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

Trump administration 2024-2028

lenaitch said:
Dark spots for sure, but no system of people judging people is going to be absolute. The best we can hope is effective guardrails on the power of the State, but the guardrails shouldn't be roadblocks. If people want law enforcement to be done in a glass house, crimes like money laundering and security offences will get the best of us.

The point was made that the government needs to invest more in the courts so cases aren't tossed. That's a start.
Click to expand...
Fully agree in investing in the courts, in prosecutions, etc.

I don't favour eliminating guardrails that let folks get railroaded. And Jordan and Stinchcombe are important guardrails in the Canadian criminal justice system.
 
dapaterson said:
And Jordan and Stinchcombe are important guardrails in the Canadian criminal justice system.
Click to expand...

Yes they are, and I say that as someone whose job they make harder.

Stinchcombe did have knock on effects in national security cases. Right now Canada’s system of handling classified evidence is lacking. The status quo allows classified material to be protected, but in such a way that the defence can argue that redacted material would be key to their defence, and the trial judge has zero ability to test or assess that themselves; they have to rely on whatever black box redactions, or content summaries come from the Federal Court after the national security privilege claim process. The U.S. has a mechanism for the trial judge to see the unredacted material; that’s in part a product of U.S. having federal trial courts. All of our trials are in provincial court. So, Canada faces dilemmas in using classified material from domestic or foreign agencies to prosecute. That’s certainly a factor in both national security and to a lesser extend some international organized crime investigations. I noticed the other day that the border announcement included mention of bringing CSE to bear against fentanyl. That could make this challenge even more pronounced.
 
Why do things go through the Provincial Courts? Why not the Federal system?


1734844886671.png
 
Brad Sallows said:
No. Using non-governmental systems, using email address aliases to evade regulations governing public records, using Gmail, etc are all weak security practices. Some non-governmental systems might be more secure, but most won't. Use of aliases and alternates even on governmental systems reduces security because it evades accountability and practices which enforce security - guidelines can't be applied by the guardians to things they don't know about.
Click to expand...
Ok. we agree. Thought I was reading it as the opposite.
 
dimsum said:
…like, in general? Or for a specific type of case?
Click to expand...

Lenaitch and Brihard seemed to be suggesting that all cases started in the provincial systems.

Do we need, or do we have, something like FISA courts under the Federal Tribunals?
 
Kirkhill said:
Why do things go through the Provincial Courts? Why not the Federal system?
Click to expand...
Because the Constitution says that the provinces are responsible for the 'administration of justice'. The Federal Court of Canada only has original jurisdiction in a limited area, notably if a particular statute says so. We don't have the division of federal and sovereign state laws like to US.

It wouldn't make much difference - pick your level of government that underfunds the system.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top