Braid: Judicial punch-up hurts Alberta’s chances in the Supreme Court

Article content material

Premier Danielle Smith’s workplace is “very involved in regards to the timing” of a Supreme Court docket justice’s pressured go away of absence.

Article content material

That’s from a senior supply in Smith’s circle.

Article content material

They aren’t claiming impropriety, simply dangerous luck. Justice Russell Brown is essentially the most dependable defender of provincial rights on the Court docket.

He’s additionally the one one who acquired punched within the face throughout an altercation within the U.S., and is now off the courtroom pending an investigation.

Clearly, Brown gained’t take part subsequent week when the courtroom hears Ottawa’s problem to a ruling on the Affect Evaluation Act, usually referred to as the ‘no extra pipelines regulation.’

It started life as federal Invoice C-69 and was vastly controversial two years in the past.

The Alberta Attraction Court docket, in a 4-1 ruling, mentioned Invoice C-69 is unconstitutional.

Ottawa insists it’s legitimate though eight of 10 provinces again Alberta’s place. Solely Nova Scotia and P.E.I. are staying impartial within the Supreme Court docket proceedings.

Article content material

Article content material

Brown’s sole western colleague on the courtroom is Justice Sheilah Martin. They each have deep Alberta and Calgary connections.

She was appointed by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau; Brown was elevated to the courtroom by ex-PM Stephen Harper.

By regulation, the courtroom has three judges from Quebec. Custom additionally dictates three are from Ontario, one from Atlantic Canada, and simply two from 4 western provinces.

On this, the Supreme Court docket reliably displays each the Home of Commons and the Senate.

Alberta’s rejection of the Affect Evaluation Act had restricted likelihood of survival within the first place. With out Brown’s voice and vote on the courtroom, it’s much more more likely to fail.

Brown acquired into an altercation throughout a current convention in Arizona. It concerned punches thrown — at him — and allegations of drunkenness.

Article content material

A former marine named Jon Crump mentioned Brown was annoying his group. He admitted punching Brown.

Brown himself mentioned: “Outdoors the lounge, Mr. Crump objected to me rejoining the group and, immediately, with out warning or provocation, punched me a number of instances within the head.

“Taken unexpectedly, I used to be unable to defend myself.”

These are usually not a decide’s traditional phrases from the bar. They’re certainly essentially the most exceptional quote ever from a Canadian Supreme Court docket justice.

Due to his absence, subsequent week’s case can be heard by eight judges, which dangers a tie vote — or probably by seven if the courtroom geese the potential impasse by excluding one other decide.

One case doesn’t essentially predict the following, however we are able to get a good suggestion of how this may go from the 2021 rejection of Alberta’s declare that Ottawa’s carbon tax was unconstitutional.

Article content material

The majority of Supreme Court docket judges agreed with the view that nationwide curiosity, within the type of local weather change, outweighed provincial jurisdiction.

The present case appears to hinge on the identical presumption; {that a} useful resource undertaking whose impression reaches past a province’s borders (i.e., emissions) falls underneath federal authority.

Within the tax ruling, Brown objected fiercely to this enlargement of federal energy.

The regulation “can’t be supported by any supply of federal authority and is subsequently wholly extremely vires Parliament,” he wrote.

“The Act’s subject material falls squarely inside provincial jurisdiction.” The truth that provinces have the identical tax authority, Brown added, “is deadly to the constitutionality of the (tax) Act.”

Article content material

He argued that with the tax determination, the Supreme Court docket itself “engorges federal energy.”

Alberta’s authorized crew was certainly relying on that angle within the present case.

Smith’s individuals are clearly disenchanted that Brown has dealt himself out, however they most likely gained’t say way more.

The case is unlikely to develop into a scorching Alberta marketing campaign challenge as a result of the courtroom’s determination gained’t be launched till fall on the earliest.

And it’s even doable, in response to a response from the Supreme Court docket workplace late Friday afternoon, for a decide who missed oral testimony to later take part in discussions and the vote.

Often that’s meant to accommodate sickness, but it surely may — at the least theoretically — additionally apply to Justice Brown.

Don Braid’s column seems repeatedly within the Herald.

Twitter: @DonBraid