Hey, you, who's reading this in the future: you can find out who I am today at https://rarf.zone/about/. πŸ’™


E-mail me at:
info@rarf.zone
Mastodon/Fediverse
yiff.life/@katja

Like, he got the Canadian citizenship he absolutely rightfully should've had, but on the other hand, an entire community of absolute nerdlords, known by some as "lawyers", now know him as The Respondent From Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65, [2019] 4 SCR 653, a case in which Wagner CJ (supported by Moldaver, Gascon, CΓ΄tΓ©, Brown, Rowe, and Martin JJ) finally clarified what the fuck the standard of (judicial) review for decisions of administrative bodies and tribunals in Canada is.

I hope Alex is doing OK!!


You must log in to comment.

in reply to @kda's post:

I think about stuff like this in my classes sometimes. In torts especially, it'll be like "this person's life changed in a major way for the worse, they did their best to take it through the court system and get whatever justice they might be able to eke out, and now all that pain and suffering is reduced down to a three paragraph summary in a casebook for students."

Yeah.

Like, even May Donoghue, whose traumatic experience became the basis of the law of negligence in basically every common law jurisdiction outside the US.

Which I guess is an inevitable consequence of a system where most law isn't explicated (or created, if you take a more cynical view on the role of judges judging edge cases) until the law as it stands is, on its face, insufficient.