The appeal in Schmidt v AG Canada is to be heard on Wednesday of this week (8 February) at 9:30am. The hearing will be at the Supreme Court Building.
The Federal Court of Appeal will hear the appeal in Schmidt v AGCanada at 9:30am on 8 February 2017 at the Supreme Court Building, 301 Wellington Street, West Court, Ottawa, Ontario for a maximum duration of four hours.
The written arguments of the parties and the intervenors in Schmidt v AG Canada have been filed with the Federal Court of Appeal. See links to them here: http://charterdefence.ca/appeal-related.html.
The Federal Court of Appeal has granted leave to the Canadian Civil Liberties Association and the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association to intervene in Schmidt v AG Canada.
The British Columbia Civil Liberties Association and the Canadian Civil Liberties Association have filed applications to intervene in Schmidt v AG Canada.
The BCCLA application.
The CCLA application.
It is always useful to have thoughtful organizations such as these recognize the significance of a standard of examination that calls for no more than a faint possibility of lawfulness, allowing bills that the Minister of Justice herself considers to be likely or even almost certainly inconsistent with the Charter to proceed without a report to the House of Commons.
The Appellant's Memorandum of Fact and Law, as the Federal courts call these things, was filed recently with the Federal Court of Appeal. CLICK HERE to see it.
The appeal of the trial decision was filed this morning. Here is a link to the Notice of Appeal. In addition to the matters set out in the Notice of Appeal, see this page and this one for more on the reasons why an appeal was considered necessary.
You can help with the costs of the appeal. Click on the link below.
The Federal Court confirms that the Judgment and Reasons in Edgar Schmidt v. Attorney General of Canada (T-2225-12) will be released to the parties and the public on March 2, 2016, at 11 a.m. (EST).
Good to see the helpful articles by Cara Zwibel and Laura Track on the importance of legislation being Charter consistent, not merely having some faint hope argument of being so. See
Now to see whether the Minister of Justice gets it. It seems to me that someone who through her past experience understands how harmful an "a faint hope argument is enough" approach would be (has been?) in relation to Aboriginal and treaty rights would understand how equally harmful it is to use such an approach in relation to fundamental human rights.
It would be encouraging to see the Minister of Justice adopt as policy the principle that the Canadian state will act in good faith to honour its commitments both to First Nations and to its citizens, proposing only laws that it honestly believes are consistent with Aboriginal and treaty rights and with the Charter.
After oral argument at trial, the judge allowed the plaintiff to file a written reply. It was filed Friday, October 9. Here is a link to it: Plaintiff's Reply
Edgar Schmidt is a lawyer who was General Counsel in the Department of Justice Canada when the action was commenced. He was initially suspended without pay as a result of the commencement of the action that is the subject of this site, but the employment issues have now been settled. His legal practice has, for the past 23 years, been focused on the writing and interpretation of legislation.