No related posts.


“Position Has Not Changed”: The Canadian Government Reaffirms That Antisemitism Includes Anti-Zionism
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 279: My Keynote on Digital Sovereignty: Control, Choice, and Connection
The What, Me Worry? Consultation: Media Quietly Tells Government It Wants Even More Funding With Little Concern for Independence Risks
Years of Uncertainty: Bill C-22’s Missing Regulations and Secret Ministerial Orders
The Missing Charter Statement: Why Hasn’t the Government Explained How Bill C-34’s Social Media Ban Complies with the Charter?
Michael Geist
mgeist@uottawa.ca
This web site is licensed under a Creative Commons License, although certain works referenced herein may be separately licensed.
Actually, it seems to read that the Act is unconstitutional, not just portions.
para 89: “Striking out or reading down portions of the statute are not attractive options. The courts have neither the institutional nor the legislative ability to rewrite the Act. It is possible that all of the impugned provisions of the Act might have a constitutional application in some cases, so long as protected rights are not engaged. There is no obvious way to prune this statute so as to make it constitutional.”