The arc of Joe Arvay’s stare decisis argument is an incredible case study in strategic Charter litigation. 1/6 https://twitter.com/emmajcunliffe/status/1336384216318304256

Arvay’s argument that the common law rule of stare decisis is subordinate to the Charter helped provide the legal basis for the SCC to revisit two major precedents in two years, Bedford (reversing Prostitution Reference) and Carter (reversing Rodriguez). 2/6

Before either case was heard at the SCC, Arvay (with @amlatimer and Sheila Tucker) laid out the argument in the Supreme Court Law Review. 3/6 https://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1248&context=sclr

In Bedford, where Arvay represented @AsperCentre, he focused his entire argument on why and how stare decisis should be modified in Charter cases.

Watch his 10 min submissions: https://www.scc-csc.ca/case-dossier/info/webcastview-webdiffusionvue-eng.aspx?cas=34788&id=2013/2013-06-13--34788&date=2013-06-13&fp=n&audio=n

Then read what the Court unanimously held: “I agree.” 4/6

Of course when Bedford was heard, Arvay’s own case - Carter - was winding its way up the courts. So, by the time Carter was heard at the SCC, the law was made, and the Court had only to affirm what it held on stare decisis in Bedford... which it did. 5/6

His strategic brilliance and vision in advancing constitutional rights remind me of stories about RBG, another generational advocate that 2020 stole from us.

May his memory be a blessing. 6/6