Beverley McLachlin, ex-Chief Justice Canada’s Supreme Court, shows her true colours, agrees to serve 3 more years on Hong Kong’s top court, which has “become nothing more than an instrument of oppression.” PS Judicial “independence” does not exist.

Comment by rural Albertan:


Comment by another rural Albertan:

I should spend more time figuring this out. How or why is this even possible? It seems to me that professionals cavorting with Hong Kong is NOT great optics and I would think, it both condones and consents to a regime that I can not either condone nor respect.

This is very confusing. Really makes me wonder. What is her role there …

Leader and influencer? Is that even possible in a repressive regime? Aiaiaiaiaiaia How would she rationalize her involvement? I DO NOT get it.

A few tweets by lawyers:

Amir Attaran@profamirattaran:

What a way to end a career: by kowtowing to Beijing.

Leonid Sirota@DoubleAspect:

Embarrassing. But I guess it tells us something about how judges in oppressive legal systems went along.

Comment to the article below:

robert drodge:

Just another how dare you question my decision. The self righteous explanation tells it all.

Frank Falcon:

The word “independence” means something different to her. As a non-elected individual, she chose to use judicial activism to make law in Canada without any regard for the expressed will of the people. She is well positioned to continue that activism in a system that has absolutely no intent of offering its people a voice. She must feel like she has died and gone to unaccountable heaven.

Paul Bennton Reply to Frank Falcon:

She should have been removed from the SC years ago. She used it to push her agenda, not follow the law

Scott Cullion:

Good keep her, she did enough damage to Canada. She is now in a place where her politics and decisions are right at home.

Peter Currie:

“Principled decision “
Is that possible?

John Green:

Big salaried appointee — not even a citizen of the country where she’s being appointed — talks about being the “last bastion of democracy”? Give us a break.

A tweet responding to the article below:

Sam@sammyard078 Replying to @tomblackwellNP:

All members of the opposition are currently in jail. Most of them haven’t undergone trials. A newspaper with over 800 employees and 600,000 subscribers was forced to shut down. By associating herself with #CCP, she is supporting it. This is the most logical conclusion.

Former Canadian chief justice says she’s staying on Hong Kong court to help preserve city’s ‘last bastion of democracy’, Beverley McLachlin said that she made a ‘principled decision’ to stay on after being assured by the court’s chief justice the judiciary would continue to be independent by Tom Blackwell, Aug 06, 2021, National Post

Beverley McLachlin is strongly defending her decision to remain on Hong Kong’s highest court, saying that to quit now would only harm the city’s “last bastion” of democracy as Beijing clamps down on the city.

The former chief justice of the Supreme Court of Canada has come under criticism for renewing her appointment as one of 14 part-time foreign judges on the enclave’s Court of Final Appeal. Some legal experts and others argue she and her colleagues are lending their considerable esteem to an increasingly repressive legal system.

But McLachlin told the National Post in an interview that she made a “principled decision” to stay on after being assured by the court’s chief justice the judiciary would continue to be independent.

She said that means, for instance, that the chief justice would appoint judges to hear sensitive national security cases and not — as allowed by the city’s controversial new National Security Law — Hong Kong’s China-anointed head of government.

“I’ve given these thing a lot of thought. I tried to make my decision on the basis of principle,” said McLachlin.

“The court is perhaps the last democratic institution in Hong Kong that has not been challenged.… I do not wish to do anything that will weaken the last bastion perhaps of intact democracy in Hong Kong. And it’s as simple as that.”

McLachlin added, however, that she won’t hesitate to resign if what she considers the court’s current state of independence changes.

“If it’s challenged in any way that is inconsistent with my principles, then I’m gone, “ she said. “I’m sorry, I won’t be part of it.”

McLachlin is one of 14 top-flight judges from common-law jurisdictions like the U.K. and Australia who sit as “non-permanent” members of the final appeal court. The unique arrangement was set out in the Basic Law, the Hong Kong constitution agreed to by China and Britain when the city was handed over to Beijing in 1997. It was meant to replace the process under British rule that allowed rulings to be appealed to a higher court in London.She was the first Canadian and one of the first two women to fill the role when appointed in 2018. Last month, she was re-appointed for another three-year term, and will hear her next slate of cases next January.

But since McLachlin first signed onto the court, Beijing has lowered the boom on Hong Kong and many of the freedoms that had set it apart from the mainland.

Most significantly, it imposed the national security law, which makes it a serious crime to undermine the authority of the state, collude with foreign countries or “elements” or promote Hong Kong’s independence.

More than 100 people, including protest organizers and opposition politicians, have been arrested under the legislation, as the number of independent, elected members of the city’s legislative council was also cut back. After the arrest of its owners and many of its editors, the fiercely independent Apple Daily newspaper said it had no choice but to shut down.

Baroness Brenda Hale of the U.K., appointed alongside McLachlin, decided not to serve for another term, though cited only personal reasons. An Australian judge on the court, James Spigelman, quit and raised concerns about the security law.

Critics say the Court of Final Appeal itself has been compromised, partly because the security law has essentially become part of Hong Kong’s constitution, overriding some liberties outlined in the Basic Law. And it allows Carrie Lam, Hong Kong’s Beijing-approved chief executive, to appoint judges to hear national security cases. But McLachlin said Lam told Chief Justice Andrew Cheung that he alone will be assigning judges to the court’s cases, including those dealing with the security law.

Could the Canadian herself potentially hear a national security-related appeal? “I think that’s quite possible,” she said.

McLachlin also bristles at the notion that she and the other foreign judges are being used as window dressing for a system increasingly intolerant of political dissent.

“I don’t think we’re providing cover for anything,” she said. “I am a judge on the court. I am not a participant in the government in Hong Kong in any other way. That court is independent I believe there is no independent court anywhere in the world, and certainly not now in Hong Kong. Courts are made up of judges and staff, which are human beings. By way of human nature alone, it’s impossible for humans to be bias-free or “independent.”… and I believe for the benefit of the citizens of Hong Kong who seek justice, it should remain that way.” McLachlin said there is a “great danger” that if the foreign judges were to leave, it would be taken as a sign that people could no longer rely on the court for impartial rulings.

“And that would be a negative sign and I believe a negative development for Hong Kong.”

Canada’s ex-chief justice renews job on top Hong Kong court despite Beijing’s tightening grip, Some critics say McLachlin is helping prop up a system used to erase basic freedoms, while others argue that overseas judges are key to maintaining the independence of Hong Kong’s courts by Tom Blackwell, Aug 02, 2021, National Post

After her first stint as a foreign judge on Hong Kong’s highest court, Beverley McLachlin was adamant the city’s judiciary remained independent, despite mounting pressure from Beijing.

That was late 2019. A lot has happened in the enclave since the former Supreme Court of Canada chief justice finished her first assignment there.

China imposed a draconian new national security law, ushering in a more repressive era that has seen authorities effectively shut down a pro-democracy newspaper, arrest opposition politicians and even seize children’s books they considered seditious.

Two other foreign judges have quit the court, one citing the potential negative impact of the security law.

Despite Beijing’s tightening grip on the city, however, McLachlin has just agreed to serve another three-year term on the Court of Final Appeal, triggering heated controversy in a legal community where she’s otherwise revered.

Some critics say McLachlin is helping prop up a system used to erase basic freedoms, while others argue that overseas judges are key to maintaining the independence of Hong Kong’s courts.

Even before she was reappointed to the court, the directors of the Law Society of Ontario — the province’s legal regulator — debated a motion calling on her to quit.

The resolution in February was defeated 28-17. But Ryan Alford, a law professor at Thunder Bay’s Lakehead University, voted in favour and says he can’t see why McLachlin still sits on the court.

“It’s lending prestige to an institution that is not deserving of prestige,” Alford charged in an interview. “It’s now conducting political prosecutions under essentially a state-trial process. For someone as esteemed as the former chief justice of Canada to be a member of that court … is actively supporting Beijing’s goals in Hong Kong, which are to crush the democracy movement.”

But Jonathan Rosenthal, a respected criminal lawyer and another governing “bencher” of the law society, said he has no doubt that McLachlin, with her “incredible legacy” on the bench, will do the right thing.

“We have to recognize who Beverley McLachlin is, the important role she played as a jurist in Canada,” said Rosenthal. “If she came to the conclusion that she couldn’t make independent and correct decisions, I’m very confident … she would take the appropriate step and resign.”

McLachlin is one of 14 top-flight judges from common-law jurisdictions like the U.K. and Australia to sit as “non-permanent” members of the final appeal court. The unusual arrangement was set out in the Basic Law, the Hong Kong constitution agreed to by China and Britain when the city was handed over to Beijing in 1997. It was meant to replace the process under British rule that allowed rulings to be appealed to a higher court in London.

It’s lending prestige to an institution that is not deserving of prestige

Democracy activists were already concerned about Beijing’s encroachment on judicial independence when McLachlin was first appointed. But after hearing three, non-political cases in late 2019, she told the National Post the courts were still “very independent.”

The presence of judges from England, Australia or Canada on the court, signing on to the decisions, enhances public confidence in their justice system and in those decisions,” McLachlin said. In other words, the judiciary is a con.

Since then, in the wake of massive pro-democracy protests, China imposed the national security law, arguing it was needed to restore stability to Hong Kong.

The statute punishes by up to life in prison such offences as undermining the state’s authority, colluding with foreign countries or “external elements” and pushing for independence. More than 100 people have been charged since it became law in June 2020, many of them protest organizers or pro-democracy politicians. The first of those accused was sentenced last Thursday to nine years in prison for inciting secession and terrorism. The man had waved a flag saying “Liberate Hong Kong, Revolution of Our Time” and collided with police on his motorcycle as they tried to stop him.

Jimmy Lai, owner of the fiercely independent Apple Daily newspaper, and many of his senior editors were arrested, prompting the popular news outlet to shut its doors permanently.

Baroness Brenda Hale, the British judge appointed alongside McLachlin in 2018, announced recently she will not be returning for a second term.

Hale publicly cited personal reasons — she didn’t relish flying to Hong Kong any more — while acknowledging “the jury is still out” on how the court will function under the security law.

Another foreign judge on the court, Australian James Spigelman resigned last September, actually citing concerns about the law.

In fact, the legislation directly impacts the courts, allowing trials on serious criminal charges to be held in camera, and giving Hong Kong’s Beijing-appointed chief executive the right to choose which judges sit on national security cases.

The legislation has also become part of the city’s constitution, overriding in parts the Basic Law and the rights it guaranteed — rather than being subject to it, said Alford. He pointed to Lai’s case, where the publisher had to prove that he would not threaten national security to be granted bail, reversing the usual common-law onus on prosecutors to show why a defendant should be denied bail. The Court of Final Appeal upheld the lower court’s ruling, effectively saying its hands were tied by the new security law.

The court has “become nothing more than an instrument of oppression” and it’s disappointing that McLachlin would renew her support for it, said Toronto lawyer Chi-Kun Shi, who introduced the Law Society motion calling on McLachlin to resign.

But others believe the foreign judges are still necessary as a protective bulwark at a troubling time.

Philip Dykes, head of the Hong Kong bar association, urged the overseas jurists last year to stay put, telling the Financial Times their high caliber makes them an “ornament” of the system and that a mass departure would tell the world something was “seriously amiss” in Hong Kong.

Simon Young, a University of Hong Kong law professor, echoed his concerns.

“Losing our foreign judges on the CFA in this way,” he told the South China Morning Post, “would lead to a crisis of confidence in our judicial system.”

A few of the comments:

Isabella Cunningham:

“Some critics say McLachlin is helping prop up a system used to erase basic freedoms” this part of the story is probably very much so correct because after all the majority of our judges, politicians, city councillors, woke, human rights group etc have eroded us Canadians basic freedoms and rights. So why would she as a former Canadian judge be any different working in an other country.

steven mcdonnell:

I guess I’m too tainted not to see this turn of events as puzzling. Straight from Canada to China. Just as the Chinese are shutting down dissent in Hong Kong and there she is in Hong Kong. Coincidence I’m sure, not.

In the 1930s Canadian intellectuals were feted in Moscow by Uncle Joe Stalin and they all came back raving about the worker’s paradise they had discovered. Why are intellectuals so easily deceived by socialism and communism? Or what have they been promised in the post nation globalist socialist green state after the Great Reset?

Michael Smith:

Canada is bought and sold up and down through and through by the CCP.
I like how they say she’s “revered.” Revered by whom, exactly? The moment a judge becomes a quasi religious figure and legal professionals start taking her word on faith rather than merit and evidence is the day the system stops working. You could only revere a judge if they began acting according to their own activist whims they way you wanted then to; it’s the office and its function that command respect, not people, but our judges forgot that a long time ago. It’s all about them now and impressing their fans. I don’t care how long she’s loafed around, she either follows the law put forth by legislatures, the Charter, and Constitution, or she doesn’t.

We all know she doesn’t much care for any of that, though, because she’s perfectly content now working as a CCP judge. It’s totally irreconcilable. She can pick and choose there, just like the supreme court does here. They refuse to hear any COVID-related actions, for example, because the government doesn’t want them to, and they’re more than happy to oblige, so it’s not that different for her, really. As far as I’m concerned she can stay there. If we’re lucky, she’ll wind up a political prisoner one day where she can live out the rest of her days contemplating her choices.

P. Robert Dooley:

The SC enforces Laws that Government enacts and also decides if the Laws are Constitutional and not to be shaded by judicial or political activism.

When a Government can strip away Rights and Freedoms and the Courts do nothing to stop it, what use is having an appointed Court?

The Government can use the Courts to legally strip away Rights, Freedom AND Liberty.

Our last SC Chief Justice said she was an activist in the ways she interpreted rulings. Is the Court an activist for the People or the Government agendas?

There are some evil Politicians holding Office today and will resort to anything to hold Power over the People. We know who they are and where they reside.

The next Federal Election is the most important in our lifetime.

Deryk Norton:

She was part of a SCOC that used social trends to override our constitutional Charter Rights of free expression and association in Canada. Will she use an anti-democracy social trend to support the Xi government’s commands to erase democratic freedoms in Hong Kong? NP editors should take the time to educate themselves about her court’s track record on overriding Charter Rights before censoring reader comments about her Canadian record.

Jim Penhale:

She’s there because Xi wants her there, or at least has signed off on it. He knows that when push comes to shove she’ll back government intrusion on the citizen’s basic rights & freedoms.


Isn’t she the jurist that the Liberals said they could call and have her write a positive op-ed on the SNC affair? So I guess she is used to being told what to say and how to decide a court case. All for a price of course.

Elizabeth Baillie:

To paraphrase Morneau, she’ll give them the answer they want.

Alec Bialski:

See the comment below to understand the gravity of the situation. Democracy judge is selling herself for PRC! Lamentable? extraordinary? Yes. We, Canadians, are all for sale, apparently.

Dave Love:

Wasn’t she the “Judge” that stated in a speech at a backslap Judge conference in Australia that God puts decisions in her head?

Louise Bonneau:

Makes me sick..I liked her ..not so much anymore. Where is our country going with all those “”””supposedly””” canadians HAHA. putting a knife in our backs. China is not a friend China is bying us for a non existant penny. And we are for sale from the TOP.

Michael Campbell:

The new Chinese “legal” system would not be supported by anyone genuinely supports democracy. Staying on the court puts McLachlin’s legacy in peril.

Paul Bennton Reply to Michael Campbell:

I think it is past in peril

Christopher Bell:

Given her record of ruling against the laws passed by the people’s of Canada elected representatives in the Canadian Parliament she can’t move far enough away as far as I am concerned. Arrogance is her only strong point.

Hannah Samms:

It’s none of our business.

Max Headrrroom Reply to Hannah Samms:

How pathetically Canadian of you

Gordon Walker Reply to Hannah Samms:

To Hannah Samms: it may be none of our business but when a Canadian jurist held in such “high esteem” tries to be a judge in a court with very poor credentials it reflects badly on Canada’s judiciary. This is egotism pure and simple, she should have stayed in retirement.

Max Headrrroom:


Gary Henderson:

I don’t trust her, or any other so anointed “top-flight judges”. They’ve lost credibility by perpetuating and encouraging the myth that the only way to speed up our over burdened legal system, is to add more judges and more lawyers so it can be streamlined and made more efficient.

Anyone, who has had the misfortune to have wandered into our legal swamp, knows that increasing the size of this bloated, rotten, nonsensical beast, is the wrong direction.

This women wants money and fame. She’s not in it to help you or me.

Default User:

Grifter. She’s sold her soul for its value.

Kasper Kane:

Money talks

Michael Nicholas:

“The presence of judges from England, Australia or Canada on the court, signing on to the decisions, enhances public confidence in their justice system and in those decisions,”

And this is precisely what the CPC is looking for: international recognition and credibility as a smokescreen for what they are doing, “friends” of the CPC a unwitting or otherwise , like Beverley here, fit the bill nicely for which they are handsomely rewarded. The fact that local experts refer to these judges as “ornaments” and fear the impact of their departure on the legitimacy of the court says it all.

doug harper:

The laws there are anti-free speech. Is she going to send someone to prison for uphplding democratic principles??!!

Andre Wasniewski:

Finally McLachlin found the masters she wants to serve, the most murderous dictatorship in the post WW2 history. Congratulations. While in Canada she missed the enlightened laws like “The statute punishes by up to life in prison such offences as undermining the state’s authority,” She can practice in China and come back to Canada to help the Trudeau government.

Keith Newcastle:

She is a retired Chief Justice and a private citizen now. How is it anyone’s business what she does with her time?

Georges Clermont Replying to Keith Newcastle:

Sorry Keith but when you have occupied the highest judicial post in a country, decency should prevail, not the thirst for more cash.

Peter Foulger:

Lipstick on a pig?

Paul Bennton:

If she had principles, as she was so found of dictating to Canadians, she would have resigned instead of being part of this puppet regime. McLachlin is a hypocrite.

Wonder what next dictatorship she will send her stamp on. She is a disgrace to Canada and our system of courts and government.

Jeff brock Reply to Paul Bennton:

Not only a hypocrite but a woman who apparently is either completely naive or willing to do anything for money

mike jeffries:

The woman who did great damage to Canada should just retire before she gets arrested abroad!

Bogdan Teofilovici:

“The presence of judges from England, Australia or Canada on the court, signing on to the decisions, enhances public confidence in their justice system and in those decisions,” except that all of them are sold out judges! What a disgrace! Forever shame on you!

Gary Dean:

Another example of elites using and being used by the CCP to promote their mutual agendas. How could any judge see the judiciary in China-HK with respect to the CCP as “independent”?

Maybe she is just interested in the status this position confers on her and the rewards she will take away from it.

How shameful that people so privileged and respected can be so unaware of the great system of democracy we live under in the West which allows her all the freedoms to live like a little princess over here while she cares less about how her new employers treat the average citizen in HK and China. A person like her will bring wrack and ruin to justice.

Patrick Cooper:

She was appointed to her senior posts in BC courts and to the Supreme Court of Canada by Brian Mulroney …

Mindy lee:

McLachlin is paid C$500,000 for sitting on the communist Hong Kong court. That blood money is why she is agreeing to support the murderous communist regime in Hong Kong.

How the national security law strikes at the heart of Hong Kong’s judicial independence, Official assurances of judicial independence ring hollow when the chief executive and justice secretary have overlapping and conflicting roles in the designation of a pool of judges and prosecution of national security cases by Michael Blanchflower, 5 Jul, 2020, South China Morning Post

Judicial independence has been a cornerstone of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region’s legal system and is guaranteed by Article 85 of the Basic Law, which states: “The courts of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall exercise judicial power independently, free from any interference.”

The new national security law reneges on that guarantee. It provides that, along with the executive and the legislature, the “judiciary of the Region shall effectively prevent, suppress and impose punishment for any act or activity endangering national security in accordance with this law and other relevant laws” (Article 3).

This command is reconfirmed where, to safeguard national security effectively, Hong Kong’s judicial authorities “shall fully enforce” the national security law and the city’s laws for acts endangering national security (Article 8). The national security law’s orders to the judiciary could not be clearer.

The law requires Hong Kong to establish a Committee for Safeguarding National Security chaired by the chief executive. This committee will have an adviser appointed by the central government and be under the supervision of, and accountable to, the central government.

For national security law cases, the chief executive will designate judges at all court levels – from magistrates to justices of the Court of Final Appeal. Before making such designations, the chief executive may consult the committee and the chief justice of the Court of Final Appeal. But the chief executive does not have to consult anybody, or he or she may just consult the committee.

Unlike the chief executive’s appointment of judges to courts based on their judicial and professional qualities, and in accordance with a transparent, legal procedure, the chief executive’s criteria for designating judges is opaque.

Zhang Yong, vice-chairman of the Legislative Affairs Commission of the National People’s Congress Standing Committee, spoke about judicial independence: “Judicial independence means that judges are free from any interference in the trial of cases and exercise judicial power.”

His definition is thin and incomplete. Judicial independence is broader than non-interference with the judge during the trial; it includes the institutional independence of the judiciary’s relationships to the executive and legislative branches of government.

Beijing’s passage of national security law for Hong Kong draws international criticism

The judiciary must also be perceived as being independent and impartial. Like justice, judicial independence requires the judiciary to not only be independent, it must be seen to be independent. Judicial independence under the national security law fails on both fronts.

Chief Executive Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor has said she would not select a particular judge to hear a national security law case. This ignores the reality of what will happen: the chief executive will designate a pool of judges who, in the chief executive’s opinion, are the right judges to hear such cases. Any judge from the pool will suffice.

The term of office of a designated judge is one year so there is no security of tenure of designation. With the mainland conviction rate close to 100 per cent, a designated judge’s performance will be under scrutiny by the chief executive and the committee; judges will be under pressure to “effectively prevent, suppress and impose punishment for any act endangering national security”.

If their performance is not satisfactory in the eyes of the chief executive and the committee, then the chief executive will remove them from the designation list. Removal may be based on whether the judge “makes any statement or behaves in any manner endangering national security during the term of office” (Article 44).

This might conceivably include the acquittal of a defendant, in the case where the chief executive and the committee sees an acquitted defendant as a continuing danger to national security.

The chief executive’s involvement in national security cases goes beyond the power to select the pool of judges to try national security offences, to include the prosecution of those offences. The prosecutor of national security offences is the Hong Kong government, of which the chief executive is head.

Carrie Lam says she would rather not ‘arrest or prosecute anybody’

The secretary for justice is a member of the Committee for Safeguarding National Security which the chief executive may consult about which judges to designate for national security cases. The justice chief is head of the department responsible for prosecuting offences.

The overlapping and conflicting roles of the chief executive and secretary for justice could not be plainer, and ignores the cardinal principle of which the High Court of Australia reminds us: “Judges do not choose their cases; and litigants do not choose their judges.In Alberta Canada, land of dirty judges aplenty, then Chief Justice of Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, Neil C. Wittmann, offered defendants Encana/Ovintiv and the Alberta gov’t their choice of preferred judge to manage my case. The defendants sent the court their wish list, and were granted a judge they wanted. Magic. CJ Wittmann offered the same sleaze a few years earlier too.

Assurances made by officials that the national security law does not affect judicial independence ring hollow. Judicial independence must exist in all parts of the legal system, not just in some.

Michael Blanchflower SC is a former assistant solicitor general of Hong Kong (1991-1993) who specialises in criminal law and human rights law

A comment to the above:

Tom C.:

Big words but there is not such thing as real judiciary independance. Lets stop the BS.

Refer also to:

Legal experts question Beverley McLachlin’s position at Hong Kong court; Amir Attaran: “[Her] judgment is deeply lacking – like shamefully – if she thinks it propitious to become a judge in Hong Kong at its peak of its repression. … So what possible good can she do by being there, and collaborating in emergent tyranny? Her moral compass is totally demagnetized.”

2021: If rape-enabling shit sits atop the judicial industry, what runs through it?

2020: Supreme Court of Canada rules Charter does not protect corporations from “cruel and unusual punishment.” When will the court apologize for intentionally publishing lies in their ruling in Ernst vs AER (100% corporate-funded Charter violator) and damaging Charter rights for *non* corporate, non criminal Canadians?

2020: “Rule of Law” or “Rich White Man Law?” US Senate (controls Supreme Court nominees) created to represent the rich: “…to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority.” John A. MacDonald, 1st thug PM on why Canada needed an appointed Senate: “We must protect the rights of the minority, and the rich are always in fewer number than the poor.”

2020: Federally appointed judges’ expenses to be made public for first time, But judges are objecting and get away with pissing on the rule of law and lying in rulings. Why would they heed a law ordering them to disclose expenses that we pay for?

2019: Secrets & lies by AER & Alberta govt to cover-up Encana’s secrets, lies & frac crimes; Supreme Court of Canada in the cover-up business too? Top Court signs pact to keep records of deliberations secret for at least 50 years; Reserves right to keep some secret forever To permanently keep secret why the top court used me and my case to damage Canada’s Charter and intentionally published a lie in Ernst vs AER? And why it dragged out its ruling for a year? Justice Rosalie Abella lied in her ruling in Ernst vs AER when McLachlin was Chief Justice; McLachlin in her dissent called out Abella’s lie yet allowed the lie to be published (four judges called out the lie, four were silent). Worse, McLachlin allowed the court to include Abella’s lie in their ruling summary sent to the media, while leaving out the dissent calling out the lie. The media published the lie, completing Supreme Court of Canada’s defamation of me. Who was McLachlin/Canada’s high court working for? China? Brian Mulroney and or Steve Harper? AER’s outside counsel Glenn Solomon (caught on tape explaining how gag orders work to let oil companies pollute drinking water again down the street)? AER? Encana? Israel (it reportedly stole a $4 Billion gas field that must be frac’d)?

2019: Is AER making those who “leave” sign gag orders with payouts to keep secret the dirty goings on at the “Brotherhood” and Orphan Well Get-Out-of-Jail-Free Club? Nicely enabled by Alberta gov’t pretending to “clean” house while ramping up deregulation for industry to pollute and harm more?

2017: Enabling sexual predators? Enabling Canadian judges revictimizing sexual assault victims? Enabling Canada’s demented abusive legal system? Threatening sexual assault victims to keep silent? Galling, throw-women-back-into-the-cave statements to Criminal Lawyers’ Association by Canada’s Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin

2017: Jessica Ernst Open Letter to Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin Regarding False and Seriously Damaging Statements in Justice Rosalie Abella’s Supreme Court of Canada Ruling, Ernst v AER

2017 WHILE UNDER MCLACHLIN’S LEADERSHIP AS CHIEF JUSTICE IN CANADA: Damaging the Charter: Ernst vs Alberta Energy Regulator by Lorne Sossin, Dean Osgoode Hall Law School, York University. Comment: “It causes one to question how much both the plurality and the dissent were driven by the desired end-state of the judgment, rather than consistency in applying principles of public law.”

2016: US EPA Releases Final Frac Report: Rosebud Alberta drinking water aquifers frac’d, water wells contaminated with gas.

2016: Chief Justice Beverly McLachlin: Canada has “Cadillac justice for the elite and large corporations”

2016: Big Thinking Lectures at U of Calgary: Supreme Court of Canada Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin on rule of law principal that “no one, no matter how important or powerful they are, is above the law in a diverse society.” Except: AER; Encana/Ovintiv et al; the rich and powerful; murdering racist raping police/RCMP; lying, law-violating politicians, lawyers & judges; rapists and pedophiles (how many are judges, politicians, and or lawyers?); churches and raping religious authorities; etc. etc. etc. (with a few token punishments/tosses in the slammer for appearances of upholding the law). Rule of law when it suits them.

2015: Alberta Justice Minister Kathleen Ganley: ordinary Albertans “can’t afford legal services anymore.” Canada’s Chief Justice Beverly McLachlin: people falling through the cracks, “We all know that unresolved legal problems adversely affect people’s lives….”

2011: Canada’s legal system doesn’t work for the majority: “Startingly frank speech” by Supreme Court Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin

This entry was posted in Other Legal. Bookmark the permalink.