The Business Contenders Set to Dominate the U.S. Market

Russell Brown's early retirement announcement has been a major loss for Canada.I have the somber feeling that I'm writing a premature judicial eulogy. Justice Brown was a judge of great rigour and clarity who continuously adhered to the demands of the rule of law, which were clarity, consistency, and congruence.His legacy includes his dissent in the 2020 case Nevsun, in which a majority of the Supreme Court concluded, bizarrely, that a widely challenged customary international law standard may be binding on Canadian courts. As Brown explained, the whole purpose of customary law is that a practice has become so widespread that its adoption as law is natural, and in this case, the proposed legal claim—direct corporate culpability for human rights violations—was unprecedented and the source of the case's primary disagreement.Brown also provided a robust and clear defense of the constitutional division of powers under 2021's Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act. He was skeptical of the majority's decision to accept that Parliament could wade into provincial jurisdiction to legislate carbon emission reductions under the "national concern" doctrine, noting that such a move would permanently vest Parliament with exclusive jurisdiction over any matter said to be of vague "national concern."

And in 2022's Annapolis v. Halifax, a case in which 

the City of Halifax promoted the use of privately owned land as a city park without compensating the landowner, Brown authored an important precedent for protecting property rights in Canada. He connected the preservation of property rights to the common law of "takings." The Court cited judgments from the 1800s to support this proposition, although the identical natural justice principle—that if the government confiscates your property, you are entitled to compensation—is most likely much older. And the Annapolis decision underscored that such historic common law rights remain in force, even if they are not included in the much younger Charter.His track record on the SCC in little under eight years is amazing. It's awful to think of what his judicial career could have been if things had turned out differently.Members of the Supreme Court pose for a photograph on October 28, 2021, in Ottawa. Adrian Wyld/Canadian Press Canada needs more. Russell Browns By Sean Speer, the Hub's editor-at-large Conservatives frequently express dissatisfaction with their ability to influence Canadian politics and policy. However, their lack of influence can be overestimated. Conservative views about free markets and limited government have risen to prominence at different stages in my life. In recent years, certain provinces have seen positive signs of conservative education and health-care reforms. In recent days, we've even seen early signs of conservative backlash against the excesses of identity politics and so-called "wokeism."

Conservative dread has been justified in one area

however: the judiciary. For over a generation, the "living tree" view of the Constitution has been the dominant (if not the sole) judicial theory in law schools and on the bench. Of course, this occurred at a period when the Charter established the court as a crucial locus of governance and political decision-making. It is worth noting, for example, that many of the most significant political events in the last four decades have resulted from left-wing judicial decisions, most recently the establishment of a hitherto rejected right to physician-assisted death. However, in recent years, despair over the progressive monopoly on the judiciary has given way to hope for a new generation of law students and scholars who are working hard to create an intellectual ecosystem that is rigorous, substantive, and ultimately capable of challenging the prevailing legal monoculture. Mr. Russell Brown had a key role in these advancements. After being appointed to the Supreme Court by Prime Minister Harper in 2015, he became an intellectual focal point for this developing movement. He appeared to be fully aware of his duty. His judicial dissents, including those in high-profile cases such as References re Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act and Trinity Western University v. Law Society of Upper Canada, provided this emerging group of conservative legal thinkers and practitioners with a credible and novel perspective on individual rights, the division of powers, and the role of the court. They represented a different future in which the court was much more limited in its ability to read its political views into the constitution.

His absence from the bench is thus a disappointing setback 

to their efforts. That future now seems further away, especially because he will be replaced by another "living tree" exponent.It is critical, however, for the young people interested in the legal movement that Brown came to represent, that it is ultimately larger than one person. While his resignation leaves a big hole, it does not bring an end to these efforts. Quite the contrary. It emphasizes the necessity for additional Russell Browns.An honourable act by an honorable individual amid a dishonourable process By Geoffrey Sigalet, head of the UBC Centre for Constitutional Law and Legal Studies. Justice Russell Brown's retirement is an honourable act by an honorable man in a dishonourable process. The Canadian Judicial Council's investigation of Justice Brown is based on the statements of an intoxicated ex-marine who urged a police officer investigating him, "Shut up man, just shut your mouth." Many of the ex-marine's claims were refuted by video and his companions' social media posts. The most serious claims against him—that he made unwanted sexual advances—were made in the context of serious credibility concerns and, if accurate, may not justify his removal from the bench. Making sexual attempts toward strangers in a bar is acceptable as long as fundamental boundaries are followed.