As though we had a crystal ball, we managed to predict or foreshadow a little bit into the future with our last blog post. As it turns out, decisions have been made with respect to two of the most significant Immediate Roadside Prohibition cases that have been appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada. We see on the Supreme Court of Canada’s website that they have indicated that the leave application decisions in Wilson and Sivia I (now usually called Goodwin which we hope is, in fact, good luck) will be released on Thursday, November 27, 2014.
At this point, all that is left is proofing the citations and formatting before the Supreme Court of Canada releases the decisions. Here in BC when we wake up Thursday the future of the IRP scheme may have been more or less decided. Indeed, bearing in mind the intentions of various governments in Canada with respect to implementing IRP-like schemes, these decisions could have much more significant, and in our view ominous, implications for our rights across the country.
So what’s it going to be? As indicated, if the Supreme Court of Canada denies leave to appeal in these cases, the IRP scheme in its current form is here to stay. For reasons you can find in the 400 or so blog posts on our site, we think that’s a very bad thing. Although we are pleased that the IRP scheme is being chipped away toward something more approaching a fair legal scheme, there is a long way to go and may people have and will suffer unduly along the way.
Care to bet?
The odds calculated by bookmakers in London would be unreliable in our view. The consensus seems to be that Wilson will be granted leave. Even people sympathetic to the scheme disagree with the analysis taken by our Court of Appeal in the Wilson decision. Some have noted that two-thirds of cases appealed from our Court of Appeal are overturned at the Supreme Court of Canada. We don’t know about those numbers. Still, many lawyers think that the Supreme Court of Canada is much more likely to render decisions protecting our rights.
Our courts in BC are quite conservative in that they tend to defer to the Government position more often than you might expect bearing in mind our reputation as being progressive. We could tell you the reasons for this, but it doesn’t matter. We take on battles that we believe are winnable. We’re not tilting at windmills. We’re putting in our efforts where we think we have a reasonable likelihood of success.
What if?
What if Sivia/Goodwin is granted leave to appeal and Wilson isn’t? Dark foreboding. What if Wilson is granted leave to appeal and Sivia/Goodwin isn’t? You can be optimistic about our chances of success in Wilson and the long Sivia saga will have come to a sad ending, much like a European art film.
What if both of these Court of Appeal decisions are granted leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada? If that’s the case, we expect that they will be argued together and the decisions will be released together with the intention that each is to be read and considered in light of the other.
When decision have been made
On Thursday we’ll learn of the decisions that have been made by the Supreme Court of Canada. Then, we hope, we will have to make some decisions. Our hope is that we get to go to the Supreme Court of Canada to argue Wilson and make some of the points that we think should have been more plainly in Sivia and Goodwin. For us we will have to decide how we will continue to finance the case. Simply put, we’re so financially invested personally in this battle that we’re wondering about our own sanity. One thing we can say is that going up against a Government, which practically speaking has unlimited funds, is awfully hard for one small law firm. Another thing we can say is that, contrary to the hope of many, a class-action lawsuit is not a method to finance the challenges to the legislation.
On Thursday when we learn about the decisions that have been made at the Supreme Court of Canada, then we will need to make some decisions ourselves about whether and how we will continue to challenge the legality and constitutional validity of the IRP law.