The Supreme Court Friday stuck down parts of the Criminal Code which require a “surcharge” or fee against petty thieves and criminals as recompense to society for the burden of dealing with them. The decision was seven to two. The majority decision was written by Justice Sandra J Martin and the minority dissent by Justice Suzanne Cote. Justice Malcolm Rowe agreed with her. The surcharge has been in effect since the 1980s and its end comes about because Justice Martin and her six colleagues have redefined the meaning of cruel and unusual punishment. Judges Cote and Rowe say the surcharge is the cost of committing crime. They find it a long way from anything like cruel and unusual punishment as it has been known in Canada.
MIKE DUFFY DENIED RIGHT TO SUE SENATE
An Ontario Superior Court judge has dismissed Mike Duffy’s multi-millon-dollar lawsuit against the Senate of Canada, arguing the Red Chamber and its members are protected by parliamentary privilege, making them immune from this sort of judicial scrutiny. The decision is a blow to Duffy — who still represents P.E.I. in the Senate — as he has sought some financial compensation for his bruising, years-long battle to clear his name following accusations of improper spending. “Allowing a court to revisit the Senate’s decisions at issue here would interfere with the Senate’s ability to function as an independent legislative body, equal to other branches of government,” Justice Sally Gomery wrote in her decision published Friday — CBC
MARKETS DOWN, DOWN ON J AND J TALCUM ADMISSION
Stocks tell dramatically again Friday in the US (Down off 500) and in Canada (TSX off 155) on fears of weakness as the trade dispute between the US and China staggers forward. Johnson and Johnson took a body slam as it admitted that it knew its talcum powder contained asbestos at some point. .
