The article analyzes two recent Canadian court cases that highlight tensions around judicial overreach and constitutional law. The first case involves Ontario's removal of bike lanes in Toronto, where a lower court's injunction was overturned by the Court of Appeal. Justice Grant Huscroft emphasized courts must avoid commenting on legislative policy, underscoring the principle of judicial restraint. The second case centers on Quebec’s attempt to amend Canada’s constitution to exempt provincial legislators from swearing allegiance to the Crown. Law professor Lawrence David challenged this as unconstitutional, arguing such amendments require unanimous parliamentary approval. While the bike lane issue sparked widespread media attention, the constitutional challenge received less coverage despite its implications for Canada’s legal framework. The author critiques both cases, warning against celebrating judicial or legislative actions based solely on their stated goals, as they could lead to unintended consequences. The piece underscores the importance of maintaining institutional boundaries and the dangers of politicizing the judiciary.

Vienna, an Alberta teenager, and her family are taking legal action against the provincial government after being forced to pay nearly $200,000 out-of-pocket for a life-saving spinal surgery. The case centers on the family's claim that the government violated Vienna’s constitutional rights under Section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms by failing to provide timely access to a recommended surgical procedure. After years on a waitlist for complex spinal tethering surgery, the family opted for an experimental technique abroad, which was deemed non-experimental by medical experts. The Canadian Constitution Foundation (CCF) is supporting the lawsuit, arguing that the government’s failure to prioritize urgent care constitutes a breach of fundamental rights to life, liberty, and security. The Ministry of Primary and Preventative Health Services has stated it cannot comment on the case due to its legal status but emphasized that out-of-country funding decisions are made by medical experts, not bureaucrats. The family now seeks judicial review to force reimbursement and set a precedent for other patients facing similar systemic delays. This case highlights growing concerns about healthcare access in Canada and the legal implications of prolonged wait times for critical treatments.

Sentinel Legal is challenging the Tobacco and Vapes Act 2025, asserting that personal freedom and choice should not be restricted by age-based regulations.

from boingboing rss feed