Ah yes, Canadian regulators, famously unconcerned with life safety

It should be considered an in kind donation to Mandani

Because the scenario they described had no connection to the actual facts of the case.

I'm not sure why Parliament chose that (if anything too low) number. But it in a democracy, criminal justice policy should be the citizen's choice through their elected repsentatives, not 9 unaccountable lawyers

If the Supreme Court is just going to make up scenarios disconnected from the actual cases in front of it, parliament cant have any certainty as to judicial findings on the laws it passes

Or the 18 year old is the heir to a fortune, or even just from a middle class family that might have more resources than these criminals. That's the problem with hypotheticals, there are no facts to judge.

I'm aware its become standard practice, but that doesnt mean its not problematic

Of course he did. Though it was only about half as sanctimonious as I expected.

Missing in that and all the other defenses is any consideration to whether parliament considered those scenarios and decided other considerations outweighed them.

bsky.app/profile/sdlb...

For all we know Parliament contemplated that very scenario and decided that the deterrence and denounciation interests outweighed the hypothetical injustice. In a democracy that ought to be the legislative branch's determination to make.

The job of contemplating hypothetical scenarios rightly belongs to parliament when writing the law. When courts depart from the facts in front of them they are no longer acting in their proper role and instead are undemocraticly legislating from the bench.

Then let the fictional 18 year old contest it. Its telling that the courts always have to rely on fictional cases when striking down minimum sentences instead of the actual criminal conduct at issue.

No one's rights were actually harmed by having a 1 year minimum sentence.

I am aware of that, but it is extremely questionable to base a decision to override the democratic will of Parliament by making up a scenario instead of judging the actual facts of the case before them.

The actual conduct at issue was beyond reprehensible and was deserving of at least a year

I hope so too, but that is realistically going to require the NWC

Would it have been reasonable for the government lawyers years ago to have predicted the SCC would embark down a path of making up hypothetical scenarios rather than judging the cases before them? Or that they would abandon reasonable deference to the legislative branch with its democratic mandate?

Yeah, was honestly surprised to learn the minimum was that low

Is it the constitution or is it an odd interpretation of it here. Not reasonable person would find 1 year for this kind of crime cruel and unusual punishment.

The SCC had to disregard the facts of the case and make up a whole different scenario to justify their ruling.

The law was fine

More that the extremely high deference to the opinions of the 9 people on the Supreme Court on charter rights matters is no where to be found

There is a real question as to whether it would even be legitimate for one constitutional entity to unilaterally undo the 1982 constitutional agreement in a way that expands and entrenches its own power.

Doing so would be a good way to cause a constitutional crisis