Legal Research

Without Costs, Because ? ?

By David Cheifetz

There are some reasons that contain passages that judges should not have to write.  For example

Grandmothers of the Algonquins of Pikwakanagan and Nipissing First Nation  v. Ontario (Natural Resources), 2010 ONCA 439 contains this:

[2]               While the notice of appeal raises a wide range of issues,  some of which fall outside the ambit of the jurisdiction of any court, the arguments advanced in the factum and in oral argument are somewhat more focussed and may be summarized as follows …

[3]               In our view, application judge did not err in refusing the writ of prohibition on these grounds and there is no merit to this appeal.

[4]               It is well-established in Canadian law that where an accused person raises constitutional issues, claims of aboriginal right; inter-jurisdictional immunity or rule of law issues by way of defence to a charge, the proper place to advance those defences is in the court having jurisdiction to entertain the charges.  If there is any merit to grounds 1 to 4, they are matters properly raised by way of defence to the charges against the appellants in the court having jurisdiction to entertain those charges, namely, the Ontario Court of Justice.  If the appellants are dissatisfied with the result in the Ontario Court of Justice, they may have recourse to any statutory rights of appeal afforded from conviction.

[emphasis added by me]

Even the arguments that weren’t outside the jurisdiction of any court were made in the wrong way, and at that point in the wrong court.

Should somebody pay for wasting the courts time, even if the work was done pro bono? Maybe even more so if it wasn’t?

Full post as published by Slaw.ca on June 16, 2010 (boomark / email).