Alberta appeal court judge Russell Brown named to Supreme Court of Canada

[dapaterson]

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Alberta+appeal+court+judge+Russell+Brown+named+Supreme+Court+Canada/11246818/story.html

From the "Nailed it in the spring" department, Canadian Lawyer Magazine predicted this last April

If the next choice comes from Harper’s adopted home province of Alberta, one of the potential candidates is Frans Slatter, a respected judge on its Court of Appeal.

However, another more recent appointment to the Alberta Court of Appeal may be more in line with the prime minister’s view of the role of the judiciary.

Justice Russell Brown was appointed to the Court of Appeal last year after just 13 months on the Court of Queen’s Bench.

The former associate dean at the University of Alberta law school is also a past member of the advisory council of the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms. The right-of-centre legal organization is headed by John Carpay, an unsuccessful candidate for the Wildrose party in the last Alberta election.

A past endorsement from Brown is included on the organization’s web site.

“Current events remind us that the notion of limited government, particularly as it pertains to freedom of conscience and freedom of expression, can never be taken for granted in Canada,” wrote Brown, who suggested Carpay’s organization would become one of the country’s “most important” watchdog.

http://www.canadianlawyermag.com/legalfeeds/2665/tricky-to-predict-who-will-replace-justice-rothstein.html

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Alberta+appeal+court+judge+Russell+Brown+named+Supreme+Court+Canada/11246818/story.html

From the "Nailed it in the spring" department, Canadian Lawyer Magazine predicted this last April

http://www.canadianlawyermag.com/legalfeeds/2665/tricky-to-predict-who-will-replace-justice-rothstein.html

The CLM didn't "nail" it. They gave multiple possibilities depending on the province from which the judge would be appointed (not necessarily Alberta, and even for Alberta, it gave two choices). They no more "nailed" it than an economist giving you ten possible scenarios then claiming "See, See, I told you so" when one of them becomes fact.  :nod:

 

[dapaterson]

Well, there's always the most reliable source in Ottawa that made the same prediction back in April as well: Frank magazine.

http://frankmag.ca/2015/04/at-the-bar-supreme-court-sweepstakes/

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Now, that is nailing it! 

 

[dapaterson]

Is it unusual for a judge to be named to the supreme court after only two years on the bench?  I'd think that for such an important position that a larger body of work to assess might be in order.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

No, not necessarily. In fact, many are appointed directly from being lawyers (as was the latest appointment for Quebec, a lawyer that was not even a litigator), never having been on the bench before. And of those, many were in fact not practicing lawyers, but were rather university professors. Moreover, appointment to the various court of appeals of university professors is a frequent thing, and many of those then get elevated to the supreme court.

Experience on the bench of a lower court can be useful, but not necessary, as the courts of appeals and the supreme court do not hear witnesses or deal with evidentiary hearings, but rather only review past records for errors by the lower judges - a matter of law or pure logic (i.e. to find a patent error of fact).

 

[Edward Campbell]

No, not necessarily. In fact, many are appointed directly from being lawyers (as was the latest appointment for Quebec, a lawyer that was not even a litigator), never having been on the bench before. And of those, many were in fact not practicing lawyers, but were rather university professors. Moreover, appointment to the various court of appeals of university professors is a frequent thing, and many of those then get elevated to the supreme court.

Experience on the bench of a lower court can be useful, but not necessary, as the courts of appeals and the supreme court do not hear witnesses or deal with evidentiary hearings, but rather only review past records for errors by the lower judges - a matter of law or pure logic (i.e. to find a patent error of fact).

Indeed, the late Justice John Sopinka and recently retired Justice Ian Bennie come to mind.

 

[FJAG]

Indeed, the late Justice John Sopinka and recently retired Justice Ian Bennie come to mind.

And both were excellent judges on the SCC.

It's not the lack of experience on the bench that scares me. Nor is it a bent towards a more conservative interpretation of the Charter/Constitution and restraint of some of the excesses of judicial activism. What concerns me is if members of the SCC were to start to apply faith-based rationale in analysing such issues as marriage, homosexuality, abortion etc. The US SCC is a perfect example of what can happen if you start loading the court with half-wits who start twisting the law to accommodate Christian fundamentalism.

Freedom of religion does not (in my book) equate to a system of laws (whether legislated or court imposed) based on religious prejudices/principles. For me it means that everyone can worship whoever or whatever they want as long as it does not harm or restrict other individuals' fundamental rights nor society in general.

In my mind one of the most important functions of the SCC is to be a check on the legislature when it starts to go down the road of faith-based laws. So far the SCC has done that job fairly well.

:cheers:

 

[Edward Campbell]

And both were excellent judges on the SCC.

It's not the lack of experience on the bench that scares me. Nor is it a bent towards a more conservative interpretation of the Charter/Constitution and restraint of some of the excesses of judicial activism. What concerns me is if members of the SCC were to start to apply faith-based rationale in analysing such issues as marriage, homosexuality, abortion etc. The US SCC is a perfect example of what can happen if you start loading the court with half-wits who start twisting the law to accommodate Christian fundamentalism.

Freedom of religion does not (in my book) equate to a system of laws (whether legislated or court imposed) based on religious prejudices/principles. For me it means that everyone can worship whoever or whatever they want as long as it does not harm or restrict other individuals' fundamental rights nor society in general.

In my mind one of the most important functions of the SCC is to be a check on the legislature when it starts to go down the road of faith-based laws. So far the SCC has done that job fairly well.

:cheers:

:bravo:

I want "freedom OF religion" for all Canadians and I want "freedom FROM religion" from my government and the courts.

 

[dapaterson]

The US SCC is a perfect example of what can happen if you start loading the court with half-wits who start twisting the law to accommodate Christian fundamentalism.

With that comment, I'm assuming that you aren't intending to appear before them as counsel of record any time soon

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

:bravo:

I want "freedom OF religion" for all Canadians and I want "freedom FROM religion" from my government and the courts.

Not enough, though: I also want freedom FROM religion  from my fellow canadians.

Or as my wife so kindly put it once to pair of Jehovah witnesses: "Let's have a deal here. You don't preach to me and I don't punch you in the face to get you off my property".

 

[Edward Campbell]

I'm not sure I can, reasonably, demand "freedom FROM religion" from the fellow citizens? How far can/should that go? I get that door to door "missionaries" are a PITA, but so are telemarketers. But what about church bells and the call to prayer by a Muslim muezzin blasted out several times a day? They might be unwelcome by some people, too. Where do we draw lines?

I believe I have a fair case to demand "freedom FROM religion" from governments and courts, I'm less sure that my rights should trump those of others in these private matters.

 

[TCM621]

And both were excellent judges on the SCC.

It's not the lack of experience on the bench that scares me. Nor is it a bent towards a more conservative interpretation of the Charter/Constitution and restraint of some of the excesses of judicial activism. What concerns me is if members of the SCC were to start to apply faith-based rationale in analysing such issues as marriage, homosexuality, abortion etc. The US SCC is a perfect example of what can happen if you start loading the court with half-wits who start twisting the law to accommodate Christian fundamentalism.

Freedom of religion does not (in my book) equate to a system of laws (whether legislated or court imposed) based on religious prejudices/principles. For me it means that everyone can worship whoever or whatever they want as long as it does not harm or restrict other individuals' fundamental rights nor society in general.

In my mind one of the most important functions of the SCC is to be a check on the legislature when it starts to go down the road of faith-based laws. So far the SCC has done that job fairly well.

:cheers:

The SCC already is making decisions based on a set of moral codes rather than legal ones. If they started to used a Christian based morality,  little would change except that the outcome would be less palpable to the more secular Canadians.

I don't think the problem is one of faith based values, I think it more about value judgements at all.  The fact is that the SCC is supposed to discuss and rule on law not make it. Currently they effectively make law by applying moral arguments to legal cases.

 

[Rocky Mountains]

It's not the lack of experience on the bench that scares me. Nor is it a bent towards a more conservative interpretation of the Charter/Constitution and restraint of some of the excesses of judicial activism.

Damnedest thing.  You elect a Conservative government three times in a row and they appoint conservative judges.  The word you should be looking for is democracy.  I get sick of judges pulling the law out of their rears to satisfy a personal moral imperative.