QuoteHarper to appoint Ontario judges Karakatsanis and Moldaver to Supreme Court: reports
kirk makin
JUSTICE REPORTER— From Monday's Globe and Mail
Published Sunday, Oct. 16, 2011 9:53PM EDT
Last updated Monday, Oct. 17, 2011 8:29AM EDT
303 comments Email Print/License Decrease text size Increase text size The face of the Supreme Court of Canada is poised to change dramatically as the Harper government puts an indelible stamp on the court by naming two new nominees.
CTV reported late Sunday that Stephen Harper would on Monday announce the appointment of Madam Justice Andromache Karakatsanis and Mr. Justice Michael J. Moldaver, both judges on the Ontario Court of Appeal.
More related to this storyWhy we must tolerate hate
The real Thomas Mulcair
No appeal in Toronto police shooting case, Supreme Court rules
Video
Supreme Court deliver blow to big tobacco Video
Death row inmate Troy Davis executed Video
Ottawa reacts to Supreme Court drug site ruling The new judges will bring to four the number Mr. Harper has appointed, putting him within easy reach of refashioning a court that gets the final say on his tough-on-crime political agenda.
Judge Karakatsanis, who is fluent in English, French and Greek, would be the Supreme Court's first Greek-Canadian judge. Her appointment would forestall feminist criticism by maintaining the court's complement of female judges at four.
Judge Moldaver's nomination would be particularly applauded in the law-enforcement community.
A judge who typically does not believe in striking down legislation, Judge Moldaver has publicly decried a proliferation of litigation under the Charter of Rights. Both factors make him an ideal nominee for a government with an ambitious law and order agenda.
While neither appointee would comes as a surprise, both are likely to come under criticism for certain perceived vulnerabilities.
Having spent her career as a top civil servant, Judge Karakatsanis has vast administrative experience but little in the realities of a law practice. Her career on the bench has been short,and she has produced little in the way of significant jurisprudence.
Her nomination is also likely to come under fire because of her close connections to powerful Conservatives – most notably, Finance Minister James Flaherty, with whom she worked closely when he was Ontario's attorney-general.
Judge Moldaver's inability to speak French is sure to provoke a degree of controversy, as will a public stance he has taken against courtroom strategies he perceives as wasting court resources and bringing the Charter of Rights into disrepute.
The search for the nominees has been slow, forcing the court to launch its fall session with a seven-judge bench. With important cases lying just ahead, including an aboriginal sentencing case Monday and a case involving the right of Islamic witnesses to wear a niqab while testifying, the need to reach a full complement is acute.
Nominees will have to complete one final stage: a parliamentary committee hearing during which the nominees will respond to questions from MPs.
It will likely take at least two weeks before the hearing can be held, meaning that the two new judges will not take their places until well into November.
Since the parliamentary committee has no power to reject the nominees, their ultimate appointment is virtually certain.
Judge Binnie and Judge Charron announced their retirements last May, but the Department of Justice did not submit its top-secret list of 12 semi-finalists until late August.
Nine of those on the preliminary list were Ontario Court of Appeal judges, according to legal sources. The other three were lawyers in private practice or lower-court judges.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/harper-to-appoint-ontario-judges-karakatsanis-and-moldaver-to-supreme-court-ctv/article2202999/
Moldaver. :wub: :wub: :wub: I heard him speak at an Ontario Crown School in 2009. His talk was very much in line with the attitudes described in this article - blasting defence counsel for time-wasting strategies, for arguing that the system is too iften treated as merely a complex system of rules, and not aboutt he pursuit of truth.
I must admit I know nothing of Karakatsanis.
Moldaver? I hardly knew her.
Seriously, who's his cousin, Wallachier?
:ultra:
Great 2 ontarian square heads.
Quote from: Grey Fox on October 17, 2011, 09:12:48 AM
:ultra:
Great 2 ontarian square heads.
:rolleyes:
They're replacing two Ontario justices. Quebec still has it's traditional three.
Quote from: Barrister on October 17, 2011, 09:14:38 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on October 17, 2011, 09:12:48 AM
:ultra:
Great 2 ontarian square heads.
:rolleyes:
They're replacing two Ontario justices. Quebec still has it's traditional three.
No SCC justices should be from Ontario.
Quote from: Grey Fox on October 17, 2011, 09:20:01 AM
Quote from: Barrister on October 17, 2011, 09:14:38 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on October 17, 2011, 09:12:48 AM
:ultra:
Great 2 ontarian square heads.
:rolleyes:
They're replacing two Ontario justices. Quebec still has it's traditional three.
No SCC justices should be from Ontario.
But... Moldaver. :wub: :wub:
They're lawyers, and so are incapable of being of any use in the search for truth and justice.
Moldaver looks to be an excellent choice. I dont know much about the other appointee. It is a bit disconcerting that the media seems to be focusing on the extent to which each speaks French such that Moldaver comes across as a weak choice due to his unilingualism.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 17, 2011, 03:39:40 PM
Moldaver looks to be an excellent choice. I dont know much about the other appointee. It is a bit disconcerting that the media seems to be focusing on the extent to which each speaks French such that Moldaver comes across as a weak choice due to his unilingualism.
To the media, appointments are all about filling check boxes, and not at all about things like qualifications or skills.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 17, 2011, 03:39:40 PM
Moldaver looks to be an excellent choice. I dont know much about the other appointee. It is a bit disconcerting that the media seems to be focusing on the extent to which each speaks French such that Moldaver comes across as a weak choice due to his unilingualism.
Yeah, Moldaver is seen by lawyers here as a solid choice. No real opinion on the other one. Hasn't made much of a mark on the bench.
More complete story now up:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/pm-taps-ontario-judges-karakatsanis-moldaver-for-supreme-court/article2203240/page1/
Too long to post all of it, but if you go to pages 2 & 3 you'll see why I adore Moldaver so much. :wub:
QuoteJudge Karakatsanis began practicing law in 1982 after spending a year as law clerk to the Chief Justice of Ontario. She worked in criminal, civil and family litigation in a small Toronto firm.
From 1988 to 1995, she was chair and chief executive officer of the Liquor Licence Board of Ontario.
Her next administrative role was as Secretary of the Ontario Native Affairs Secretariat. Two years later, in 1997, she became deputy attorney-general.
In 2000, she rose to be Secretary of the Ontario Cabinet and Clerk of the Executive Council during the Mike Harris Conservative government. As the senior public servant in Ontario, she held a dominant leadership position over the province's deputy ministers and the public service.
Judge Karakatsanis was appointed to Superior Court of Ontario in 2002 and served as Administrative Judge for the Small Claims Court in Toronto. She was elevated to the Ontario Court of Appeal last year.
They chose this woman over Sharpe? :huh:
She has a solid record - as an administrator. Seems an offputting appointment.
Quote from: Malthus on October 17, 2011, 04:36:32 PM
QuoteJudge Karakatsanis began practicing law in 1982 after spending a year as law clerk to the Chief Justice of Ontario. She worked in criminal, civil and family litigation in a small Toronto firm.
From 1988 to 1995, she was chair and chief executive officer of the Liquor Licence Board of Ontario.
Her next administrative role was as Secretary of the Ontario Native Affairs Secretariat. Two years later, in 1997, she became deputy attorney-general.
In 2000, she rose to be Secretary of the Ontario Cabinet and Clerk of the Executive Council during the Mike Harris Conservative government. As the senior public servant in Ontario, she held a dominant leadership position over the province's deputy ministers and the public service.
Judge Karakatsanis was appointed to Superior Court of Ontario in 2002 and served as Administrative Judge for the Small Claims Court in Toronto. She was elevated to the Ontario Court of Appeal last year.
They chose this woman over Sharpe? :huh:
She has a solid record - as an administrator. Seems an offputting appointment.
She is a:
-woman
-Greek (First Greek SCC Justice can't hurt)
-bilingual
-strong, but defensible ties to Flaherty and Ontario PCs
Quote from: Malthus on October 17, 2011, 04:36:32 PM
They chose this woman over Sharpe? :huh:
Given the cultural sensitivies in Canada, picking a man most famous for shooting Frenchmen might be seen as unduly provocative.
Quote from: Barrister on October 17, 2011, 04:41:03 PM
-Greek (First Greek SCC Justice can't hurt)
The EU made a decision based on that fact and are regretting it to this day. Have we learned nothing!
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 17, 2011, 05:07:26 PM
Quote from: Malthus on October 17, 2011, 04:36:32 PM
They chose this woman over Sharpe? :huh:
Given the cultural sensitivies in Canada, picking a man most famous for shooting Frenchmen might be seen as unduly provocative.
Yet oh so satisfying.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 17, 2011, 05:07:26 PM
Quote from: Malthus on October 17, 2011, 04:36:32 PM
They chose this woman over Sharpe? :huh:
Given the cultural sensitivies in Canada, picking a man most famous for shooting Frenchmen might be seen as unduly provocative.
Actually, his fame in the field of Injunctions and Specific Performance texts now trumps his Frenchman-shooting exploits.
Evidently he has switched careers along with centuries. :D
Quote from: Barrister on October 17, 2011, 04:41:03 PM
She is a:
-woman
-Greek (First Greek SCC Justice can't hurt)
-bilingual
-strong, but defensible ties to Flaherty and Ontario PCs
She is not a:
- well-known judge or learned legal authority
Quote from: Malthus on October 17, 2011, 06:00:21 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 17, 2011, 04:41:03 PM
She is a:
-woman
-Greek (First Greek SCC Justice can't hurt)
-bilingual
-strong, but defensible ties to Flaherty and Ontario PCs
She is not a:
- well-known judge or learned legal authority
But based on media reports that does not matter because she is:
- Female
Quote from: Malthus on October 17, 2011, 06:00:21 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 17, 2011, 04:41:03 PM
She is a:
-woman
-Greek (First Greek SCC Justice can't hurt)
-bilingual
-strong, but defensible ties to Flaherty and Ontario PCs
She is not a:
- well-known judge or learned legal authority
If Sharpe got a sex-change, he would have been in for sure. The optics of putting a sex-change weirdo on the bench would have been too good. Double check-box for 'woman' and fag.
Our SC is more powerful than your SC.
Of course, here in Amerika, lawyers reign supreme over the peasant masses.
Quote from: Tonitrus on October 17, 2011, 07:56:38 PM
Our SC is more powerful than your SC.
Of course, here in Amerika, lawyers reign supreme over the peasant masses.
That might have been true once, but the Charter of Rights removed all the rights from the people and placed them in the Supreme Court. Now, they hold absolute power over Canada. They're Canada's Politburo.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 17, 2011, 09:26:30 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on October 17, 2011, 07:56:38 PM
Our SC is more powerful than your SC.
How so?
Scalia is always packing under that robe. Curiously our SC is made up entirely of Jews and Catholics.
American protestants have regressed into a religious stupor over the last few decades.
Quote from: Neil on October 17, 2011, 09:32:32 PM
American protestants have regressed into a religious stupor over the last few decades.
It's not a real religion. Incidentally the Protestant view of the Bible is very similar to the Conservative view of the Constitution likewise the Catholic view of the Bible is not dissimilar to Liberal view of the Constitution. For example when I was last on Pdox some GOPtards were arguing that the 3/5ths clause should apply to illegal immigrants. Apparently this a popular idea amongst Glenn Beck fans, based on personal interpretation of the Constitution.
It's definitely a real religion. Millions fought and died for it.
I think the advantage that Catholics have is that they're used to ignoring authority, since the Catholic Church has been at odds with reality for so long that even their adherents don't really pay much attention to them anymore.
Quote from: Neil on October 17, 2011, 10:33:50 PM
It's definitely a real religion. Millions fought and died for it.
I think the advantage that Catholics have is that they're used to ignoring authority, since the Catholic Church has been at odds with reality for so long that even their adherents don't really pay much attention to them anymore.
History is full of people dying for things that aren't a real religion. The Catholic church has so many doctrine that have been fought over and argued that it's a bit like case law. Similar to Judaism, it makes it a natural fit for a judge.
Quote from: Malthus on October 17, 2011, 05:59:09 PM
Actually, his fame in the field of Injunctions and Specific Performance texts
Classic material for trial court judges. Peter Principle?
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 17, 2011, 03:39:40 PM
It is a bit disconcerting that the media seems to be focusing on the extent to which each speaks French such that Moldaver comes across as a weak choice due to his unilingualism.
it is a weak choice because of that. French citizens now face discrimination in Supreme Court as they can't get a full panel to understand their case.
Quote from: viper37 on October 18, 2011, 03:06:09 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 17, 2011, 03:39:40 PM
It is a bit disconcerting that the media seems to be focusing on the extent to which each speaks French such that Moldaver comes across as a weak choice due to his unilingualism.
it is a weak choice because of that. French citizens now face discrimination in Supreme Court as they can't get a full panel to understand their case.
Maybe they should try speaking English. You know, the language of civilization, art, culture and law?
Quote from: viper37 on October 18, 2011, 03:06:09 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 17, 2011, 03:39:40 PM
It is a bit disconcerting that the media seems to be focusing on the extent to which each speaks French such that Moldaver comes across as a weak choice due to his unilingualism.
it is a weak choice because of that. French citizens now face discrimination in Supreme Court as they can't get a full panel to understand their case.
You continue to show your ignorance of the Supreme Court.
First, Quebec has a long-standing tradition of having three justices out of nine (which, by the way, is well above Quebec's proportion of the population).
Those Quebec Justices invariably take the lead on French language cases, and will write the decision.
Finally, there is simultaneous translation of oral arguments in any event.
Quote from: Barrister on October 18, 2011, 03:14:49 PM
Those Quebec Justices invariably take the lead on French language cases, and will write the decision.
If it's criminal law, it's the same law everywhere and the Quebec judge will be bilingual. So, an english Canadian could have his case heard by 9 judges out of 9. A French Canadian is limited at 7, in the best case scenario. I'd hate to be judged by someone who can't understand me.
It ain't about numbers. This country is supposed to be a bilingual country. If Canadians can't live with that fact, than they should stop pretending.
If translations were ok, there wouldn't be a need for bilingual judges in Quebec, they could only speak French and judge Quebec&Canadian citizens using the translations for every cases... Yet, I can't imagine it would ever happen. But in Canada, it seems it's not a problem. One was already bad enough, now 2...
When will we have a full SC in English only, just like in the goold ol' times, the times this government is dreaming about?
Quote
Finally, there is simultaneous translation of oral arguments in any event.
wich is unfortunately insufficient, has it has been demonstrated in the past. Stopping a lawyer during his plea because the translator can't catch up is bad form. The alternative is not understanding the case... Neither of wich is good.
Quote from: viper37 on October 18, 2011, 03:30:05 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 18, 2011, 03:14:49 PM
Those Quebec Justices invariably take the lead on French language cases, and will write the decision.
If it's criminal law, it's the same law everywhere and the Quebec judge will be bilingual. So, an english Canadian could have his case heard by 9 judges out of 9. A French Canadian is limited at 7, in the best case scenario. I'd hate to be judged by someone who can't understand me.
It ain't about numbers. This country is supposed to be a bilingual country. If Canadians can't live with that fact, than they should stop pretending.
If translations were ok, there wouldn't be a need for bilingual judges in Quebec, they could only speak French and judge Quebec&Canadian citizens using the translations for every cases... Yet, I can't imagine it would ever happen. But in Canada, it seems it's not a problem. One was already bad enough, now 2...
When will we have a full SC in English only, just like in the goold ol' times, the times this government is dreaming about?
Quote
Finally, there is simultaneous translation of oral arguments in any event.
wich is unfortunately insufficient, has it has been demonstrated in the past. Stopping a lawyer during his plea because the translator can't catch up is bad form. The alternative is not understanding the case... Neither of wich is good.
First of all - I seriously doubt that each and every Quebec judge is bilingual. There's no need. As long as you have French speaking judges for French trials, and English speaking judges for English trials, then you're fine.
Second - there's a world of difference between a trial judge and an appeals judge. A trial judge has to be able to listen to witnesses. An appeals judge does not. An appeals judge doesn't have to assess credibility of a witness.
Third - you can read Harper's dreams? :tinfoil:
Fourth - Why would a Quebec case be limited to seven judges? Moldaver will sit in on cases coming out of Quebec. He just likely won't take the lead on them. I don't know the precise details on how it works, but I understand that individual justices will be tasked with taking charge of individual cases. They aren't all equally involved in every case.
Fifth - a panel of seven has virtually no difference from a panel of nine in terms of precedential value. The only slight difference is if a panel of seven were to split 4-3, since there's the theoretical risk that a full panel of nine would have gone 5-4. As a result when the court does have to sit with less than nine they try very hard to have a solid majority in place.
Viper... this is very difficult to argue with you, since you get so many basic facts wrong. I suppose there is an argument to be made that all SCC justices should know French. The Quebec Bar Association has made that point of view quite clear. It's just that you aren't making an argument that makes much sense.
Quote from: Barrister on October 18, 2011, 03:38:26 PM
First of all - I seriously doubt that each and every Quebec judge is bilingual. There's no need. As long as you have French speaking judges for French trials, and English speaking judges for English trials, then you're fine.
outside of municipal courts, there's no way someone will make it to judge without being bilingual.
Quote
Second - there's a world of difference between a trial judge and an appeals judge. A trial judge has to be able to listen to witnesses. An appeals judge does not. An appeals judge doesn't have to assess credibility of a witness.
they have to listen to the lawyers though.
Quote
Third - you can read Harper's dreams? :tinfoil:
Nope, but I'm starting to have a good guess by now, given the priorities of this government (wich was supposed to be the economy and the deficit reduction, not overspending, and royal fetishes, btw, but that's another subject).
Quote
Fourth - Why would a Quebec case be limited to seven judges? Moldaver will sit in on cases coming out of Quebec. He just likely won't take the lead on them. I don't know the precise details on how it works, but I understand that individual justices will be tasked with taking charge of individual cases. They aren't all equally involved in every case.
I'd feel uneasy having a judge who does not understand my lawyers and will rely solely on court translations hearing my appeal case.
Quote
Viper... this is very difficult to argue with you, since you get so many basic facts wrong. I suppose there is an argument to be made that all SCC justices should know French. The Quebec Bar Association has made that point of view quite clear. It's just that you aren't making an argument that makes much sense.
I'm making the same argument, you know. Bilingual country, bilingual judges. I'm not asking for all city judges near Red Deer to be bilingual, just for the Supreme Court. I believe it's essential. You never know if the judge will miss something in translation.