Read on Twitter
This headline and much of the (understandable) Twitter response is misleading. The issue addressed by the Federal Court of Appeal, while important and interesting to procedural geeks and affected litigants, is not one of Lametti personally “meddling” (as I’ve seen it described). https://twitter.com/thetorontosun/status/1303392911443324930
Here is the decision of the Chief Justice of the Federal Court of Appeal.
https://decisions.fca-caf.gc.ca/fca-caf/decisions/en/item/484791/index.do
https://decisions.fca-caf.gc.ca/fca-caf/decisions/en/item/484791/index.do
Note that it concerns the Minister in his capacity as the head of the DOJ, which is a party in 2/3 of FCA cases, not as an individual or partisan trying to interfere in a specific case for political or other ends, as much of Twitter seems to assume. This is not SNC Lavalin 2.0.
The decision is about at least three distinct things: (1) the proper interpretation of the scope of an Act of Parliament; (2) whether/how much Parliament can dictate the management and governance of ongoing proceedings; and (3) the ability of Parliament to oust judicial orders.
While the CJ suggests there would be constitutional limitations on (2) & (3), he doesn’t consider them. He concludes that the position advanced by the AG—that *all* court time limits are suspended for 6 months because of Covid—is not the most reasonable interpretation of the Act.
Again: contrary to how the decision is being presented/received on Twitter, it’s not a personal smackdown of Lametti; it’s an institutional smack down (and the court gets its elbows up high to defend its corner). It is not about personal or political meddling in a specific case.
