The courts aren't always right

[cpallett]

vvalk,

Only 20 pages on PDF, the rest is style of cause, listing of counsel, etc.

Of those 20 pages, approximately 13 pages are quotes. About seven pages of actual words written by Justice Campbell in a 24 hour period. Given that it is commonplace to provide the judge with an electronic version of your argument, he may have cut and pasted some of that as well.

Plus, he would have read all the material submitted by the parties well in advance of walking into the Courtroom.

[dmlfarmer]

cpallett:
thanks for adding your opinions to this list. It is apparent you are knowledgeable and are willing to look at any situation from all angles. Given your willingess to contribute factually rather than retorically as most posters do I hope you continue to post as it may encourage me to follow this forum on a more regular basis.
I too admire Justice Campbell for having the backbone to rule on the law rather than taking the easy way out and submitting to public and political pressure. The law, whether right or wrong, was clear and he ruled appropriately on it. And he did not overstep his authority by placing an injunction and in fact warned the parties that his declaration may have little effect on the course of passage of Bill C-18. We need more Justices like Campbell rather than politicizing the bench.

[jdepape]

Cpallett:

I see what you mean about the Rule of Law.
What are your thoughts on the 2004 ruling by J.
Roleau in Ontario, where the CTF argued that the
Ontario government broke the law by not holding
a referendum on the same "manner and form"
argument put forward by the Friends of the CWB.  

From him ruling:

[47] Nothing in the Act suggests that a
referendum is required before the Act can be
amended even if this amendment creates an
exception to Section 2(1).  

[48] ... even if the TPA had contained a provision
that no exception to the referendum requirement
contained in Section 2(1) could be enacted
without the holding of a referendum, this type of
limit on a legislature’s sovereignty would not be
binding. 
 
[49] The courts will give effect to limits imposed
on the legislature’s ability to amend its own
statutes only where they constitute “manner and
form” requirements. The Supreme Court of
Canada in the reference Re Canada Assistance
Plan set out what was necessary in order to
impose an effective manner and form
requirement. Applied to the present case the
following would be required: 
 
a) A clear statement of intent by the legislature
that ... the legislature intended to bind itself or
restrict the legislative powers of its members; 
 
b) It would be contained in a statute that is
constitutional or quasi-constitutional; and 
 
c) The statute would specify the manner and
form to be followed by the legislature itself to
effect the amendments. It would not remit the
decision to an entity not forming part of the
legislative structure.  

It seems to me that all these factors apply to the
CWB Act.  How is it that the rule of law was not an
issue in the Ontario case but it is here?

[wilagro]

jdepape: You are just another SORE LOSER. Get over it...Judge Campbell made a very good call on this one and nobody should condemn him for any part of it.

You'll get your precious "marketing freedom" soon so suck it up and WAIT.

Ritz got chided for being the incompetent that he is...that probably riles you more than anything. Too bad if the truth hurts.

[jdepape]

Wilagro
Not sure how I can get my "precious marketing
freedom" and be a sore loser at the same time.

Legal wranglings don't usually interest me but I
find this one fascinating. One one side we have
the "rule of law" and on the other we have the
"supremacy of parliament".

How can you not be intrigued?

[jdepape]

Wilagro
Not sure how I can get my "precious marketing
freedom" and be a sore loser at the same time.

Legal wranglings don't usually interest me but I
find this one fascinating. One one side we have
the "rule of law" and on the other we have the
"supremacy of parliament".

How can you not be intrigued?

[wilagro]

I should have said that "you act like a sore loser". No, you haven't actually lost but a little impediment has arisen towards "the final solution" which has to be explained away or disregarded for the most part by the government.

You devoted a pile of words to attacking the good Judges conclusion to the whole affair...trying to convince the viewers of this forum that he erred. I believe that most people have made up their collective minds already...there certainly has been enough exposure through the MSM.

[jdepape]

Questioning does not equate to attacking.

And you're right - most people have made up their
minds, however, it's not their "minds" that interest
me. It's the minds of the judges that intrigues me.

You have made up your mind what is "right" - I
assume you prefer the "rule of law" argument put
forward by Campbell. And you reject Roleau's
"supremacy of parliament" argument.

I don't know which is right. But it matters. All I
know is that all this legal BS is not helping the
grain markets one iota. And when you consider
that it really doesn't matter which is right, the law
will change and the single desk will be gone, you
gotta just shake your head and wonder who's
taking care of farmers and the AG community in
all this.

If the Friends of the CWB only wanted a
declaration that the Minister erred, they got much
more than that. They also got a lot of uncertainty
which only costs farmers.

[Kodiak]

It seems to me that the role of the courts are to rule on matters in dispute which put before them. From that it would make sense to me that their determinations should be clear, and give effect to the parties which are in dispute. To simply make a statement which has no force and effect not only is a meaningless and fruitless effort, it could bring the whole system into disrepute.
Why a judge would simply add to the already sky high pile of political views is beyond my simple mind's ability to understand. The judge said himself that his declaration will make no difference to whether the law will be changed.
Why he did not tell the applicants that since any declaration he might make would have no effect, he would not make one, is something I do not understand. What it says to me is that the court (or this judge in particular) has become politicized and is more interested in weighing in on political debate than settling legal disuputes or determining relief.
I would have more respect for the system if, when presented with questions which cannot be answered in way that has a real and consequential effect, courts would punt the applications back into the field of play where they belong; politics.

[cpallett]

jdepape,

The issue would appear to be timing, which I am told is everything.

You cannot limit the right of successive governments to repeal or amend legislation. It appears that the TPA had a provision that said it could not be repealed or altered without a referendum. Can't do that.

Besides, as soon as you repeal or replace the statute, the limiting provision no longer exists. Tom's point from an earlier thread.

However, Ralph Goodale didn't win the Gold Medal at the University of Saskatchewan Law School (top of his class) for nothing. Section 47.1 of the CWB Act says that you cannot table a Bill in Parliament that adds or subtracts grain from Part IV without a referendum. Note that it does NOT say that you cannot amend or repeal any provision of the CWB Act. So, section 47.1 is in full force and effect when the Bill is tabled. Ooops. Table the Bill C-18 in Parliament and you break the law.

Repeal section 47.1 first, then table the Bill and no law is broken, so you cannot argue that the section prevents you from changing the law. Sequence and timing.

Love him or hate him, you gotta admit that Ralph sets a fine trap.

[oneoff]

My guess, based purely on logic, says that if you clearly break the law; then you have "tainted" the whole process and changes irreversibly. What stems (C-18)from the breakage of the law would seem to be "fatal". I acquired that word when a court official once used that word in telling a lawyer what would possibly happen, since he was about to appear before the court improperly dressed (he had forgotten his proper robes).

And who thinks it will be clear sailing after Thursday's Senate vote and potential proclamation shortly thereafter? And who thinks the Christmas holidays will calm the court cases?
I've heard that some of the quickest court action and appearances happen on about Dec. 22 and Dec. 23 when most people are busy with the festive season. Remember that this is a Crusade for both extremes.