- Reaction score
- 6,755
- Points
- 1,360
R v. Jordan, 2016 SCC 2
2023 UCP Alberta election
- Thread starter Halifax Tar
- Start date
Very familiar with it. And what did the court tell us in Jordan?
lenaitch
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 3,901
- Points
- 1,160
I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. Section 11(b) of the Charter says we have a right to be "tried within a reasonable time". In this case there was no specific law to interpret - there was (is) no law that defines 'reasonable time' in terms of the judicial process. The Court ruled that the machinations of the State against Jordan violated his Charter right and, in the absence of legislation, gave their interpretation of what 'reasonable time' meant. The Court didn't defy Parliament or usurp its role.
Bingo. The system worked.
Is the result a huge pain in the ass given an under resourced system? Definitely. But the right to be tried within a reasonable time goes hand in hand with the right to be presumed innocent.
- Reaction score
- 6,755
- Points
- 1,360
And it became "law"......with no input from Parliament.
Parliament literally wrote the Charter. They chose not to explicitly spell out what was ‘reasonable’, and in doing so deliberately chose to leave it to the courts. You could say the same for literally every one of the ‘legal rights’ sections. Parliament could draft new legislation adding greater framework to 11b. They could even legislate and use the ‘notwithstanding’ clause to define certain offences or circumstances where 11b wouldn’t apply. They have chosen not to. So Parliament seems to be perfectly fine with the system they designed working the way they designed it.
- Reaction score
- 6,755
- Points
- 1,360
You just changed the narrative....
I did not. I asked for an example of where the unelected courts are legislating. You gave what you thought was one, and I explained why it was not, and why the system the elected Parliament created was working the way the elected Parliament intended. That’s what this whole tangent about Smith’s ‘Alberta Sovereignty’ has been about (although criminal law and Charter rights are a bit off the track she’s trying to walk, I think). If you want to look at a different example, by all means go ahead.
lenaitch
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 3,901
- Points
- 1,160
In response to Jordan, Parliament could have very quickly crafted a law that set hard time limits for criminal trials. They chose not to, probably because the provinces would have howled for more federal money to fund the administration of justice (which is a provincial responsibility). The SCOC could have also simply said 'nope' on the Jordan case and left everybody still confused as to what 'reasonable means to it. It chose no to and, as is typical, chose to provide guidance to both the rest of the system but Parliament as well.
In terms of the UCP and it's sovereignty proposal, infringing on provincial authority is a legal question that they are currently empowered to challenge without new legislation. Being against the interest of Albertans is a political question.
In terms of the UCP and it's sovereignty proposal, infringing on provincial authority is a legal question that they are currently empowered to challenge without new legislation. Being against the interest of Albertans is a political question.
QV
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 3,364
- Points
- 1,010
Rex Murphy: Danielle Smith isn't threatening our Confederation. She may be saving it
The only thing I can find wrong about the new Alberta premier's approach is how long it took to be undertaken
nationalpost.com
Read the comments, starting with "most liked".
Halifax Tar
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 11,979
- Points
- 1,260
Rex Murphy: Danielle Smith isn't threatening our Confederation. She may be saving it
The only thing I can find wrong about the new Alberta premier's approach is how long it took to be undertaken
Read the comments, starting with "most liked".
I assume you meant this:
Halifax Tar
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 11,979
- Points
- 1,260
Key takeaway from Rex’s article…
…and I bet you that “one of our Constitution’s keenest students” missed Rex’s elegantly camouflaged sarcasm…
I am not sure that "constitutional scholar" ingests much that may run in opposition to his vision for this post nation state.
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 12,417
- Points
- 1,160
I could only imagine the wailing and gnashing of teeth if W.A.C. Bennett was elected today, it would be the "end of Confederation". Funny enough we survived strong Province minded Premiers before and will again.
QV
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 3,364
- Points
- 1,010
- Reaction score
- 22,860
- Points
- 1,360
Echo chamber bath water…
- Reaction score
- 2,543
- Points
- 1,190
The fact that you had to put quotation remarks around the word "law" says you know that nothing was actually made into a "law" which invalidates your entire argument that non-elected officials are making laws.
- Reaction score
- 6,755
- Points
- 1,360
It means the exact opposite but read my mind any way you wish.
Brad Sallows
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 8,847
- Points
- 1,040
In which politicians explore the consequences of giving orders which might not be obeyed.
QV
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 3,364
- Points
- 1,010
Saskatchewan backing Alberta's play with their own move.
Similar threads
