—–The Supreme Courts and Vatican Fraud ?
- The Right Honourable Beverley McLachlin, P.C., Chief Justice of Canada
- The Honourable Justice Rosalie Silberman Abella
- The Honourable Mr. Justice Marshall Rothstein
- The Honourable Mr. Justice Thomas Albert Cromwell
- The Honourable Mr. Justice Michael J. Moldaver
- The Honourable Madam Justice Andromache Karakatsanis
- The Honourable Mr. Justice Richard Wagner
- The Honourable Mr. Justice Clément Gascon
- The Honourable Madam Justice Suzanne Côté
Role of the Court
The Supreme Court of Canada is Canada’s final court of appeal. It serves Canadians by deciding legal issues of public importance, thereby contributing to the development of all branches of law applicable within Canada. The independence of the Court, the quality of its work and the esteem in which it is held both in Canada and abroad contribute significantly as foundations for a secure, strong and democratic country founded on the Rule of Law. In accordance with the Supreme Court Act, the Supreme Court of Canada consists of the Chief Justice and eight puisne judges. The Supreme Court of Canada is an important national institution that is positioned at the pinnacle of the judicial branch of Canada’s government.
The Canadian judicial system may be seen as constituting a pyramid, with a broad base formed by the provincial and territorial courts whose judges are appointed by the provincial and territorial governments. Judges at all the other levels are appointed by the federal government. At the second level, there are the provincial and territorial superior courts. Judgments from the superior courts may be appealed to the next level, being the provincial or territorial courts of appeal. As well, there are the federal courts: the Federal Court of Appeal, the Federal Court, the Tax Court of Canada and the Court Martial Appeal Court. Unlike the provincial superior courts, which exercise inherent jurisdiction, the jurisdiction of these courts is defined by statute and encompasses matters falling within the competence of the federal government. Finally, the Supreme Court of Canada sits at the top of the pyramid, being Canada’s final court of appeal.
The Court’s Jurisdiction
The Supreme Court of Canada hears appeals from the decisions of the highest courts of final resort of the provinces and territories, as well as from the Federal Court of Appeal and the Court Martial Appeal Court of Canada. Its jurisdiction is derived mainly from theSupreme Court Act, as well as from a few other Acts of Parliament, such as the Criminal Code. There are three procedures by which cases can come before the Court. First, in most cases, a party who wishes to appeal the decision of a lower court must obtain permission, or leave to appeal, from a panel of three judges of the Supreme Court. Second, there are cases, referred to as appeals “as of right”, for which leave to appeal is not required. These include certain criminal cases and appeals from opinions pronounced by courts of appeal on matters referred to them by a provincial government. Third, the Court provides advisory opinions on questions referred to it by the Governor in Council. See the Appeal Process in the Supreme Court of Canada for more details.
The importance of the Court’s decisions for Canadian society is well recognized. The Court assures uniformity, consistency and correctness in the articulation, development and interpretation of legal principles throughout the Canadian judicial system.
Leave to Appeal
Most appeals are heard by the Court only if leave is first given. Leave to appeal is granted by the Court if the case involves a question of public importance or if it raises an important issue of law (or an issue of both law and fact) that warrants consideration by the Court. The Court’s decision whether to grant leave to appeal is based on its assessment of the public importance of the legal issues raised in the case in question. The Court thus has control over its docket and is able to supervise the growth and development of Canadian jurisprudence.
The majority of applications for leave to appeal are decided by the Court on the basis of written submissions filed by the parties. The Court considers an average of between 500 and 600 applications for leave to appeal each year. The Court generally does not give reasons for its decisions on applications for leave to appeal.
Appeals as of Right
There are a few instances where leave is not required. In some types of criminal cases, for example, an appeal may be brought as of right where one judge in the court of appeal has dissented on a point of law.
In addition to being Canada’s court of final appeal, the Supreme Court performs a unique function. It can be asked by the Governor in Council to hear references, that is, to consider important questions of law such as the constitutionality or interpretation of federal or provincial legislation and to give its opinion on the question.
Constitutional questions may also be raised by the parties in appeals involving individual litigants or governments or government agencies. In such cases, the federal and provincial governments must be notified of the constitutional questions and can intervene to present arguments with respect to them.
Hearings of Appeals
An appeal is heard after the parties and any interveners have prepared and filed with the Court the required documents, including a record of evidence and documentation from the lower court files and factums stating the issues as well as the arguments to be presented. These documents are filed in both paper and electronic versions. Hearings of appeals are scheduled by the Registrar.
The Supreme Court holds three sessions a year and hears on average between 65 and 80 appeals a year. Each session lasts three months. The first session begins in January, the second begins in April and the third begins in October. In recent years, it has been the Court’s practice to start each session on a Monday.
Although the Court sits only in Ottawa, litigants can present oral arguments from remote locations by means of a videoconference system. The Court’s hearings are open to the public and most hearings are recorded for delayed telecast. When in session, the Court sits Monday to Friday. A quorum consists of five members, but most appeals are heard by panels of seven or nine judges.
On the bench, the Chief Justice, or in the Chief Justice’s absence the senior puisne judge, presides from the centre chair with the other judges seated to the presiding judge’s right and left by order of seniority of appointment. At sittings of the Court, the judges usually wear black silk robes. They also have ceremonial robes of bright scarlet trimmed with Canadian white mink, which they wear in Court on special occasions as well as in the Senate at the opening of each new session of Parliament.
Except by special leave of the Court, the only persons who may argue a case before the Court, apart from the litigants themselves, are lawyers from any Canadian province or territory. As a general rule, the Court allows two hours for the hearing of an appeal. Each side is given one hour to present its arguments. Interveners may also be given the opportunity to be heard. At the hearing of an appeal, the judges often question the lawyers.
Judgments of the Supreme Court of Canada
In some cases, the Court will render its decision orally at the conclusion of the hearing, but most of the time it reserves judgment to enable the judges to write considered reasons. Decisions of the Court need not be unanimous: a majority may decide, in which case the minority will give dissenting reasons. Each judge may write reasons in any case if he or she chooses to do so.
When a judgment is delivered in a case reserved for decision, the parties are given notice of it and the formal judgment is deposited with the Registrar together with all the written reasons and a headnote. Judgments are published simultaneously in both official languages in the Canada Supreme Court Reports.
The Court’s Website
The Supreme Court of Canada’s Internet site provides a wealth of information on Canada’s highest court. Visitors to the site can learn about the role of the Court in Canada’s judicial system and can browse through biographies of Supreme Court judges past and present. The site provides information on booking tours of the Supreme Court building for those who wish to do so along with a collection of electronic electronic resources for teachers and a virtual tour that makes it possible to view the building from anywhere. The Frequently Asked Questions page also serves as a useful resource for the public. In addition, the site provides a link to an external site where the Court’s judgments can be consulted electronically. Visitors to the Court’s site can find information on scheduled hearings of the Court and search an online database of information on all the Court’s cases. Counsel and self-represented litigants can access information on electronic filing procedures and instructions for bringing an application for leave to appeal. In most instances, the Court’s hearings are broadcast live on the site.
“The Supreme Court of Canada and its Justices 1875-2000” – a commemorative book
This book has three main chapters:
A brief history of the Court
Biography of the Justices
Architecture of the Court
For more information: Link to Dundurn
Do the Supreme Courts fall under Canon Law for the POPE/ VATICAN to rule over all of our SOULS?
What if this Gentleman is right?
It is NOW beginning to make sense!
Gilbert Owens Nations PHD, may be right!
It is SAFE to ASSUME that the Supreme Courts rule over our Souls for the Pope / Vatican as well as the STATUTES of ROME and CANON LAW is the SUPREME LAW above all LAWS given that the Supreme Courts still use Terra Nullius (Land without owners) and the Doctrine of Discovery against the Indigenous People who in the USA fall under “Indian Canons”.
The Crown in Chancery is the Vatican Crown since all Lords of Chancery were Archbishops and Archdeacons (judges) who were subordinate to the Archbishops. According to our documents, when the Archbishops disagreed with the Archdeacons judgments, the Archbishop could not fire the Archdeacon since they were all under the Vatican, this is when the Vatican allowed the Archbishops to choose a member of their church to preside over court cases so that they could be fired at will.
Now, if this is so, then this would likely mean that the Legal Fiction LAW was created for the lower courts Governments/military, police etc to have jurisdiction over our dead bodies, hence the straw-man fiction of our corporate names.
Maybe someday soon, we will know the whole truth!
as referenced in Canon XX
Past and Present LAW in CANADA
Questions need to be asked about the Crown in Chancery and Court of Chancery…
A Doctor of Canon and Civil Law, from the Latin doctor utriusque juris, or juris utriusque doctor, or doctor juris utriusque (“doctor of both laws”) (abbreviations include: JUD, IUD, DUJ, JUDr., DUI, DJU, Dr.iur.utr., Dr.jur.utr., DIU, UJD and UID) is a scholar who has acquired a doctorate in both civil law and church law. The degree was common among Catholic and German scholars of the Middle Ages and early modern times. Today the degree is awarded by the Pontifical Lateran University in the State of the Vatican City after a period of six years study, by the University of Wuerzburg, and by the University of Fribourg.
Prior to ca. 1800, people who studied law in Europe, studied canon law, Roman law, and feudal law. These laws were the constituent parts of the Ius commune. The Ius commune was a pan-European legal system that held sway over Europe from approximately the twelfth through the eighteenth century. Graduates earned the decree of Doctor of both laws, because they had to study both canon law and civil law, in order to master the Ius commune.
After his second term as President of the United States, Grover Cleveland was given the J.U.D. as an honorary degree by the Augustinian College of St. Thomas of Villanova (Villanova University) in 1902.
Historically, in Canada, Bachelor of Laws was the name of the first degree in common law, but is also the name of the first degree in Quebec civil law awarded by a number of Quebec universities. Canadian common-law LL.B. programs were, in practice, second-entry professional degrees, meaning that the vast majority of those admitted to an LL.B. programme were already holders of one or more degrees, or, at a minimum (with very few exceptions), have completed two years of study in a first-entry, undergraduate degree in another discipline. Today in Canada the predominant first degree in common law is the Juris Doctor degree having replaced the LL.B.
Bachelor of Laws is also the name of the first degree in Scots law and South African law (both being pluralistic legal systems that are based partly on common law and partly on civil law) awarded by a number of universities in Scotland and South Africa, respectively.
This their “Version” what they allow people to know.
Present Day Canada…
Creation and Beginnings of the Court
Courts of law flourished in the eighteenth-century in present-day Quebec and Ontario, as well as in what are now the Maritime provinces. Judicial records from before 1750 survive in Quebec, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. The Quebec Act, 1774, section 17, defined powers for creating British-style criminal, civil and ecclesiastical courts in Quebec alongside that province’s much more ancient courts dating back to the French regime. The Constitutional Act, 1791, created the provinces of Upper and Lower Canada and established new courts for each province. Following this, the Union Act, 1840 created the first Court of Appeal, in this case for Upper Canada, and set salaries for judges in both Canadas.
It was the British North America Act, 1867, now called the Constitution Act, 1867, that defined the basic elements of the country’s current judicial system. Under it, the Governor in Council appoints all superior court judges across Canada, including judges of the Supreme Court of Canada. Once appointed, a judge serves “during good behaviour” and benefits from all aspects of the principle of judicial independence. A judge may sit until he or she attains 75 years of age. Judicial salaries are “fixed and provided by the Parliament of Canada”. At the time of Confederation, decisions of provincial courts could be appealed directly to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in the United Kingdom.
The Constitution Act, 1867 provided that the new federal Parliament could create a “General Court of Appeal for Canada”. A few years later, Parliament did just that when it created the Supreme Court of Canada. However, decisions of the new Supreme Court could still be appealed to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. The Judicial Committee’s jurisdiction over the Court’s decisions did not end until 1933, for criminal appeals, and 1949 for civil appeals.
The Supreme Court of Canada’s beginnings were most inauspicious. Bills for its creation had been introduced in the Parliament of Canada in 1869 and in 1870, but were withdrawn. On April 8, 1875, a new bill was finally passed. The statesmen who played the most prominent roles in establishing the Court were Sir John A. Macdonald, Télesphore Fournier, Alexander Mackenzie and Edward Blake.
The Court’s original puisne judges signed their oaths of office in the Senate Chamber on November 8, 1875, exactly one month after the swearing-in ceremony for the first Chief Justice, the Honourable William Buell Richards, and the first Registrar, Robert Cassels. The Court was inaugurated at a state dinner on November 18, and by mid-January 1876 the new Court had drafted a set of rules of procedure. At its first sitting on January 17, 1876, there was not a single case to be heard. The Court heard its first case — a reference from the Senate requesting its opinion on a private bill — in April 1876. Having dealt with that matter, the Court next sat for one week in June 1876, when it disposed of three cases. It was not convened again until January 1877, at which time it began to hold regular sessions with a full agenda.
The Court was originally composed of six judges. In addition to Chief Justice Richards, the original puisne judges were William Johnstone Ritchie, Samuel Henry Strong, Jean-Thomas Taschereau, Télesphore Fournier and William Alexander Henry. At first, each member of the Supreme Court was also a judge of the simultaneously created Exchequer Court of Canada (a forerunner of the Federal Court), although this ceased to be the case several years later.
The Canadian Judicial System
The Constitutional Framework
The organization of Canada’s judicial system is a function of Canada’s Constitution, and particularly of the Constitution Act, 1867. By virtue of that Act, authority for the judicial system in Canada is divided between the federal government and the ten provincial governments. The latter are given jurisdiction over “the administration of justice” in the provinces, which includes “the constitution, organization and maintenance” of the courts, both civil and criminal, in the province, as well as civil procedure in those courts. However, this jurisdiction does not extend to the appointment of the judges of all of these courts. The power to appoint the judges of the superior courts in the provinces – which includes the provincial courts of appeal as well as the trial courts of general jurisdiction – is given to the federal government, as is the obligation to provide for the remuneration of those judges and the authority to remove them. This latter authority is a limited one and, in fact, has never been exercised.
The federal government is also given the authority to establish “a General Court of Appeal for Canada and any Additional Courts for the better Administration of the Laws of Canada”. It has used this authority to create the Supreme Court of Canada as well as the Federal Court of Appeal, the Federal Court and the Tax Court of Canada. The federal government also has, as part of its jurisdiction over criminal law, exclusive authority over the procedure in courts of criminal jurisdiction.
What emerges from these allocations of jurisdiction in the Constitution is a court system in which provincial governments have jurisdiction over both the constitution, organization and maintenance of, and the appointment of judges to, the lowest level of courts (generally known simply as “provincial courts”), while the federal government has authority over the constitution, organization and maintenance of, and the appointment of judges to, the Supreme Court of Canada, the Federal Court of Appeal, the Federal Court and the Tax Court of Canada. Authority over the superior courts in each province is shared between the provincial and federal governments; the provinces have jurisdiction over the constitution, organization and maintenance of these courts, while the federal government has authority to appoint the judges. The fact that jurisdiction over these courts is divided in this way means that, in order for these courts to function properly, the federal and provincial governments are required to cooperate in the exercise of their respective authorities.
Organization of Courts
The courts in Canada are organized in a four-tiered structure. The Supreme Court of Canada sits at the apex of the structure and, consistent with its role as “a General Court of Appeal for Canada”, hears appeals from both the federal court system, headed by the Federal Court of Appeal and the provincial court systems, headed in each province by that province’s Court of Appeal. In contrast to its counterpart in the United States, therefore, the Supreme Court of Canada functions as a national, and not merely federal, court of last resort.
The next tier down from the Supreme Court of Canada consists of the Federal Court of Appeal and the various provincial courts of appeal. Two of these latter courts, it should be noted, also function as the courts of appeal for the three federal territories in northern Canada, the Yukon Territory, the Northwest Territories, and the Nunavut Territory.
The next tier down consists of the Federal Court, the Tax Court of Canada and the provincial and territorial superior courts of general jurisdiction. These latter courts can fairly be described as the lynchpin of the Canadian judicial system since, reflecting the role of their English counterparts, on which they were modelled, they are the only courts in the system with inherent jurisdiction in addition to jurisdiction granted by federal and provincial statutes.
At the bottom of the hierarchy are the courts typically described as provincial courts. These courts are generally divided within each province into various divisions defined by the subject matter of their respective jurisdictions; hence, one usually finds a Traffic Division, a Small Claims Division, a Family Division, a Criminal Division, and so on.
There are approximately 750 court locations in Canada. The Supreme Court of Canada sits only in Ottawa, although teleconferencing facilities to locations across the country are available. Hence it is possible for the parties to litigation before the Court to make their arguments in locations other than Ottawa, and to have those arguments transmitted to the Supreme Court of Canada via satellite. The other three federally established courts, the Federal Court of Appeal, the Federal Court and the Tax Court of Canada, altogether have offices at seventeen permanent locations. The provincial and territorial courts sit at over 700 locations. These include fifteen permanent provincial and territorial appellate court sitting locations – one in each province and territory except for Quebec and Alberta, which have two each.
The Supreme Court of Canada
The Supreme Court of Canada was constituted in 1875 by an act of Parliament and is now governed by the Supreme Court Act. It is comprised of a Chief Justice and eight puisne judges (puisne meaning ranked after), all appointed by the Governor-in-Council for terms of “good behaviour”, with a minimum of three judges coming from Quebec. Supreme Court judges must live within forty kilometres of the National Capital Region.
The Supreme Court is a general court of appeal from all other Canadian courts of law. It, therefore, has jurisdiction over disputes in all areas of the law, including constitutional law, administrative law, criminal law and private law.
In most cases, appeals are heard by the Court only if leave is first given. Such leave will be given by the Court when a case involves a question of public importance, or if it raises an important issue of law or of mixed law and fact, or if the matter is, for any other reason, of such a nature or significance as to warrant consideration of the Court. Leave to appeal to the Court may also be given by a federal or provincial appellate court.
There are cases where leave is not required. In criminal cases, the Criminal Code gives a right of appeal where acquittal has been set aside in the provincial court of appeal or where, in the provincial court of appeal, one judge dissents on a point of law.
The Supreme Court does have a special kind of “reference” jurisdiction, original in character, given by s. 53 of the Supreme Court Act. The Governor-in-Council may refer to the Court, for its opinion, important questions of law or fact concerning the interpretation of the Constitution, the constitutionality or interpretation of any federal or provincial legislation, or the powers of Parliament or of the provincial legislatures or their respective governments or any other important question of law or fact concerning any matter. Where the government of any province has any special interest in any question put in reference, the Attorney General of the province shall be notified in order that he or she may be heard.
Constitutional questions may also be raised in regular appeals involving individual litigants or governments or governmental agencies. In such cases the federal and provincial governments are notified of the constitutional question and may intervene to argue it.
In light of the broad scope of the Supreme Court of Canada’s jurisdiction, it is clear that the Canadian judicial system differs from that of many continental European and Latin and South American countries, where it is not unusual for there to be separate courts of last resort for both constitutional law and administrative law cases in addition to a general court of appeal.
The Federal Court of Appeal and the Federal Court have a long history. Since 2003, they are the successors of the appeal and trial divisions of the Federal Court of Canada, which in 1971 succeeded the Exchequer Court of Canada which itself was created in 1875 and had jurisdiction only over revenue, the Crown in Right of Canada as litigant, industrial and intellectual property, admiralty and a few other subject matters regulated by federal legislation. The Federal Court was given jurisdiction over these matters, but in addition was given the power of judicial review with respect to decisions of federal administrative tribunals and jurisdiction over claims with respect to several other matters falling within federal legislative jurisdiction, including inter-provincial transportation and communication undertakings, bills of exchange and aeronautics. These latter grants of new jurisdiction have spawned a good deal of litigation regarding the nature and scope of the federal government’s authority to grant jurisdiction to courts of its own making. Generally speaking, the Supreme Court of Canada has interpreted that power narrowly, with the result that the Federal Courts now exercise jurisdiction over a somewhat narrower range of disputes than was initially intended.
Tax Court of Canada
The Tax Court of Canada was established in 1983 and has as its primary responsibility, the hearing of appeals in the area of income tax. Its predecessor, the Tax Review Board, was an administrative tribunal.
Provincial and Territorial Superior Courts
The superior courts of each province and territory include both a court of general trial jurisdiction and a provincial court of appeal. A significant feature of these courts insofar as their jurisdiction is concerned is that that jurisdiction is not limited to matters over which the provincial governments have legislative jurisdiction. In this respect, they are very different from the state courts in the United States. Hence these courts have jurisdiction over disputes arising in many of the areas over which the federal government is granted legislative jurisdiction in the Constitution Act, 1867 – for example, criminal law and banking. Moreover, the power to decide disputes in such areas does not have to be explicitly assigned to these courts by the federal government in order for these courts to have jurisdiction over them. Hence, if federal legislation calls for the exercise at some point of judicial authority, but says nothing about which body is to exercise that authority, it is assumed that that authority will reside with these courts.
As noted above, therefore, these courts can fairly be described as the lynchpin of the Canadian judicial system.
Provincial and Territorial Courts
Although at the bottom of the hierarchy, these courts handle the overwhelming majority of cases that come into the Canadian court system. They deal with a broad range of criminal matters, much of the litigation in the area of family law, and all of the civil litigation in which the amount at issue is relatively small. If the average citizen has occasion to become involved in a dispute that requires adjudication on the part of a court, the likelihood is that he or she will appear before one of these courts.
Although not formally part of the Canadian judicial system, because they are not in a formal sense “courts”, administrative tribunals are an integral component of the system that has been created in Canada by government to resolve disputes. No description of the latter system would be complete without mention being made of these important bodies. Some areas – for example, labour relations (both in the unionized and in the non-unionized sectors of the economy) and individual claims of discrimination in areas like employment, housing and access to services and facilities customarily available to the public – are dealt with almost exclusively by them.
In the case of some of these administrative tribunals, the courts are limited in their supervisory jurisdiction to ensuring that the tribunals do not exceed the jurisdiction given them by their enabling statutes; insofar as these tribunals are concerned, the final say on questions of law that arise within their jurisdiction rests with them, not with the courts. This is generally true in the case of labour relation tribunals. In the case of other tribunals, such as those established to deal with claims of discrimination, the courts exercise a broader supervisory authority which extends not only to ensuring that jurisdiction is not exceeded, but also to reviewing decisions on questions of law that arise within jurisdiction. However, even in the case of these latter tribunals, the courts have often, at least in recent years, tended to show a good deal of deference to these tribunals when reviewing decisions of the latter kind.
All members of the judiciary in Canada, regardless of the court, are drawn from the legal profession. In the case of those judges appointed by the federal government, which includes the judges of all of the courts apart from those at the bottom of the hierarchy and described generally as provincial courts, are required by federal statute to have been a member of a provincial or territorial bar for at least ten years. Lawyers wishing to become judges must apply to do so and their applications are vetted initially by committees established within the various jurisdictions for that purpose, with the ultimate power of decision residing with the federal cabinet. Analogous systems operate within the respective provinces for appointments to the provincial courts.
All judges in Canada are subject to mandatory retirement. In the case of some of the judges appointed by the federal government, the age of retirement is fixed by the Constitution Act, 1867, at 75. In the case of all other judges, both federally and provincially appointed, the age is fixed by statute, at either 75 or 70, depending on the court.
The independence of the judiciary in Canada is guaranteed both explicitly and implicitly by different parts of the Constitution of Canada. This independence is understood to consist in security of tenure, security of financial remuneration and institutional administrative independence.
Books you may like to read: