Comments for The Court

Comment on Don’t Wake the Sleeping Leviathan: Senate Reform, the Constitution, and the Supreme Court of Canada by Patti

Patti — Thu, 28 Feb 2013 02:41:22 +0000

Magnificent. I agree.

Comment on Supreme Court Clarifies the Law of Duress, Ends Nicole Ryan’s Tragic Ordeal by Shan

Shan — Mon, 04 Feb 2013 23:26:52 +0000

You are treating Michael Ryan as though he has been “charged, tried and convicted” of Nicole Ryan’s alleagtions. We should not forget that Nicole Ryan is the one that was charged with conspiracy to commit murder and that she had everything to gain by painting Michael as a monster. Please explain what solid evidence of ABUSE was presented in court. It is also very interested that she claims “nobody would help her” and they RCMP failed her. HOWEVER, she did not report the abuse to the RCMP as she conveniently suggests. The RCMP has since put forward comments to the media regarding this. This entire case is suspect and needs to be put through a public inquiry. This time, lets call everybody to the stand. The only thing that is “disquieting” about this case is the fact that the Courts have allowed the testimony of the accused to damn the reputation of the entire RCMP organization, victim services and Michael Ryan “without a question”. I expect that once the ENTIRE truth surfaces on this matter there will be many owing Michael Ryan an overdue apology.

Comment on Supreme Court Clarifies the Law of Duress, Ends Nicole Ryan’s Tragic Ordeal by Vir

Vir — Mon, 28 Jan 2013 22:30:34 +0000

One thing I’d like to point out is that the Crown failed to call Mr. Ryan during the trial, and the evidence of Mrs. Ryan went uncontested.

Comment on Peeling Back the Court’s Decision in R v NS by Scott McAnsh

Scott McAnsh — Thu, 24 Jan 2013 17:02:28 +0000

Thank you for this excellent summary of R. v. N.S.

I read the majority reasons primarily as decrying the lack of evidence questioning the presumption that it is important to see a witnesses face. It was as if that block of the Court would have been comfortable siding with Abella J. if there were some expert evidence on the obvious truth that seeing a persons face does not help to tell if they are lying.

I think this is part of the modern trend in the SCC jurisprudence relying heavily on social science type evidence for policy driven decisions, which this case clearly is. I think the main lesson for lawyers here is that in Charter cases you should bring as much evidence as you can to support your position. The unfortunate consequence of this is the increased cost of Charter litigation, but I think that is where the law is at this time.

Comment on BULLETIN: Rob Ford Found to be in Conflict of Interest, Ousted from Mayor’s Office by Stephen Neil

Stephen Neil — Tue, 27 Nov 2012 16:05:24 +0000

Thank you, Katherine!

Comment on BULLETIN: Rob Ford Found to be in Conflict of Interest, Ousted from Mayor’s Office by Katherine M.

Katherine M. — Tue, 27 Nov 2012 15:38:37 +0000

THANK YOU. If only all the people with voices in this debate understood what was going on here with the clarity you have demonstrated, the conversations would be much less painful.

Comment on Defining the Scope of Absolute Liability: A Lay Analysis of R v. McLarty by Lisette

Lisette — Sat, 24 Nov 2012 14:48:14 +0000

Do you mind if I quote a few of your posts as long as I provide credit and sources back to your site?
My blog is in the very same niche as yours and my visitors would truly benefit
from some of the information you provide here. Please
let me know if this okay with you. Regards!

Comment on Bill C-232: Should Bilingualism be Required at the SCC? by english language learning

english language learning — Wed, 21 Nov 2012 20:38:37 +0000

I like the helpful info you provide on your articles.
I will bookmark your weblog and take a look at once more here frequently.
I am somewhat certain I will be informed plenty of new stuff proper here!

Good luck for the following!

Comment on Amici Curiae: Retailers Taking Quebec’s Language Laws to Court by Michael Pare

Michael Pare — Tue, 20 Nov 2012 11:12:51 +0000

That these companies have chosen to become embroiled in court action over the interpretation of s. 63 is a good indication that they will not comply voluntarily with this demand of Quebec’s language police. As one national newspaper has already pointed out, these companies operate internationally and multilingually using one corporate name. Their customers have never been confused as to the nature of the products or services they offer. Les Québécois are no different. It is highly unlikely that their corporate signage will be willingly modified to accommodate this new interpretation of this law.

Comment on Breaking Up is Not so Hard to Do: The SCC Gets Over Grenier in Canada (Attorney General) v. TeleZone Inc. by Marcela

Marcela — Wed, 14 Nov 2012 10:41:15 +0000

I blog often and I truly appreciate your information. This
article has really peaked my interest. I will bookmark your
website and keep checking for new information about once a week.
I opted in for your Feed as well.