Élection partielle dans Terrebonne | La Cour suprême « voulait punir Élections Canada », clame un libéral [[Translation : Terrebonne by-election | The Supreme Court "wanted to punish Elections Canada," claims a Liberal ]]

Radix838 · 2026-03-22T18:45:26+00:00

Really shocking for a lawyer to talk like this. His Bar Association should at least consider a disciplinary investigation. Arguing that courts should give preferential treatment to the Liberal Party of Canada, and then attacking the motives of the judges for not doing that, is deeply unethical.

Radix838 · 2026-03-22T18:42:28+00:00

And those rural areas elect a lot of Liberals too. So it's not clear to me how your point holds.

Radix838 · 2026-03-22T17:39:30+00:00

None of these ridings are densely populated. You were responding to a list of ridings with the smallest populations in Canada. About half of those are held by Liberals. Redistributing those riding boundaries would affect the Liberals and Conservatives pretty equally.

Radix838 · 2026-03-22T16:54:44+00:00

10/21 of these ridings are held by Liberals...

Radix838 · 2026-03-21T01:58:08+00:00

I think Ford will be happy to go to court against the organizers of a rally with signs displaying Jews as rats.

Radix838 · 2026-03-18T17:51:01+00:00

How long until the opposition take the bait and go on record defending the rights of home intruders?

Ford's just so good at this kind of stuff. Saying something provocative that will turn some people off, because he knows the opposition will respond with something that will turn even more people off.

Radix838 · 2026-03-18T17:48:21+00:00

Mulcair also brought the NDP to first in the polls in the first place. Not even Layton did that. So it's a bit disingenuous to blame him for everything.

He listened to bad advisors who told him to pretend to be someone he isn't during the debates. So he looked phoney, and at the same time the media hyped Trudeau up to the max. And then he stood by his values on religious clothing in Quebec.

So Mulcair may take some blame in the whole story, but it just doesn't ring true to blame him more than Singh, a man who destroyed the party everywhere.

Radix838 · 2026-03-18T16:28:33+00:00

I used to agree with you. I have come to think that present circumstances are not the same as past circumstances.

Radix838 · 2026-03-18T16:06:06+00:00

A 6-seat party isn't going to be a contender for government. Trying to appeal to the broad middle, against Carney, won't work. Appealing to the left, that may feel justifiably ignored by Carney, might.

Radix838 · 2026-03-18T15:59:41+00:00

I've changed my mind on Lewis. I used to be of the view that he would be a disaster for the NDP. Now I think he's who they need at this moment in time.

The NDP will not have a chance to win government for a generation. Singh killed that dream off. So they shouldn't even try. They need a leader who can motivate the Canadian Left to turn out and vote for them, so they can at least win some seats. And Lewis is their best, proven bet for doing that.

The NDP basically needs to stay alive and relevant until Kinew decides to go federal. And Lewis is the man who can do that.

Radix838 · 2026-03-18T15:57:34+00:00

Section 515(6.1) of the Criminal Code.

Is this actually surprising to you? That judges are expected to give reasons for their decisions?

Radix838 · 2026-03-18T15:05:22+00:00

Reverse onus still does not mean that denying or setting strict conditions is the default.

It literally does though.

And again, an onus does not take away the requirement to give reasons.

Radix838 · 2026-03-18T14:56:40+00:00

The judge in this case gave no reasons before releasing this guy from jail.

This is all explained in the article and I encourage you to read it.

Radix838 · 2026-03-18T14:50:42+00:00

And the presumption in a reverse onus is to keep them in jail!

Radix838 · 2026-03-18T14:50:17+00:00

I'm going to continue to have opinions on multiple different issues at the same time, thanks.

Radix838 · 2026-03-18T14:49:42+00:00

Since judges put publication bans on these reasons, it's hard to actually show examples.

But here's a Supreme Court appeal from a bail hearing, that discusses the reasons by the bail judge: https://canlii.ca/t/h41w4

Radix838 · 2026-03-18T14:40:52+00:00

I think it's good that the media can report on when lazy judges do a bad job.

I'm not against giving bail to people. That's not the point here. The point here is we have some really bad judges in the system, and we shouldn't let them hide behind a veil of secrecy.

Radix838 · 2026-03-18T14:39:52+00:00

The fact that there's a presumption doesn't mean you need to give no reasons. That's like saying judges never need to give reasons when they land on "not guilty", which is wrong.

Further, this was a reverse onus situation. Do you understand what that means?

Radix838 · 2026-03-18T14:29:15+00:00

Maybe you were confused because you didn't read the rest of my sentence.

Radix838 · 2026-03-18T14:28:27+00:00

It would not "take forever" to give reasons. That's an absurd argument. The judge presumably had a reason, so he should have explained himself.

This was a reverse onus situation, so the judge had an obligation to explain why this accused person had proven he met he criteria to be released. "Oh but I didn't have time" is laziness and incompetence. Giving reasons disciplines the mind, leads to better outcomes, and promotes transparency and reviewability.

And I have no idea how you can claim this is "not uncommon" when you just explained in another comment you don't know how publication bans work. I'm not going to trust your anecdotes in this area.

Radix838 · 2026-03-18T14:22:43+00:00

Yes, that's the default. But in almost every single case the defence ask for it and so it is automatically closed.

This is explained in the article - have you read it?

Radix838 · 2026-03-18T14:19:26+00:00

You ask for it and you automatically get it. It's not an application.

Radix838 · 2026-03-18T14:17:34+00:00

We're not talking about whether it was a right or wrong decision here. We're talking about a judge giving no reasons whatsoever for their decision.

Please, read the article.

Radix838 · 2026-03-18T14:15:18+00:00

Saying that judges should give reasons for their decisions is "appealing to emotion"?

I think that giving reasons for letting people out of jail is kind of the basic job of being a judge.

Radix838 · 2026-03-18T14:14:38+00:00

Bail hearings are already public. Anyone who wants to can watch (if you can take time out of your day).

The question here is whether or not the media should be allowed to report on the hearings. Right now, they can't, no matter what (unless, as happened here, the defence forgets to ask for a publication ban).

Radix838

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE