May 9, 2006 Nfld & Air Canada -&- Justice

Canada's National Airline Abandons Newfoundland Route -- "between St. John's, Newfoundland and London’s Heathrow" Myles Higgins, May 6, 2006

In addition to the tourism industry, the move will impact the province’s growing oil and gas industry. Oil rigs, ships and service vehicles often require parts and supplies from overseas and until now those supplies could generally be gotten overnight. With the departure of Air Canada from the direct European route, those supplies will now need to be de-planed in Halifax and an alternate delivery method found. This is expected to cause delays and additional expense for the companies involved. [. . . . ]

Good for NS supply business and bad for Newfoundland/Labrador.



Justice, MP Velacott & Justice McLachlin

Memory Lane: Background re Jan. 23, 06 election and MP Vellacott

FHTR Jan 15, 06
frosthitstherhubarb.blogspot.com/2006_01_15_frosthitstherhubarb_archive.html

Latest Liberal attack! ... How low can they go?

During the debate show, a caller called in and accused Conservative Candidate Maurice Vellacott of sexual assault on a church secretary. Vellacott immediately asked for the name and number of the caller for legal action and they had an idea of who this person was. I didn't catch the name, but it was in the news brief. When they ran a reverse lookup of the number, they came up with the Liberal campaign headquarters of Chris Axworthy.[riding of Saskatoon-Wanuskewin] from OfficiallyScrewed.com via Andrew Coyne, Angry in the Great White North, CNEWS Forum's casper34, Jan. 19, 06

Yesterday, I posted this link on the brouhaha: Black Rod to CBC: Gotcha May 08, 2006 -- re: Saskatchewan Conservative MP, Maurice Vellacourt, had criticized the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. The Judge, Beverley McLachlin, had fired back.


Assume [....] after each. I just included a bit so readers would get an idea of the topic.

I searched: Justice McLachlin, speech, NZ A few sources for more information follow:

Chief Justice McLachlin gave a speech in New Zealand in December 2005: "Unwritten Constitutional Principles: What is going on?" -- from this website: Lang Michener: Eugene Meehan Q.C. Supreme Court Law See scrolling menu at left for the pdf file on Justice McLachlin's speech.


McLachlin urges judges to go beyond letter of law Janice Tibbetts, The Ottawa Citizen, Published: Monday, December 05, 2005 -- or here

Courts should defy legislation to protect rights, chief justice says.

"The rule of law requires judges to uphold unwritten constitutional norms, even in the face of clearly enacted laws or hostile public opinion," said a prepared text of the lecture Chief Justice McLachlin gave to law students at Victoria University of Wellington late last week.

"There is certainly no guarantee or presumption that a given list of constitutional principles is complete, even assuming the good faith intention of the drafters to provide such a catalogue."

Examples cited:

[....] In 1998, the Supreme Court of Canada broke new ground by invoking unwritten constitutional principles in a historic opinion on whether Quebec could unilaterally secede from Canada, she said. The Canadian Constitution is silent on whether a government can secede. So the unanimous court invoked the unwritten principles of [....]

In 2001, the Ontario Court of Appeal [....] Ottawa's only French hospital, the Montfort.

Chief Justice McLachlin listed several unwritten constitutional norms that have evolved into entrenched rights [....]

In another ruling that has been described as one of the Supreme Court's boldest, the judges used unwritten constitutional principles in 1997 to order provincial governments to [....]

The next item is lengthy and worth reading.

CHIEF JUSTICE MAKES A GRAB FOR MORE POWER Reality, Volume XXV Issue No.1 January/February 2006

Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin of the Supreme Court of Canada was in Wellington, New Zealand at the end of November, when she gave an astonishing speech to the law students at the University of Wellington. According to this speech, the Chief Justice is of the belief that judges, upon their appointment to the Bench, acquire such wisdom and knowledge that they are able to determine with certainty what is best for all Canadians.

This conclusion is based on the fact that Judge McLachlin asserted in her speech that judges can render their opinions based on "unwritten" Constitutional norms, even in the face of clearly enacted laws or hostile public opinion. She defined her unwritten norms as those "essential to a nation's history, identity, values and legal systems". Such norms, according to Judge McLachlin, can only be properly understood and interpreted by appointed judges.

She bases this claim on the premise that there exist fundamental norms of justice so basic that they form part of the legal structure that must be upheld by the courts, even though they are not written into the law.

[....]

However, Judge McLachlin believes that only judges know how to accurately interpret these unwritten concepts. She skirts around the problem that these concepts have a wide variety of interpretations by stating that judges can look to guidelines provided by international treaties and commitments for direction in interpreting them. This ignores however, the profoundly significant fact that Canada's international commitments i.e. treaties, are determined solely at the discretion and whim of the Prime Minister. They are not debated or approved by Parliament, and in no way can they be recognized as a reflection of Canadian "values". These are the values of the government in power - yes - but not necessarily those of its citizens. A court, appointed by the government looking to these treaties for guidance is merely making an arbitrary decision, based on policies determined by that elitist government that has by-passed the democratic process. What a cozy arrangement.

Justice McLachlin also claims that judges have a legitimate role to play in determining "unwritten" laws because she argues that judges have a "judicial conscience" which is founded on the judges' "sworn commitment to uphold the rule of law".

[....]

House of Justice Committee Reviews Appointment Process

Recently retired from the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal, Madam Justice, Constance Glube, appeared before the House of Commons Justice Committee, which was reviewing judicial appointments, on November 15, 2005. She stated in her testimony, that the judicial appointment system must be changed because these appointments are based not on merit, but rather on political considerations. This marked the first time that a chief justice in Canada has publicly challenged the appointment system of judges. She gave, as an example of an inappropriate appointment, a "very serious incident" in 1998 which related to the Liberal Justice Minister of the day, Anne McLellan, appointing Liberal party organizer and fundraiser Heather Robertson to the Nova Scotia Supreme Court. [....]

Madam Justice Roberston, by the way was enraged that the political strings she had pulled for her appointment had been publicly exposed. She demanded a public apology for "this unforgivable attack on a sitting judge." No apology was given. (Lawyers Weekly, January 20, 2006) [....]

FHTR December 28, 2005:
Scroll to: "Quick Links -&- Happy New Year" and then scroll down it for the following.

Perhaps our SCOC should do a little reassessing? I have read that, for reasons best known to those who understand the fine points of the law, that this is a good decision -- but the little people (including me) fail to see it.


Canada new destination of choice for pedophiles? High court ruling legalized group-sex clubs with 14-year-olds James L. Lambert, Dec. 27, 2005, wnd.com
[ http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48075 ] ....

FHTR December 8, 2005

Scary SCOC Goddess Supreme
aka Chief Justice McLachlin

A truly scary person in Canadian politics CNEWS Forum, 12/05/2005
[ http://www.canoe.ca/mb2/messages/cnewsf/6468.html ]

Put rights before Constitution -- Chief Justice: McLachlin tells judges to be bold 'even in the face of clearly enacted laws'
[ http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=273c95d2-0674-45c8-b5c5-86fac02d0c84 ]

A truly scary person in Canadian politics casper34, (excerpts)
[ http://angrygwn.mu.nu/archives/141541.php ] .........

December 06, 2005 Hostile public opinion Steve Janke / AngryGWN

Our Chief Justice of the Supreme Court believes that she and her eight colleagues have a duty to ignore the written law passed by the people's legislators when a simple majority of them think that 25 million Canadians and their 300 representatives just aren't smart enough to get it.

December 05, 2005 Judicial activism is necessary, says Canadian Chief Justice and one comment by Anonalogue will lead to this comment from John Godfrey:

www.thehilltimes.ca/members/login.php?fail=2&destination=/html/index.php?display=story&full_path=/2005/december/5/constitution/&c=2

Judicial impartiality with Joe Comartin and Deborah Coyne

As Joe Comartin said, lawyers with other than Liberal connections don't even bother to apply for judicial positions. They KNOW that it is pointless. He did suggest that, once appointed, justices are impartial and I will concede that perhaps they try. But that they succeed all the time? No.

[....] One example that has the appearance of questionable partiality to me, is the following, since Supremes do not deign to stoop so low as to explain their reasoning:

Supreme Court At It Again
[ http://www.canoe.ca/mb2/messages/cnewsf/8007.html ]


OTTAWA (CP) - The Supreme Court of Canada has refused to hear an appeal by whistleblower Margaret Haydon for her five-day suspension from Health Canada in 2002.

October 13, 2005 SCOC Choice Panel

Paul Martin: More Appearance of Democracy without Substance

The National Post reported today, Oct. 13, that there is a push for an aboriginal appointee. MP Vic Toews wants to choose based on merit, not gender nor ethnicity.

Guess what the PM will choose.

Cotler names panel to choose SCOC vacancy AP, Oct. 12, 05 [...]