Sam Sasso’s Post

“The Supreme Court of Canada, like all Canadian courts, benefits from great trust on the part of citizens. However, today we are witnessing attacks on our judges and our institutions, something that we used to only see abroad... We have also witnessed all sorts of damage caused by court decisions being misreported or out of context for purposes of sensationalism.” ... This shouldn't have to be said and is very sad. How can an intelligent review of a decision occur if one doesn't actually read the judgment? How is any legal professional making an argument without reading a decision, first and foremost? Moreover, this is increasingly problematic and challenges competency if one fails to read a decision-- and then cites it! The entire legal profession needs to step up to combat disinformation, and we all have an obligation to not cause disrepute to the administration of justice by our inactions (or actions!).

“Limited immunity ends at the point where it no longer strikes a justifiable constitutional balance. If the state enacts legislation that is subsequently declared invalid and that is clearly unconstitutional, in bad faith or in an abuse of power, good governance concerns can no longer justify shielding the government from liability for violating Charter rights. Damages may instead “promote good governance” by supporting the “foundational principle of good governance” that state action must comply with the Constitution.” - para. 115.

On July 19, 2024, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in Canada (Attorney General) v. Power [2024 SCC 26], confirming that the state can be required to pay damages for enacting unconstitutional legislation. The Court ruled that the state is not immune from liability for damages when enacting laws that clearly violate the Charter or are enacted in bad faith or as an abuse of power. This decision, authored by Chief Justice Wagner and Justice Karakatsanis, emphasizes the balance between legislative autonomy and government accountability. It underscores that protecting Charter rights is paramount, even in legislative actions. How do you think this will impact future legislative processes and government accountability in Canada? #SupremeCourt #Canada #ConstitutionalLaw #CharterRights #LegalUpdate

SUPREME COURT OF CANADA All former British Colonies and Commonwealth Realms, the litigants suffers in silence, dying without justice and dignity. A universal unjust law problem, Read: IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA Ramesh Mishra v Attorney General of Canada File: A-311-98 lX Volumes of evidence of atrocities inflicted by the Canadian Judiciary on a Canadian citizen and 25 millions Canadian dollar valued property invaded by the City of Ottawa. Most judges of the Supreme Court of Canada went wild to protect the Shell Canada who teratogenically contaminated the Centertown of Ottawa where Ramesh Mishra owned property, Justin Trudeau a great Prime Minister to reform the Canadian Judiciary to protect the public. 90 % Canadians are self represented and mistreated by the wild judges, courts are dysfunctional and most lawyers are shysters. 90% Leave to Appeal Application are arbitrarily dismissed. Injustice to a human is injustice to all. Justin Trudeau is a skilled Prime Minister, he can reform Canada as a great country, Judges universally behave like God/Gooses, consciously mistreat litigants having superior intelligence than judges, Judges have to also reform themselves as a average human, More and more Canadians are unhappy with the cruel,unjust law.Canada due to atrocities and miscarriage of justice is no more a attractive country to the investors and the entrepreneur, who are leaving Canada. This is a lethal image of justice Canada.

Dead or Alive? The Supreme Court of Canada Will Decide A groundbreaking case is set to be reviewed by the Supreme Court of Canada, involving the annulment of a death declaration for Mr. Imanpoorsaid, who was previously presumed dead. This case challenges the integrity of death declarations and their irreversible impacts, following substantial evidence that he remains alive. 👉 Learn more about the intricacies of this case and its potential to reshape legal standards for declaring someone dead. https://ow.ly/jg0z50S1p3f #HullonEstates #DeadorAlive #DeathDeclaration

The Supreme Court of Canada confirms that the state can be required to pay damages for making unconstitutional legislation in limited circumstances. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Wagner and Justice Karakatsanis held that the answer to both questions is “yes”. The state is not entitled to an absolute immunity from liability for damages when it enacts unconstitutional legislation that infringes Charter rights. Rather, it may be liable for Charter damages if the legislation is clearly unconstitutional or was in bad faith or an abuse of power. An absolute immunity fails to properly reconcile the constitutional principles that protect legislative autonomy, such as parliamentary sovereignty and parliamentary privilege, and the principles that require the government be held accountable for infringing Charter rights, such as constitutionality and the rule of law. Each of these principles constitutes an essential part of Canada’s constitutional law and they must all be respected to achieve an appropriate separation of powers. By shielding the government from liability in even the most egregious circumstances, absolute immunity would subvert the principles that demand government accountability. Canada (Attorney General) v. Power

In Ontario, the rising cost of accessing the justice system is paid in two ways: time and money. So just how bad is it? And what are creative lawyers and judges doing to address the issue? This Law360 Canada article discusses the costs of access to justice: https://lnkd.in/dHjsDjSU.

Like the proverbial road to heaven, the way to the Supreme Court of Canada is narrow. Most litigants must apply for leave to appeal a case to the country’s highest Court. Hundreds of applications are filed each year, and the Court grants less than 10% on average. Parties can improve their chances of success by studying how the Supreme Court separates the wheat from the chaff. This is no easy task when the Court has crafted no bright-line rule and rarely gives a reason for granting or denying leave. In a recent bulletin, McMillan LLP lawyers Scott Maidment, Emily Rebecca Hush and Fernanda M. aim to assist would-be appellants with an overview of the legislative framework governing applications for leave to appeal and of other sources that provide insight into the criteria considered by the Court. Read more: https://bit.ly/4gG3jqM #cdnpoli #supremecourt #federalcourt #legalupdate

As expected, a "big" week for Supreme Court of Canada leave applications, with two leave applications granted: https://lnkd.in/gZnX-kVy The Court granted leave in R v Singer, a criminal case dealing with a search of a vehicle parked on a driveway. Our model had given that case a whopping 73% chance of getting leave (if you follow our model regularly, you'll know that that's an incredibly high probability compared to the ranges it usually gives). The Court also granted leave in Ville de Sainte-Julie v Investissements Laroda Inc., a case under the Quebec Civil Code that I won't pretend to understand the significance of. It garnered our model's third highest prediction this week, with a 10% chance.