XPost: can.politics, ont.politics   
   From: {~_~}@nyet.ca   
      
   Guess Harper will try to stuff the Court with 'one of his' again, but   
   good to see him stopped this time around . . . .   
   _____________________________   
   CASE 1:   
      
      
   Fri Mar 21, 2014   
      
   Canada high court rebuffs government, blocks court appointment   
      
      
   OTTAWA (Reuters) - The Supreme Court of Canada dealt a blow to   
   Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper on Friday by blocking a   
   controversial appointment to the high court made by Harper in October.   
      
   The court's sweeping 6-1 decision said Harper's appointee, Federal Court   
   of Appeal Justice Marc Nadon, did not meet the specific criteria set for   
   taking up one of the seats on the court bench reserved for the province   
   of Quebec. It also struck down retroactive changes to the criteria for   
   the appointment made by the government in December.   
      
   The ruling is an embarrassment for the government and means the court   
   will have to continue operating one judge short of its nine-member   
   capacity for a while longer.   
      
   The government, operating on the advice of two former Supreme Court   
   justices, had appointed Nadon in October to fill one of three seats   
   reserved for Quebec, but Toronto lawyer Rocco Galati challenged the   
   move. The separatist Quebec government also opposed it. The court has   
   now voided the appointment.   
      
   The Supreme Court Act requires that appointees to the court from Quebec   
   be either judges of Quebec's provincial courts or lawyers with at least   
   10 years standing with the Quebec Bar Association.   
      
   Nadon had been a member of the Quebec Bar for two decades, but that was   
   before his appointment as a federal judge, and he is not a member now.   
      
   The court ruled that Quebec appointees must be current provincial judges   
   or current members of the Quebec Bar.  It said that changing these   
   conditions   
   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^   
   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^   
   would require a constitutional amendment to which all 10 provinces would   
   have to agree.   
   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^   
      
   However, it did allow for a possible loophole: that Nadon resign his   
   judgeship and return to the Quebec Bar for a day in order to be eligible   
   for appointment. The court said it was not asked whether this would be   
   allowed and "(w)e therefore do not decide this issue".   
   [- - -]   
   _______________________________________   
      
   CASE 2:   
      
   Repeal of early parole violates rights, Supreme Court rules   
   Ruling means all those sentenced prior to March 28, 2011, may qualify   
   for accelerated parole   
      
   CBC News Posted: Mar 20, 2014 10:08 AM ET Last Updated: Mar 20, 2014   
   7:52 PM ET   
   The Supreme Court of Canada ruled Thursday on the federal government's   
   repeal of early parole for inmates who are already sentenced and   
   incarcerated, in a case brought by Christopher John Whaling, convicted   
   of gun offences in 2010.	   
      
   The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled a federal law passed in 2011 that   
   retroactively abolished accelerated parole review for offenders who had   
   already been sentenced violates a person's charter right to not be   
   punished again.   
      
   Today's decision strikes down section 10(1) of the Abolition of Early   
   Parole Act and means all those sentenced prior to March 28, 2011 may   
   qualify for accelerated parole.   
      
   Justice Richard Wagner wrote that the law automatically extended the   
   minimum period of incarceration without regard to individual circumstances.   
      
   The case involves Christopher John Whaling, a Vancouver arms dealer who   
   was convicted of three gun offences in September 2010. He was sentenced   
   to four and a half years in jail.   
      
   As a first-time, non-violent offender, Whaling became eligible for   
   accelerated day parole, which allowed him to be released on parole after   
   serving one-sixth of his sentence.   
      
   In March 2011, the federal government implemented a new law abolishing   
   the accelerated day parole program, as well as having it retroactively   
   apply to those sentenced before the new law was even passed.   
      
               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^   
      
   As a result, normal parole provisions would apply instead to the   
   offenders, which changed the timing for their eligibility.   
      
      
      
   Double jeopardy   
      
   That’s what happened to Whaling, as well as two other inmates Judith   
   Lynn Slobbe and Cesar Maidana, who were serving sentences for serious   
   but non-violent crimes.   
      
   Whaling’s parole was delayed by three months, Slobbe’s by nine months   
   and Maidana’s by 21 months.   
      
   The three launched a constitutional challenge to the law, saying that it   
   infringed their right guaranteed under section 11 (h) of the Charter of   
   Rights and Freedoms, which states that a person found guilty and   
   punished for an offence has the right not to be tried or punished for it   
   again.   
      
   In other words, the charter protects against double jeopardy.   
      
   Whaling, Slobbe and Maidana won their case in the B.C. Court of Appeal   
   and B.C. Supreme Court.   
      
   The federal government appealed the ruling to the Supreme Court.   
      
   Today, Canada’s highest court dismissed the federal government's appeal.   
      
   A spokesman from Public Safety Minister Steven Blaney’s office said the   
   government is examining the impact of this decision.   
      
   “Our Conservative government has been clear,” Jason Tamming said in an   
   email to CBC News. "We do not believe that white collar criminals and   
   drug dealers should be released after a mere one sixth of their sentence."   
   _________________________________________________________________   
      
   . . . .   Yeah, well, your lack of regard for our Constitution leaves a   
   whole lot to be desired in the likes of your government.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)