone surprised by this decision shouldn’t be.
To expect otherwise is foolish and fails to acknowledge the multiple precedents these rulings will set.
Anyone surprised by this decision shouldn’t be.
https://twitter.com/brettforester/status/1454182628370812928
If you know what the case is about, it’s clear why the government will not let this fade without a Supreme Court ruling.
The decision to expand the mandate of CHRT should be made by parliament, not by the courts.
The decision to expand the mandate of CHRT should be made by parliament, not by the courts.
It’s like PHAC grabbing more power by making a decision outside of their purview. You’d expect the federal government to seek a court decision to reverse that breach of protocol.
As for the definition of who is and who isn’t a FN child, the government wants to retain some contribution to that decision.
As well the administration and delivery of compensation and the formula used is a precedent already that the federal government has from past cases.
As well the administration and delivery of compensation and the formula used is a precedent already that the federal government has from past cases.
I’m sure they don’t want to change it to a non profit and CHRT making that decision for them.
It was easy to predict this outcome.
Whether it’s the correct decision is left to you to decide. But this is how decisions and legal precedents are set in our system. In court.
It was easy to predict this outcome.
Whether it’s the correct decision is left to you to decide. But this is how decisions and legal precedents are set in our system. In court.
Not by public opinion or deliberative democracy.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
