Roundup: A hopeless court case

Posted on by

It’s one of the most predictable performative dances in Canadian politics, which is that when you lose at politics, you try to drag it to the courts to fight your battles for you. In this, case, a UBC professor (and local Fair Vote Canada) president wants to launch a Charter challenge around electoral reform. And in order to do that, he’s talking about getting pledges of around $360,000 in order to get through the legal process.

The problem? This is an issue that has already been litigated and lost. The Supreme Court of Canada refused to hear the appeal of the case that arose out of Quebec, which means it’s considered settled. The current electoral system is legal, it is constitutional, and while you get the odd prof here and there who tries to make an argument to the contrary, it’s settled law. And unlike some of the reversals we’ve seen the courts make over prostitution or assisted dying, there has been no great groundswell change in society that would justify the court in re-litigating the matter. In other words, he’s trying to raise money from people who are desperate to find a lifeline now that their political solution is gone that this is basically a scheme for lawyers to take their money.

This tendency to try and use the courts to overturn political decisions is a growing one, but it’s the same mentality as people who write to the Queen when they lose at politics. Have we had cases where governments have passed bad legislation and the courts have overturned it? Certainly. But political decisions are not bad legislation, and it’s not up to the courts to force governments to adopt what some people consider to be more favourable outcomes. It’s called democracy, and we have elections to hold governments to account for their political decisions. It’s also why I’m extremely leery of people calling for a cabinet manual, because it means that more groups will start trying to litigate prerogative decisions, and that’s not a good thing. It’s time these PR proponents let it go and try to fight it again at the next election. Oh, but then it might become clear that this really isn’t an issue that people care all that much about. Shame, that.

Yet more Trudeau/Trump analyses:

  • Deborah Aarts argues why the symbolism of the meeting with women executives was important.
  • Anne Kingston looks at the choreographing of the day, and spoke to some of the participants of that women executives meeting.
  • Terry Glavin examines the selling out of Trudeau’s feminist credentials for the stunt, but notes that it may have been a price worth paying given the rest of the day.
  • There are questions as to what “tweaks” to NAFTA will mean.
  • Paul Booth says that if the US is really looking to reduce regulations, they should look at the review that Treasury Board did here starting in 2012.

Good reads:

  • Justin Trudeau heads off to Europe today, where he’ll address the European Parliament and then meet with Angela Merkel.
  • It looks like a bunch of infrastructure spending is going to be pushed into next year.
  • The government has decided not to appeal a ruling on the “Sixties scoop,” and will now begin talking damages to the Indigenous children taken from their parents.
  • Mounties trying to unionize are accusing the RCMP of unfair labour practices.
  • There is a fight brewing about whether to treat legal marijuana like cigarettes with plain packaging, or like alcohol.
  • Here’s a look inside the Supplementary Estimates, which includes another $85 million for CBSA.
  • A Saskatchewan man was given a fine of $500 and nine months’ probation for threatening Justin Trudeau over Facebook.
  • The motion on studying Islamophobia has split Conservative leadership candidates.
  • An examination of the Senate shows that while there are more women and visible minorities, it is becoming less diverse in education and occupational backgrounds.
  • Maxime Bernier has decided that he’s no longer about freedom! for trans people and now wants to vote against C-16, because of false concerns about free speech.
  • A French prof is unimpressed with Kevin O’Leary’s progress with learning French.
  • Here’s an evaluation of the symbolism and meaning of Stéphane Dion’s appointment to a dual role in Germany and the EU.
  • Susan Delacourt looks at plummeting government trust indexes in polling that could give rise to more populist demagoguery in Canada.
  • My Loonie Politics column looks at the corrosive effect that PR could have on our current parties, which is why Trudeau has cause to worry about it.

Odds and ends:

Here are some Canadian political valentines’ cards courtesy of the Political Circus.

Note: My Loonie Politics columns are now paywalled. Use promo code Smith to get a yearly subscription for $40 instead of $50.

2 thoughts on “Roundup: A hopeless court case”

  1. A couple of corrections here. First, I’m a prof at UBC – not sure where you got the Saskatchewan idea from. Second, we are not unaware of the previous case – in fact, we helped support that case by running a fundraiser for it and are in communication with the plaintiffs in that case and with their lawyers. We are advised that there is still a worthwhile case to make here.

    • Hi: My mistake. It was a Saskatchewan prof sharing this over Twitter, and I didn’t check that it wasn’t him running this. My apologies for getting that wrong, and I’ve made the necessary corrections.

Comments are closed.