C-18 is a judicial review.
I copied the following two sections from
Wikipedia.
This first piece tells us what a judicial review
generally IS in various countries.
Judicial review is the doctrine under which
legislative and executive actions are subject to
review (and possible invalidation) by the judiciary.
Specific courts with judicial review power must
annul the acts of the state when it finds them
incompatible with a higher authority (such as the
terms of a written constitution). Judicial review is
an example of the separation of powers in a
modern governmental system (where the
judiciary is one of three branches of
government). This principle is interpreted
differently in different jurisdictions, which also
have differing views on the different hierarchy of
governmental norms. As a result, the procedure
and scope of judicial review differs from country
to country and state to state.
This second piece is specific to judicial reviews
In Canada. We have such a busybody judiciary
in Canada, who continuously try to shape
Canada according to their personal specs. And
like children standing upright on the pew
screeching during a funeral that the flowers are
in the wrong place and the casket should be
replaced by an urn, the courts don't know their
place, MHO
That should crank your bp up a notch this
morning. Pars
Until 1982, Canada had parliamentary
sovereignty like the United Kingdom, wherein the
Supreme Court of Canada could only overturn
acts of Parliament if those acts violated the
division of powers between the federal and
provincial levels of government. With the
introduction of the Charter of Rights and
Freedoms in 1982, Canadian courts gained the
power to overturn primary legislation, a change
that would have sweeping effects on both the
operation of the Canadian government and on
the relationship between the people and the
government. While the Constitution of Canada
does have provisions that can allow the
government to ignore a judicial ruling, such as
the Notwithstanding Clause, such powers are
rarely used, and in most cases they are politically
very unpopular.
I copied the following two sections from
Wikipedia.
This first piece tells us what a judicial review
generally IS in various countries.
Judicial review is the doctrine under which
legislative and executive actions are subject to
review (and possible invalidation) by the judiciary.
Specific courts with judicial review power must
annul the acts of the state when it finds them
incompatible with a higher authority (such as the
terms of a written constitution). Judicial review is
an example of the separation of powers in a
modern governmental system (where the
judiciary is one of three branches of
government). This principle is interpreted
differently in different jurisdictions, which also
have differing views on the different hierarchy of
governmental norms. As a result, the procedure
and scope of judicial review differs from country
to country and state to state.
This second piece is specific to judicial reviews
In Canada. We have such a busybody judiciary
in Canada, who continuously try to shape
Canada according to their personal specs. And
like children standing upright on the pew
screeching during a funeral that the flowers are
in the wrong place and the casket should be
replaced by an urn, the courts don't know their
place, MHO
That should crank your bp up a notch this
morning. Pars
Until 1982, Canada had parliamentary
sovereignty like the United Kingdom, wherein the
Supreme Court of Canada could only overturn
acts of Parliament if those acts violated the
division of powers between the federal and
provincial levels of government. With the
introduction of the Charter of Rights and
Freedoms in 1982, Canadian courts gained the
power to overturn primary legislation, a change
that would have sweeping effects on both the
operation of the Canadian government and on
the relationship between the people and the
government. While the Constitution of Canada
does have provisions that can allow the
government to ignore a judicial ruling, such as
the Notwithstanding Clause, such powers are
rarely used, and in most cases they are politically
very unpopular.
Comment