Harper Supreme Court Record: Dismal

National Post has published a Scorecard of the Harper Government’s wins and losses at the Supreme Court of Canada.

To sum it up in one word for Harper:

Dismal.

Losses for Harper: Mandatory Sentences for Gun Crimes, Assisted Suicide, Prostitution, Aboriginal title, Time-Served Sentencing, Senate Reforn, Supreme Court Nominee.

Wins for Harper: Terrorism-Related Security Certificates, Destruction of Gun Registry Data.

There are two others that are not mentioned here:

Loss for Harper: Mounties’ right to unionize.

Win for Harper: Cell phone searches upon arrest.

I may have missed some. If others add some in comments, I will include them here.

Has the government learned from these? Nope.

They are fighting a disabled aboriginal mother struggling for services for her severely disabled teenage son, disabled veterans, revocation of citizenship and deportation of Canadian citizens, expat Canadian citizens, sick new moms, women wearing the niqab during citizenship oath and us.

I think Harper should also be prepared for a constitutional challenge of Bill C51. There are likely many others we do not even know about.

Of course, the government is spending their access to unlimited taxpayer dollars fighting these issues in the courts.

That is why we must be steadfast in our resolve to continue to fight back by standing up–and donating to ADCS,

15 thoughts on “Harper Supreme Court Record: Dismal

  1. It’s not the Supreme Court, but the Harper Cons lost another case at the Federal Court of Appeal today.

    The court ruled Niquab at citizenship ceremonies is OK.

    The court saw no reason to interfere with an earlier Federal Court ruling.

    The court made a quick ruling from the bench so the plaintiff can get Canadian citizenship in time to vote on October 19. Somehow, I suspect she will not be voting for all those Cons who cheered on Harper when he defended the ban on niqabs in the House of Commons.

    I sure hope Justice Martineau will see the urgency in our case and rule in favour of Gwen and Ginny.

  2. That’s interesting. I didn’t know Donald Sutherland still considered himself Canadian. It’s also interesting that, from outside the country, he seems to feel the same as I do, that our govt has lost the Canadian way.

  3. There was a win for the Canadian government in long-term Canadian expats have no voting rights

    But they are turning to the Supreme court over the voting ban.

    Actor Donald Sutherland said:

    “Is it because they’re afraid we’ll vote to return to a government that will once again represent the values that the rest of the world looked up to us for?”

    That’s the government we all want to see. I wonder if Donald is supporting that fight to the Supreme Court financially. Or if he would support ours.

  4. It wasn’t a Charter issue, but the government lost another one today at the Supreme Court.

    In another highly controversial case, the Supreme Court unanimously rejected government argument Omar Khadr was an adult offender.

    Perhaps most surprising is how quickly this decision was issued–just over two hours after the government’s oral arguments.

    Either the government has lousy lawyers or they are fighting cases that just aren’t winnable. Or both.

    • @Hazy Disgusting.

      I suspect the amount is probably much higher.

      They have spent $700,000 fighting disabled veterans, $1.3 million fighting sick new Moms and another $1.3 million fighting Canadians living outside Canada just at the Federal Court level.

      So, $4.7 million seems low for 15 losing cases.

      But, as Liberal Justice Critic Sean Casey says:

      “It’s entirely consistent with the personality and the soul of the government.”

      This government has no soul. Which is the reason we are having to work so hard to raise money to do what is right.

    • A Justice Department spokesperson saif:

       

      “It is worth noting that while the government, at any given moment, is involved in some 50,000 litigation files, about 85 per cent of those were not initiated by us,” Clarissa Lamb wrote in an email.

       

      50,000?!?  85% not initioated by the gov?  Gee I wobder if that could be because of the disdain the Cons have shown for Canada’s laws, constitution, Cgarter, citizens and residents?

      She also claims the government won 75% of those cases. Really? Why haven’t we heard about all those wins?

  5. That Joe Arvay has taken this on goes to show that many people realize how important this is. I’m very impressed, and very glad he’s on our side. Let’s just hope we can continue to pay him….

  6. What I find particularly encouraging today, though it has nothing to do with the federal government per se and certainly not FATCA, is that the SCC ruling on prayer (in this case, clearly Roman Catholic prayer) at the beginning of a municipal council meeting is unconstitutional. That ruling was unanimous. Justices from Quebec (where the municipality is located) and from the rest of the country were united. As were the justices appointed by Harper. The judgment was on Charter grounds.

    I think this bodes well for the ADCS case, which is also (but not entirely) based on the Charter.

    • Even more significant is the fact the Supreme Court decision on physician assisted suicide was unanimous.

      That was a federal decision. The lawyer on the case comnvinced the Court to reverse its own decision in the Sue Rodriquez case of 20 years ago.

      I know this is sensitive and controversial. 

      But what is important for us is that the lawyer in that case was Joe Arvay–the same lawyer for the ADCS lawsuit. That decision, perhaps more than any, speaks to Mr. Arvay`s skills and abilities.

      As Peter Hogg said in another case:

      “I doubt that anyone but Joe could have persuaded the court that they had been getting it consistently wrong for twenty years.”

      I e-mailed Joe after the recent decision. He thanked me, then replied that he will not rest on his laurels. There is still a lot of work to be done.

      That is why it is so important for people to keep donating.

       

  7. I did not include these two in the main post because they were Supreme Court rulings involving provincial and municipal governments.

    However, I am posting them here because they indicate our Supreme Court is willing to strike down a range of unconstitutional laws:

    The Supreme Court ruled public servants have the right to strike in a case from Saskatchewan. The decision has implications across Canada.

    In another case yesterday, the Supreme Court ruled municipal meetings cannot begin with a prayer. Again, this ruling applies nationally.

    I realize many of these decisions are controversial and sensitive. I do not post them to debate the merits of any of them but rather to show the position our Supreme Court is taking on a range of issues.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Optionally add an image (JPEG only)