In a recent landmark ruling, the Federal Court of Canada has delivered a significant blow to the federal government's use of the Emergency Measures Act during the recent challenging times. The court's decision, which found that the federal government acted unconstitutionally when invoking the Emergency Measures Act, raises important questions about the consequences of such actions and the gaps in our legal system when it comes to holding those in power accountable.
The Ruling
The ruling by the Federal Court has sent shockwaves through the legal and political landscape in Canada. The case challenged the federal government's use of the Emergency Measures Act during a period of crisis. The court found that the government's actions under the Act violated the Constitution and, by extension, the rights of Canadians.
Justice Richard G. Mosley said the move was “unreasonable”
Below is a link to the ruling: https://theccf.ca/wp-content/uploads/EA-challenge-fed-court-reasons-FINAL.pdf
By the way, if you take the time to read the ruling get really mad, about how the federal government tired to claim that this whole thing was "moot" in other words it did not matter any more and to heck with the devastation that it had on the human rights of Canadians.
"The Attorney General of Canada brought motions to strike the applications on the grounds that they were moot and that most of the Applicants lacked standing."
Here is the summary of the ruling:
"On the substantive issues, I have concluded that the applications of Edward Cornell and Vincent Gircys, the CCLA and the CCF must be granted in part for reasons discussed below. In brief, I find that the reasons provided for the decision to declare a public order emergency do not satisfy the requirements of the Emergencies Act and that certain of the temporary measures adopted to deal with the protests infringed provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms – Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982 adopted as Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982, 1982, c. 11 (U.K.) [Charter] and were not justified under section 1 of the Charter."
Analysis of the Ruling
The ruling underscores the fundamental principle that no government, regardless of the circumstances, is above the law. The Emergency Measures Act is a powerful tool granted to the government to deal with exceptional situations, but its use must be in strict accordance with the Constitution and the rule of law.
The court's decision emphasizes the importance of checks and balances within a democratic system. It reaffirms that the judiciary plays a critical role in ensuring that the government does not overstep its authority, especially in times of crisis. It is a reminder that the rule of law should prevail even when difficult decisions must be made.
Penalties for Unconstitutional Actions
One of the most pressing questions raised by this ruling is the absence of prescribed penalties for those who violate the Constitution, especially when it involves the misuse of the Emergency Measures Act. While our legal system is replete with penalties for various offenses, it is striking that there is no clear consequence outlined for actions that infringe upon the highest law in the land.
This omission highlights a gap in our legal framework that deserves attention. How is it possible that even minor offenses under the law have prescribed penalties, yet violations of the most fundamental laws, which may result in untold destruction to our society and the loss of lives, go without specified consequences for those who perpetrate such acts?
I point out that the federal government is funded by we the taxpayers, and if there is to be a penalty imposed it should not be imposed on the federal government as an agency, since that will just be paid for by us the taxpayers, and thus victimize us again. The penalties should be imposed on the individuals who perpetrated these illegal acts. And the penalties must fit the magnitude and nature of the crime.
Government's Intention to Appeal to the Supreme Court
In the wake of the Federal Court's groundbreaking ruling on the unconstitutional use of the Emergency Measures Act, the federal government has announced its intention to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court of Canada. This development adds another layer of complexity to an already significant legal battle.
The decision to appeal underscores the gravity of the case and the government's determination to defend its actions during the crisis. It also signifies a broader legal debate that will shape the future of emergency powers and the balance between government authority and individual rights in Canada.
The Supreme Court's Role
As Canada's highest court, the Supreme Court plays a pivotal role in interpreting the Constitution
and resolving disputes of national importance. This appeal will bring the fundamental question of constitutional legality to the forefront, forcing the Supreme Court to grapple with the implications of the government's actions during a crisis.
Public Interest
The appeal to the Supreme Court ensures that this legal battle will remain in the public eye, prompting discussions on the rule of law, government authority, and individual rights. Canadians across the country will be watching closely as this case unfolds, understanding that its outcome may have far-reaching consequences for future government actions in times of crisis.
A Pivotal Moment
The decision to appeal to the Supreme Court marks a pivotal moment in Canadian legal history. It reflects the complexities of governing during a crisis while upholding constitutional principles.
The Supreme Court's eventual ruling will shape the legal landscape and should provide much-needed clarity on the consequences of government actions that infringe upon the Constitution, but only if those justices on the Supreme Court are not already compromised either politically or ethically.
In the coming months, the legal world, as well as Canadians from all walks of life, will await the Supreme Court's decision with great anticipation. This case serves as a stark reminder of the delicate balance between government authority and individual rights, a balance that lies at the heart of our democratic system.
Moving Forward
The Federal Court's ruling serves as a stark reminder of the importance of upholding the Constitution and the rule of law. It calls for a broader conversation about accountability and consequences when those in power act unconstitutionally.
As Canadians, we must consider whether our legal system adequately addresses such violations and whether there should be specific penalties attached to actions that undermine the Constitution. This case should spark discussions about legal reforms to ensure that those who breach the highest law of the land face appropriate consequences.
The Emergencies Act Commissioner's Mysterious Logic
Ladies and gentlemen, fasten your seatbelts because we're about to dive headfirst into the intriguing world of how the Emergencies Act Commissioner, Paul Rouleau, came to the conclusion that the federal government's use of the Emergency Measures Act was justified. Hold onto your conspiracy theory hats because this one's going to be a bumpy ride!
Now, we'd like to imagine that Commissioner Rouleau's office has a giant Wheel of Legal Fortune, complete with all the reasons one might declare the government's actions as justified. Perhaps they spun it dramatically, and it landed on "national security," or maybe it landed on "pandemic panic." Either way, the logic seemed a bit too mysterious for the Federal Court, which promptly ruled it unconstitutional.
But, dear reader, there's always a plot twist in this kind of story. Some folks out there might want to take a closer look at the intricate web of connections between the Trudeau government, their family, and Mr. Rouleau.
After all, it's a small world in Ottawa, and stranger things have happened.
In the world of legal proceedings, especially those involving constitutional matters, one might expect a fair and impartial hearing. However, as we've learned from our esteemed Chief Justice Richard Wagner of the Supreme Court who made a public statement about the Trucker Convoy being illegal when no court in the land had ruled that.
Now, we're not implying any foul play here, but it does make one wonder how impartial their judgment might be when their beliefs have already been publicly presented.
So, dear reader, as we eagerly await the Supreme Court's decision, let's not hold our breath too long. After all, the judicial system is a complex beast, and sometimes, it's hard to predict which way the scales of justice will tip. But one thing's for sure, in the world of legal drama, there's always another twist just around the corner, or an invisible finger pressing down on the scales.
In Conclusion
The Federal Court's ruling on the unconstitutional use of the Emergency Measures Act is a significant moment in Canadian legal history. It underscores the vital role of the judiciary in upholding the rule of law, even in the face of unprecedented challenges. Moreover, it calls attention to the need for a more comprehensive legal framework that addresses violations of the Constitution, providing clarity on the penalties for those who breach our fundamental laws. It is a call to action for all Canadians to engage in a dialogue about accountability and the preservation of our democratic values.
