Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?
This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.
Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
At least for this court case, the only thing that's been ordered so far is costs for Gircys and Cornell, the two challengers who had standing (because their cards and bank accounts were frozen), but not the public interest challengers or those who had less direct or less clear harm. Even for the Gircys and Cornell, the judge said he "will not award them costs for the preliminary steps in these proceedings which I considered to be often misguided or for the preparation of the largely irrelevant memorandum of fact and law that was filed".
Canada's equivalent to qualified, executive, and professional qualified immunity is complicated, but I would be very surprised if anyone was found personally liable -- I don't have a great understanding, but 'presume good faith' seems common and a complete block against one-offs like this.
It'll be a little embarrassing for Trudeau, but they're more likely to appeal to challenge the framework where the Emergency Powers Act only can be applied in limited circumstances. Neither are real consequences, especially since this ruling is only as-applied, and the application was so tremendously fact-specific.
More options
Context Copy link