Partner at Jordan Honickman Barristers, practicing civil and public litigation. Co-founder of @arlcanada and @runnymedesoc. Tweeting on various nerdy stuff.
Aug 7 • 11 tweets • 3 min read
Some good points in this piece, which is largely a rebuttal to my recent piece in @TheHubCanada . But I disagree with a central part of the argument - that the majority's decision was already "good law" for 22 years and that the majority was merely following precedent.
In the 2002 case, Mackin, the SCC rejected the plaintiff's claim for damages. The central finding in Mackin was that a s24(1) remedy will typically be unavailable where the law is struck down under s.52.
