Welcome to Cases That Should Have Gone to the Supreme Court of Canada, But Didn’t! This week, lawyer Kyla Lee discusses judicial independence.
Acumen Law Corporation lawyer Kyla Lee gives her take on a made-in-Canada court case each week and discusses why these cases should have been heard by Canada’s highest court: the Supreme Court of Canada.
Eliana Marengo, a judge in Quebec, heard a case involving a woman who came to court wearing a hijab and because of certain legislation enforced in Quebec at the time, the woman was not permitted to be heard by the judge. The judge ordered her to either adjourn her hearing or consult with a lawyer. When the woman refused to do so, the hearing was adjourned and no further date was set.
Inbetween the time period where the hearing was adjourned and when the case was next ultimately scheduled to come before the court, 38 complaints were filed against this judge which alleged that this judge had acted improperly in enforcing that section of the Quebec legislation.
This case raises very important issues about the principle of judicial independence. While judges are bound by the law, and bound to apply the law, whether they apply the law and how they apply the law is supposed to be listed in their reasons for giving judgement on any particular issue.
The Supreme Court of Canada missed the opportunity here to clarify the importance of judicial independence even in the face of laws that clearly violate peoples human rights.
Watch the video for more.
