The Canadian Bar Association Was An Appropriate Intervener
1838 Words8 Pages
As an intervener, I represent an outside agency who does not have direct and substantial interest in the case at hand, but has a definite interest and perspectives that are essential to the case at bar. For the respondent’s, the Canadian Bar Association was an appropriate intervener for two reasons: the CBA had a strong interest in the mandatory minimums within the impugned legislation and the perspective of implementing an exemption would act as a good alternative to amending the legislation in case the judiciary did not see good enough reason to dismiss the appeal. I will present an explanation for why the CBA argued for an alternative to the mandatory minimum, how it relates to the submissions of the respondents, and the reasoning behind the specific exemption clause submitted.
Reasoning For Arguing An Alternative to the Mandatory Minimum
The Canadian Bar Association submitted to the USCC that a s.1 and s.12 Charter analyses of the mandatory minimum penalty must include the consideration of reasonable alternatives. S.1 and s.12’s Charter analyses are also relevant to the arguments presented by my colleagues to better enforce their submissions about the s.12 Charter violation and why the infringement cannot be saved by s.1 of the Charter.
Section 12 Charter analysis and relating to R v. Nur The CBA’s submission regarding the criteria Lamer J. was used to bring up another reason as to why there was a s.12 Charter violation. This added to the argument made my