Can the Ontario Supreme Court rule C 36 Unconstitutional? Then what?

[Czar]

It could be that this law will fail on its own. The sooner the better as I have to comply with it. For now I am strictly only getting back massages which is what I did a lot of anyways. I suppose in any situation more could happen but I do like a back rub and not from some guy or 250 pounder at the RMT places. But maybe soon the law will be deemed as unconstitutional.

 

[MPAsquared]

I agree voting JT means holding one's nose tightly but the unfortunate reality is Green Party and NDP who would both be my choice over JT do not stand a chance of unseating the Devils so based on strategic voting as in the Provincial elections JT is the only choice.

Agreed. Except that saying that doesn't change votes. Voting Ndp or green does. They can't win if folks choose dumb or dumber.

 

[TeasePlease]

It has to be crim, Decrim, or Nordic. Nordic is done. Scc said ANY criminalization harms sex workers, AND takes away their constitutional rights. The next gov can try crim but we'll end up back at the scc again. Also, a lot has changed since bedford, since june, since the 6th. Our fight has waaaaay more muscle.

You are failing to acknowledge this. And present any reasoning behind your stance. No gov wants to be the next flop a-la-conservative. But you love the cons, so you are more bias than me.

Come on. You've read the decision and done lots of homework. That's not what the SCC said. You can choose to interpret the obiter liberally, but that's not how law works.

My reasoning has been set out many times in these threads. There is no constitutional right to engage in any profession. There is no inherent right to earn a living through a particular means. That's the logic.

 

[MPAsquared]

Come on. You've read the decision and done lots of homework. That's not what the SCC said. You can choose to interpret the obiter liberally, but that's not how law works.

My reasoning has been set out many times in these threads. There is no constitutional right to engage in any profession. There is no inherent right to earn a living through a particular means. That's the logic.

That's not what the scc said. Right to safety & security. Any criminalization of prostitution creates harm. No one said anything about the right to hook.

 

[drlove]

There is not an Ontario Supreme Court but there is an Ontario Superior Court. Any provincial gov't can ask their highest court in their province for a referral on the constitutionality of any bill. The fact that Wynne has asked her AG to look into this suggests that the Premier feels this particular law is unconstitutional. It is highly unlikely her AG will report back to her that no, everything's fine with this law, start arresting the Johns. If that's what Wynne thought the outcome would be she wouldn't have asked. The fact that Joyless Smith stood up in the House and railed against the provincial Liberals for pursuing this suggests even the federal Cons already know the outcome of a referral.
First the AG has to report back to Wynne that she feels the law is unconstitutional, then the Premier would instruct the AG to seek a referral in the Ontario Court. Meanwhile the law would not be enforced in Ontario and once it was found unconstitutional and against the Charter it would be as good as dead, at least in Ontario.
The federal gov't would have the right to appeal. If it's still the Cons, of course they would appeal. I think the Libs or NDP would just leave it at that and let the Law die.

Interesting... if the above occurs - that is, the law not being enforced in Ontario, would that automatically translate to other provinces as well?

 

[PornAddict]

Actually, it is the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.

Step 1 ontario superior court ( Lowest level of Court) basically only one judge

Then you
Step 2 Have the appellete Court ( i think 3 judges not sure need to rule on case) basically it appeals courts

Step 3
then finally the highest level of Court
supreme Court of Canada ( 7 judges to hear and rule on the case)

I think all case have to follow from step 1 then step 2 then finally step 3. ( for all civil and criminal cases) .Someone can correct me if i am wrong.

so to overturn bill c36 ... I think you have to follow this steps.

i think it will take a mininium 5 year to go to the supreme court of canada ...mostly likely it will take 10 year to reach to supreme of court of canada .( Think abortion law that took over 10 year to be heard in the supreme court of canada)

 

[TeasePlease]

If I'm not mistaken, Criminal Code matters are dealt with in the Ontario Court of Justice, not the Superior Court?

 

[Hard Idle]

It's a mistake to push for a supreme court challenge before the federal election.

If somehow a province forces a fast-track to the Supreme Court to defeat or cripple C36, the Harper government will simply replace it with yet another re-packaging of the same things.

And don't believe for one second that any of the major parties will accept to be the ones standing for wide open legal prostitution going into a national election. Both the Liberal & NDP actions would be different before an election as opposed to what they might do if the issue came up early in their mandate.

All the parties will perceive too many potential votes - the Right for "protecting families" and the Left for "protecting women" to not have some sort of prostitution reduction strategy close to election time.

As for Reform, they will probably defend the criminalization policy to the death - they could reason that sometime in the next term might come the opportunity to appoint a second SC Justice, eventually tipping the odds in favor of C36 or whatever they have in it's place years from now.

 

[Marla]

Much to the angst of the rest of the legislature, Harper has been covertly filling the Supreme Court seats, without due process with his cronies. So it may be an unbalanced Supreme Court in favor of rhe Conservatives by the time the appeal arrives there. Albeit, it will arrive so unfavorably and unpopular, peer pressure may drive them to appeal it, but it is anyone's guess what will happen 5 years from now and what bias the court will have.

 

[Justine]

Oh my God, I just completely DEFEATED the justice league.



That pimp bitch tried to make a FALSE STATEMENT TO POLICE, and then had her pimp boyfriend threaten me in the mall.

After a long, terrible court journey, the result is:

CASE WITHDRAWN

They told me to sign a common law peace bond, but I refused, and demanded a trial.

They told me to talk to duty council, so I went and ate a donut and drank coffee.

xxx

I came back and demanded my police video, of police misconduct.

That old hag prosecutor said she is still dropping the charges, as its not worth pursuing.

Then I told them about the lies and death threats. The judge told me I could presue legal action at a later time.

Old hag prosecutor chimed in, and said I wouldn’t leave the hallway and had a sign saying “GO AWAY HOOKERS”. Why would I have a sign saying that ? The sign was faked by the threatening mall guy.

Before leaving I looked directly at the judge and said:

FALSE

STATEMENT
TO
POLICE

He looked amused and kinda gave me a smile.

The old hag looked ANGRY because I played the old bitch for the dummy she is. Her face looked like a mask of defeat. DUMB BITCH.

FUCKERS.

 

[rld]

Much to the angst of the rest of the legislature, Harper has been covertly filling the Supreme Court seats, without due process with his cronies. So it may be an unbalanced Supreme Court in favor of rhe Conservatives by the time the appeal arrives there. Albeit, it will arrive so unfavorably and unpopular, peer pressure may drive them to appeal it, but it is anyone's guess what will happen 5 years from now and what bias the court will have.

With greatest of respect Marla the PM has not been quietly filling the SCC with his cronies without transparency.

In fact, it was the Conseratives who started the whole public review idea for SCC nominees which the vast majority of legal scholars and jurists never liked. It appears (thankfully) we are moving away from that media clown show back to the traditional way of appointing justices.

I trust you are aware that the majority of the court that struck down the law were Harper appointees, and that all of the Harper appointees voted that the law was unconstitutional. I have no idea how you can believe that Harper appointees would scuttle a constitutional challenge on a political basis in the of those facts.

You seem to think our SCC is like SCOTUS when they are two very different beasts.

 

[rhuarc29]

Ndp are the only ones with some sense

They have some sense on this one issue. They're nonsensical on just about everything else.

 

[GPIDEAL]

It has to be crim, Decrim, or Nordic. Nordic is done. Scc said ANY criminalization harms sex workers, AND takes away their constitutional rights. The next gov can try crim but we'll end up back at the scc again. Also, a lot has changed since bedford, since june, since the 6th. Our fight has waaaaay more muscle.

You are failing to acknowledge this. And present any reasoning behind your stance. No gov wants to be the next flop a-la-conservative. But you love the cons, so you are more bias than me.



I'm the child of a teacher, "rae days" were a constant topic of discussion in my house.

But, you guys don't make any sense. Federal & provincial are different. You don't like the cons. You don't like the liberals. Now you don't like Ndp either. You guys are more confusing than women!

Jt? I've never said i'd vote jt.

I'm a fiscal conservative but C-36 has added to the confusion. Sometimes we vote for the lesser of evils. Who knows, if the law isn't enforced, I might still favor C over L.

 

[GPIDEAL]

They have some sense on this one issue. They're nonsensical on just about everything else.

Well put.

 

[GPIDEAL]

With greatest of respect Marla the PM has not been quietly filling the SCC with his cronies without transparency.

In fact, it was the Conseratives who started the whole public review idea for SCC nominees which the vast majority of legal scholars and jurists never liked. It appears (thankfully) we are moving away from that media clown show back to the traditional way of appointing justices.

I trust you are aware that the majority of the court that struck down the law were Harper appointees, and that all of the Harper appointees voted that the law was unconstitutional. I have no idea how you can believe that Harper appointees would scuttle a constitutional challenge on a political basis in the of those facts.

You seem to think our SCC is like SCOTUS when they are two very different beasts.

He's right Marla.

I believe Harper lost some battles against the SCC.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...ash-supreme-court-5-harper-0/article18295214/