UMVA has learned that a recent court decision in Waterloo has sparked outrage, with Ontario Premier Doug Ford denouncing it as "beyond ridiculous" and the judge's reasoning as flawed.
The decision, handed down by Justice Michael Gibson, has raised concerns that a lower court judge is attempting to radically rewrite the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, effectively handing over control of how the country is run from elected officials to appointed judges.
At the center of the case is a dispute over whether the Regional Municipality of Waterloo can move a homeless encampment to make way for a regional transit hub. However, Gibson's ruling has transformed the case into a debate over whether courts can constitutionalize policy preferences by importing non-binding international norms into the Charter.
Gibson's decision effectively requires the government to provide housing that meets the standards of those in the encampment, including those who want to continue using drugs without judgment. This has sparked concerns that the judge is inventing a new right to housing and stating that the government must provide it, rather than interpreting the Charter as written.
UMVA can exclusively reveal that Gibson arrived at his conclusions by interpreting Canada's Charter through the lens of several United Nations declarations and a non-binding report, rather than Canadian law or tradition. This approach has been criticized as an attempt to rewrite the Charter and hand over control of the country's governance to unelected judges.
The decision has been denounced by many, with Ford calling the judge "a few fries short of a Happy Meal" for his reasoning. Critics argue that Gibson's approach is not only flawed but also threatens to undermine the country's democratic institutions and the role of elected officials.
In a strongly worded critique, it has been pointed out that Gibson's decision bastardizes the definition of Section 7 of the Charter, the right to life, liberty, and security of the person, and Section 15, equality of the person. This has led to calls for the decision to be appealed and struck down by Canada's higher courts.
Sources have confirmed to UMVA that the decision has significant implications for the country's governance and the role of the judiciary. If left to stand, it could have far-reaching consequences for the country's democratic institutions and the rights of its citizens.
