Questionable decisions by the courts in itself these days is a topic that I will continue to beat the drum on whenever possible. Why? Because courts and judges are here to uphold and administer the law, not make their own law. When there are clear and concise definitions within an act or regulation and common law has been praticed thus for many years, there is no interpretation required.
For some cases like "Caisse Populaire Desjardins de L’est de Drummond v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, 2009 SCC 29" however, the clear interpreataion of the law was muddied by the presiding judges when they ruled in favour in Revenue Canada instead of Caisse Populaire and gave the rights of the tax authority priority over the rights of the financial institution as well as the undertaking of a term deposit from a third party.
Now don't misunderstand me! I am no more a fan of that other institution in Canada that is little more than a legalized bandit as well. The fight over the spoils of a bankrupt business between the bank and Revenue Canada looks like the jackal at odds with the vulture over who gets to pick the bones of the carcass.
Never the less, the court granting Revenue Canada priority over the bank who had the first caveat over the business because of a defaulted line of credit is again so wrong that one must only come to the conclusion that Revenue Canada and it's agents are the modern day Privateers who have been granted all rights by the King of Canada to plunder citizens and businesses within the land.
Disgusting.
Our link to the story as reported on TheCourt.ca:
http://www.thecourt.ca/2009/07/21/third-party-liability-in-insolvency-cases-favor-revenue-canada/
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Done all the time, in 2008 the Supreme Court of Canada publicly stated that the Attorney General of British Columbia was to instruct the Justices that he appointed to the bench to stop assigning their take on what the law said and stop abusing people by order of the Court. Unfortunately none of the people wronged by the court have the wherewithal to appeal or the time for appeal had run out by the time the Supreme Court provided that we had been duped by the presiding justices of our cases.
ReplyDelete