Common law respecter and DPhil student @OxfordLawFac.

Oxford, England
Brown on the “unfortunate” decision in Canada (AG) v. Power, 2024 SCC 26: “The reasoning … reveals a profound mistake borne of a no less profound misunderstanding of the separation of powers. …it goes beyond the judicial function of determining whether a law is constitutional.”
We are delighted to share the Hon. Russell Brown's 2026 UBC Constitutional Lecture @ubc_ccl @ubcokanagan on "Power, and its Separation" (link below).
2
9
34
5,857
“Parliamentary privilege is not an indulgence granted to Parliament at the expense of the Charter. It is part of our constitutional architecture that keeps legislative and judicial power separate.”
1
10
223
The Power judgment is “a decision that is based on an objectifiably and verifiably wrong understanding of an aspect of their constitutional status—a decision that is, as such, manifestly per incuriam. ... it is rare and probably the first such decision since the [PEI Reference].”
1
7
178
Kerry Sun retweeted
The finest writing on Sir Roger Scruton, the man, that I have ever read. By the finest journalist working in this world right now, @ddhitchens firstthings.com/the-making-o…
9
46
452
18,862
Kerry Sun retweeted
Judge rules 'colonialism' caused First Nations man to become deadly driver. According to police reports, Darris Wilson’s truck was strewn with empty cans of beer when it slammed head-on into a vehicle carrying a mother and daughter en route to a sleepover nationalpost.com/opinion/jud…
115
77
198
18,875
Kerry Sun retweeted
Fun fact: I requested access to this hearing as a journalist but was denied. When it comes to human rights tribunals, there is no open-court principle. If this doctor had been sued in regular court, we would have at least been able to listen in on the proceedings.
B.C. tribunal orders doctor to pay $28K after finding he discriminated against trans teen ctvnews.ca/vancouver/article…
45
186
878
19,824
Kerry Sun retweeted
Great pleasure to share this panel on Maritain, Human Rights, and the Common Good with Jason West (@jwest_edm), whose book will be very helpful for my project—also to meet new people and reconnect with older friends. Thanks to @GeoffSigalet for organizing this annual rendezvous.
2
7
22
1,300
My case comment on the Supreme Court of Canada's judgment in Ahluwalia v. Ahluwalia, 2026 SCC 16, creating a novel 'tort of intimate partner violence', is now published in Legal Studies (available Open Access). I review and critique some of the SCC's innovations in the decision.
2
7
26
1,031
"False accusations of racism are not virtuous, but harm those they are intended to help." @epkaufm responds to those publicly claiming MLI paper is "racist and sexist" Educational consultant Alex "Usher claims that our report is invalid social science because it crudely compares average h-indices across group categories without controlling for age or discipline. Both claims are manifestly false, and even a cursory read of the report would have shown this very clearly." Read the full response here: macdonaldlaurier.ca/eric-kau…
4
22
89
12,202
Kerry Sun retweeted
Pleased to share this call for papers for a symposium on "Judicial Power and the Canadian Constitution", hosted by @MLInstitute's Judicial Foundations Project in Toronto, February 2027. Feel free to reach out to @CopelanPeter, @GeoffSigalet, @yuanyi_z, or me with any questions!
The Macdonald-Laurier Institute’s Judicial Foundations Project is planning a one-day symposium on “Judicial Power and the Canadian Constitution,” tentatively scheduled for February 4, 2027, at Hart House, University of Toronto. We hope to bring together scholars, experts, and practitioners from across Canada, and potentially the wider Commonwealth, to reinvigorate interest in the development, scope, and exercise of judicial power in Canada. @CopelanPeter @SunKerry @GeoffSigalet
8
19
2,983
RT @Vermeullarmine: Good question; here’s my attempt at an answer: thenewdigest.substack.com/p/… In brief: “Real scholarship, to be such and t…
37
2
Miller J.A., recognizing that "accountability" can occur through political, not only curial, processes, declines to expand s. 96 as it would subvert the political constitution [64]. Monahan J.A., dissenting, implies that "accountability" must entail legal recourse in courts [68]
A banger today from Justice Miller @ONCA_en in Minotaur Holdings v Ontario. Litigant argued that s96 gives a constitutional right against laws retroactively extinguishing claims. Miller holds that s96 is an “institutional, structural provision” not a grant of “substantive rights”
3
3
15
1,457
Yet, Miller J.A. points out, even the Supreme Court of Canada has professed to accept that "the rule of law is not the rule of courts"—a view more consistent with the precedents and reconciles Canada's legal constitution with its political constitution. coadecisions.ontariocourts.c…
1
4
842
A banger today from Justice Miller @ONCA_en in Minotaur Holdings v Ontario. Litigant argued that s96 gives a constitutional right against laws retroactively extinguishing claims. Miller holds that s96 is an “institutional, structural provision” not a grant of “substantive rights”
3
5
27
5,610
Ironically, much of Bianca Kratt, KC's "five suggestions on how to critique court decisions" might be more intelligibly read as a proceduralist riposte to Critical Legal Studies-influenced "critiques" of judicial decisions, than the media commentary that it ostensibly targets.
Countering the denigration of judges was one of the recurring activities of CBA President Bianca Kratt, KC during her year in office. As her term wraps up, she shares advice on how to disagree responsibly with their decisions. 🔗 Read more: bit.ly/3SBkROp
1
4
24
2,294
Earlier, I noted that Kratt seems to take issue with drawing a connection between judicial rulings and the philosophy/ideology of specific judges. Yet that is precisely what CLS scholars do. There's notably no mention of ideology in Kratt's latest piece.
My latest in the National Post, on the troubling propensity of legal actors to stigmatize critical commentary on judicial decision-making as an attack on the “rule of law” and “judicial independence”.
9
465