Leonid Sirota
@doubleaspect.blog
Legal academic; mostly Canadian and comparative public law. Associate Professor @unirdg-law.bsky.social; Senior Fellow, Macdonald Laurier Institute; blogger, doubleaspect.blog
My new favourite bit of notwithstanding clause trivia:
November 10, 2025 at 2:22 PM
My new favourite bit of notwithstanding clause trivia:
George Brown on Canadian union and American insanity. (The American government was, in fact, insane; not for the last time.)
November 7, 2025 at 2:54 PM
George Brown on Canadian union and American insanity. (The American government was, in fact, insane; not for the last time.)
More George Brown on immigration and ambition for one's country.
November 7, 2025 at 2:37 PM
More George Brown on immigration and ambition for one's country.
George Brown on Comeau. Oopsie!
November 7, 2025 at 1:55 PM
George Brown on Comeau. Oopsie!
George Brown on how to think about taxation and trade.
November 7, 2025 at 1:38 PM
George Brown on how to think about taxation and trade.
George Brown on the people whose opinion you want to get on the right side of when you have ambitions and aspirations for your country's future.
November 7, 2025 at 1:25 PM
George Brown on the people whose opinion you want to get on the right side of when you have ambitions and aspirations for your country's future.
Been called "some clown in England" at the other place, by some sad creature who goes by @TheKaiserSpeaks, which means I'm required to share this. I didn't make the rules!
November 5, 2025 at 5:05 PM
Been called "some clown in England" at the other place, by some sad creature who goes by @TheKaiserSpeaks, which means I'm required to share this. I didn't make the rules!
John A Macdonald on Yes, Kings (but not *that* kind)!
November 1, 2025 at 12:04 PM
John A Macdonald on Yes, Kings (but not *that* kind)!
Sir John A Macdonald stating the obvious during the Confederation Debates, February 6, 1865. The population of Canada at the time: a bit over 3 million. Being ambitious for your country means being open to immigration. Is there any country today that has this much ambition?
October 31, 2025 at 6:47 PM
Sir John A Macdonald stating the obvious during the Confederation Debates, February 6, 1865. The population of Canada at the time: a bit over 3 million. Being ambitious for your country means being open to immigration. Is there any country today that has this much ambition?
Sir John A Macdonald, describing the heights of political enmity during the Confederation Debates (February 6, 1865)
October 31, 2025 at 6:29 PM
Sir John A Macdonald, describing the heights of political enmity during the Confederation Debates (February 6, 1865)
Profound commentary from the longtime member of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal. ¿Por qué no te callas?
October 28, 2025 at 8:23 PM
Profound commentary from the longtime member of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal. ¿Por qué no te callas?
What's left is an argument about vibes. It was bad enough when that carried the day in the Nadon affair, but there was a plausible textual argument there too. Not so here. I hope this goes nowhere fast. 5/5
September 14, 2025 at 11:00 PM
What's left is an argument about vibes. It was bad enough when that carried the day in the Nadon affair, but there was a plausible textual argument there too. Not so here. I hope this goes nowhere fast. 5/5
Now statute: the Judges Act is where 10-year requirement comes from, but it can be met by bar membership in "any province", not necessarily the one from which the judge is ultimately appointed. The French text is a smidgen less explicit, but to the same effect. 4/5
September 14, 2025 at 11:00 PM
Now statute: the Judges Act is where 10-year requirement comes from, but it can be met by bar membership in "any province", not necessarily the one from which the judge is ultimately appointed. The French text is a smidgen less explicit, but to the same effect. 4/5
That's not exactly the case. Consider the Constitution first. The relevant provision is s 98 of the Constitution Act, 1867. Neither it nor the other provisions in the Judicature part specify a minimum length of bar membership. 3/5
September 14, 2025 at 11:00 PM
That's not exactly the case. Consider the Constitution first. The relevant provision is s 98 of the Constitution Act, 1867. Neither it nor the other provisions in the Judicature part specify a minimum length of bar membership. 3/5
For the record, here's what I said in my earlier post (doubleaspect.blog/2025/08/28/o...). I do not want people to not be considered for academic positions because of the school or movement they belong to. I've reason enough to think that I'm a victim of that myself.
September 9, 2025 at 8:16 PM
For the record, here's what I said in my earlier post (doubleaspect.blog/2025/08/28/o...). I do not want people to not be considered for academic positions because of the school or movement they belong to. I've reason enough to think that I'm a victim of that myself.
I have written about this before: doubleaspect.blog/2023/09/26/d.... Ideological bias in hiring is antithetical to a university's mission and indeed its status as a genuine academic institution.
September 4, 2025 at 4:02 PM
I have written about this before: doubleaspect.blog/2023/09/26/d.... Ideological bias in hiring is antithetical to a university's mission and indeed its status as a genuine academic institution.
Woke may be ending elsewhere but, in Canadian legal academia, ideological favouritism is still going strong. This is an ad from @windsorlaw.bsky.social (www.uwindsor.ca/faculty/recr...).
September 4, 2025 at 4:02 PM
Woke may be ending elsewhere but, in Canadian legal academia, ideological favouritism is still going strong. This is an ad from @windsorlaw.bsky.social (www.uwindsor.ca/faculty/recr...).
But this, I am afraid, is flatly wrong: an obiter dictum per incuriam if there ever was one. 6/6
August 11, 2025 at 7:42 PM
But this, I am afraid, is flatly wrong: an obiter dictum per incuriam if there ever was one. 6/6
Moreover, Huscroft JA calls into question the defrence to trial judges on "legislative facts" that the SCC demanded in Bedford. This was always one of my misgivings, probably the most clear-cut one, about the "empirical turn" Charter cases. The SCC should take note! 4/6
August 11, 2025 at 7:42 PM
Moreover, Huscroft JA calls into question the defrence to trial judges on "legislative facts" that the SCC demanded in Bedford. This was always one of my misgivings, probably the most clear-cut one, about the "empirical turn" Charter cases. The SCC should take note! 4/6
Huscroft JA also makes important comments on the need for equality rights claimants to show *how* the law they challenge discriminates against them; it can't just be statistics. 3/6
August 11, 2025 at 7:42 PM
Huscroft JA also makes important comments on the need for equality rights claimants to show *how* the law they challenge discriminates against them; it can't just be statistics. 3/6
Huscroft JA tries very hard to limit the expansion of s 3 of the Charter. It's rule-like, he says; the vague purposes the SCC has recognized are not the right, and do not override the text. 2/6
August 11, 2025 at 7:42 PM
Huscroft JA tries very hard to limit the expansion of s 3 of the Charter. It's rule-like, he says; the vague purposes the SCC has recognized are not the right, and do not override the text. 2/6
Mostly quite good decision by the ONCA rejecting a Charter challenge to Canada's first-past-the-post electoral system: coadecisions.ontariocourts.ca/coa/coa/en/i... Well worth reading, but here are some quick-fire thoughts. 1/6
August 11, 2025 at 7:42 PM
Mostly quite good decision by the ONCA rejecting a Charter challenge to Canada's first-past-the-post electoral system: coadecisions.ontariocourts.ca/coa/coa/en/i... Well worth reading, but here are some quick-fire thoughts. 1/6
This is what the Elections Canada results page looks like at the moment. I do not think they should be highlighting a "winner", let alone a "winner" who falls short of a majority. This is a judgment for Parliament, not for the people counting the votes.
April 29, 2025 at 11:07 AM
This is what the Elections Canada results page looks like at the moment. I do not think they should be highlighting a "winner", let alone a "winner" who falls short of a majority. This is a judgment for Parliament, not for the people counting the votes.