• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

2023 UCP Alberta election

R v. Jordan, 2016 SCC 2
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.
 
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.
 
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.
And it became "law"......with no input from Parliament.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Key takeaway from Rex’s article…

Now I could argue that in a “post-national” state with “no core values” — as Canada famously was described by one of our Constitution’s keenest students — that it is the provinces that hold majority sway. For if there is no centre, no core, then obviously the outliers are the only possible source of strength.

…and I bet you that “one of our Constitution’s keenest students” missed Rex’s elegantly camouflaged sarcasm… 😉
 
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: QV
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.
 
And it became "law"......with no input from Parliament.
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.
 
It means the exact opposite but read my mind any way you wish.
 
In which politicians explore the consequences of giving orders which might not be obeyed.
 
Back
Top