...which seems to be the legal consensus on the issue. It will also argue that if Hadjis really wanted to wanted to brand section s54.1 (the penalty provision) unconstitutional, he should have put a little more work into the analysis of it than is evident in his decision.
...in its challenge to the Hadjis decision in Warman Vs. Lemire:
"if Hadjis really wanted to wanted to brand..."
I would also argue that an HRC hack is not qualified to rule on the constitutionality of anything, but the CHRC probably feels that's a bad idea strategically. And there's probably some case law which already ruled on that point, but clearly Hadjis was trying to bite off more than he could chew here.
In your dreams....
There is very little "legal consensus" (it's like that global warming/climate change/climate chaos thing where three NGOs go into the back of a room and make stuff up) as to whether the Warmandized CHRC actually meets the Taylor requirements of remediation and conciliation. LEAF does not a consensus make.
But, hey, keep hope alive and all that.
Post a Comment