We need to either massively reform or just remove this whole "moot" bullshit as govs can just end something before the court date and get it dismissed, allowing them to just bring it back again later.
What if we deducted the judges pay for the entire period the issue was involved in the courts? I bet you wouldn't see many "moot" renderings then.
I also think we should cut judge's pay in half for every trial that has a publication ban- then you'd know the judge's truly believed it was necessary.
there really needs to be some form of formal judicial penetration testing. Just because something might no longer be relevant doesn't mean it is not worth examining if such a thing was legal or not. similarly, when a new law goes into effect, it would be nice to have a way of testing the edge cases of that law in court before they become relevant to any actual human beings.
oh I absolutely agree, but the rule of law is still important. With how vaguely laws are written, and how impactful some precedents have been, I just think it would be nice to be able to set such precedence without waiting for someone's life to get ruined first.
Haven't read this yet, but from the title, in Canada, are all civil transgressions moot if the complainant brings the suit after the tortious behaviour has stopped? That's how this reads.
We need to either massively reform or just remove this whole "moot" bullshit as govs can just end something before the court date and get it dismissed, allowing them to just bring it back again later.
What if we deducted the judges pay for the entire period the issue was involved in the courts? I bet you wouldn't see many "moot" renderings then.
I also think we should cut judge's pay in half for every trial that has a publication ban- then you'd know the judge's truly believed it was necessary.
So lets say you break a law, like murder. You do the murder and then it is done.Later the cops come and arrest you for the murder.
But no worries, you will file to dismiss the case... because you see, you were not doing any murdering at the time of arrest, the complaint is moot!
“I’m not punching you in the face NOW so what are you complaining about?”
Hey why you so upset about this eh? That was like, last year, eh? It's all maple syrup under the bridge, eh?
-Canadian Courts
there really needs to be some form of formal judicial penetration testing. Just because something might no longer be relevant doesn't mean it is not worth examining if such a thing was legal or not. similarly, when a new law goes into effect, it would be nice to have a way of testing the edge cases of that law in court before they become relevant to any actual human beings.
We aren't ruled by laws, we are ruled by people. Always, no exceptions.
The idea that you can engineer a perfect system and set it loose like a god-machine is what got us into this mess in the first place.
oh I absolutely agree, but the rule of law is still important. With how vaguely laws are written, and how impactful some precedents have been, I just think it would be nice to be able to set such precedence without waiting for someone's life to get ruined first.
Haven't read this yet, but from the title, in Canada, are all civil transgressions moot if the complainant brings the suit after the tortious behaviour has stopped? That's how this reads.
IANAL, but my understanding is that it's at the individual judge's discretion.
And all levels of courts are stacked with Trudeau loyalists.
It's like if the cops beat you every day, but now they stopped, so you can't whine about it again.
By this logic, the nazi hunting must also stop since the third reich was only around almost a hundred years ago.
It has. Now we give them billions. Or haven't you been painting your face in yellow and blue like the rest of the honest injun citizens?
Tell me the Judges in Canada aren't bought and paid for. Just tell me.