The Power of Perspectives

The Canadian Bar Association

Justin Ling

Trade

Beer pressure

By Justin Ling May 10, 2017 10 May 2017

Beer pressure

 

When the Supreme Court granted leave last week to hear the appeal in R. v. Comeau, there was elation in all sorts of different corners of the country.

Free marketeers are hoping the top court will finally pave the way for legal challenges to enforce the sort of free-trading union that (they suspect) the framers of the constitution always wanted.

Wine aficionados are anticipating the pleasure sipping B.C. wine in Nova Scotia, and Nova Scotia wine in B.C.

For provincial governments, the hope is that a ruling will reinforce their long-held power to regulate and manage certain domestic industries at their province’s borders.

Caught in the middle of it all are the provincial liquor boards, whose very existence might be on the line.

Read More
Inter-provincial trade

Interprovincial beer case heads to the SCC

By Justin Ling May 5, 2017 5 May 2017

Interprovincial beer case heads to the SCC

A case that will decide the fate of Canadian liquor laws, and perhaps inter-provincial trade itself, is heading to the Supreme Court.

R. v. Comeau, which found that a ticket issued against Gerard Comeau ran afoul of the Constitution Act, 1867, was decided at the Provincial Court Of New Brunswick in 2016.

Since then, the province has tried to appeal to both New Brunswick Court of Appeal and the Court of Queen’s Bench, to little avail. Their hail mary pass, which came with the enthusiastic support of Comeau himself, was to file for leave to the Supreme Court.

The top court granted leave yesterday.

Read More
Trade

Why we can't seem to solve the softwood dispute for good

By Justin Ling April 27, 2017 27 April 2017

Why we can't seem to solve the softwood dispute for good

 

How many softwood lumber disputes is it going to take before Canada gets a long-term deal with the U.S.?

This last week appears to have been the beginning of Lumber V, the fifth incarnation of a long-standing trade dispute that has taken place on the margins of NAFTA, wherein Washington has consistently insisted that Ottawa has dumped subsidized lumber into its market. Trade tribunals — even America’s own internal trade authorities — have sided with Canada.

Indeed, past disputes have wound up before arbitration, and led to agreements that have cooled cross-border sniping on the file. Now the two countries have been without a deal since 2015.

And while Prime Minister Justin Trudeau had marathon talks to try and get a deal to pre-empt Lumber V, none came (according to one former U.S. trade representative, Canada was close to sealing one with the Obama administration, but decided to hold out for better terms with his successor). And, as such, President Donald Trump has picked up the mantle.

Read More
Criminal law

Will the new roadside testing rules pass a Charter challenge?

By Justin Ling April 21, 2017 21 April 2017

Will the new roadside testing rules pass a Charter challenge?

 

Much has already been made of the Liberal government’s pledge to legalize marijuana, and parliamentary debate has yet to even begin.

But one element of the massive legislative effort that has received less scrutiny is a pledge to implement mandatory roadside tests for intoxication — the common breathalyzer test for alcohol, and the still-unproven oral swab test for THC, the psychoactive component in marijuana.

Bill C-46, the legislation updating the Criminal Code’s impaired driving sections, reads that a police officer may, in their “lawful exercise of powers under an Act of Parliament or an Act of a provincial legislature or arising at common law … by demand, require the person who is operating a motor vehicle to immediately provide the samples of breath.”

Read More
Criminal law

The system will adapt to Jordan

By Justin Ling April 12, 2017 12 April 2017

The system will adapt to Jordan

 

Ever since the Supreme Court put a hard cap on trial delays, and the subsequent slew of stays of proceedings in a variety of high-profile cases, there’s been a spirited debate over where to point the finger: At the top court for fumbling the file? At Ottawa, for its lackadaisical response? Or at the Crown, for failing to prioritize serious offences?

The finger pointing has correlated with a rise in attention over the impact of R. v. Jordan, the case that led the supreme justices to shoulder the prosecution with an obligation to conclude the trial within 18 months, 30 for serious offences, barring certain circumstances.

A high-profile case in Montreal is the most recent one to shine the light, where the prosecution of a man accused of brutally murdering his wife was stayed because it passed the 30 month ceiling — a delay caused largely by the prosecution’s push to upgrade second-degree charges to first-degree, contended the accused’s counsel, Joseph La Leggia.

Read More