Cross-posting from ADCS-ADSC.ca blog congratulations to constitutional lawyer, Joseph Arvay, and his team on today’s unanimous Canadian Supreme Court decision, with the disclaimer as rightly suggested…
This post and the Canadian Supreme Court unanimous ruling is being cited solely to show the legal skills of Canadian constitutional lawyer, Joseph Arvay, and his team, not to discuss our agreement or disagreement with the ruling itself.
Congratulations to @ADCSovereignty lawyer Joe Arvay – SCC allows doctor assisted suicide
Joseph Arvay and team will use their same skills in working to uphold the rights of approximately one million Canadians, their spouses, their children, their business partners who presently face national origin discrimination (US-defined US citizenship / personhood) after the signing and implementation by Omnibus Bill C-31, of an intergovernmental agreement to allow US FATCA law to override Canadian laws and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Congratulations Joe Arvay. Upholding individual freedoms is always a good thing, especially with all the privacy erosions as of late.
Hope you’re on a roll…
http://www.ipolitics.ca/2015/02/06/tilting-at-windmills-joseph-arvay-and-the-assisted-death-trial/
“It just boggles my mind how the government can be so … and the only word is ‘stingy’ and ‘mean-spirited’ about the issue of costs,” Arvay said. “My costs are a drop in the bucket.”
He says his other cases pay enough to provide a good living, but his clients in Charter cases are usually poor. “And the government’s opposition to paying costs isn’t really about any floodgate concern. It’s just trying to do whatever they can to deter Charter litigation.”
Asked whether he’s ever been accused of tilting at windmills, he laughed and pointed to an etching on his wall of a bedraggled Don Quixote, who, after losing his sanity, set out to undo wrongs and bring justice to the world.
“I see law as a tool for social progress,” he said. “We can sometimes make just a very small difference, but nevertheless it’s a difference in making Canada just a better place not just for those who are impoverished, but it’s a way of improving social justice.”
What is particularly delicious about this decision is that all nine justices participated in the ruling, and the ruling was unanimous. That includes several (three at least, if I recall) Harper appointees.
The ruling was based at least partly on the Charter, which is also good news.
It’s not clear to me whether the government intervened against this decision or was the subject of it, but the bottom line is that for the past year or more there have been a string of Charter-related cases before the Supreme Court, and if I recall correctly all of them (perhaps with one exception) were a decisive if not always unanimous victory for the Charter issues raised.
The Finance officials who testified at the House of Commons committee that Justice Department had “vetted” the IGA as passing Charter/constitutional muster, must be sweating bullets about now …
What we can use is a list of up to date court cases that the Cons are directly involved in. We also need to point out WHO they are going to court against and the issues involved. It is easy to spend money on lawyers when it is not your money and all you have to do is a half assed job of telling the public you are spending tax dollars wisely. Mr. Arvay, congratulations for helping ALL Canadians, you are a true Canadian!
Mr Arvay, thank you for all your hard work toward guaranteeing we’ll still recognize Canada when Harper’s done with it!
Well, this one is horribly uncomfortable for me. I consider myself Libertarian as far as most things go, except in situations where life vs. death are involve. With this court case, and with the approval of the Supremes, we are playing God.
I will re-think supporting Mr. Avray, and will seriously think of withdrawing my financial support of “our” court case.
@Veritas. The idea of playing god is up to the religious. People have the right to themselves to do what they want in life with their lives as long as it doesn’t harm others. This should not become another pro life/ abortion issue though, some will make it that. This is a victory for human beings. Take it any way you personally want to. Thanks for your support and all the best to you.
@Veritas,
Please keep in mind that Joe Arvay is not the author of the decision or the originator of the concept of physician assisted suicide. He provided counsel and representation to clients who believed they had the right to choose physician assisted dying and proved that his clients’ position was supported by the Charter. It is the clients who sought physician assisted dying, not Joe Arvay.
Because the Supreme Court decision goes against your personal beliefs, would you now boycott the Supreme Court of Canada?
Joe Arvay has also taken on a case for the Hell Angels re property rights and seizure of assets without due process. This does not mean that Joe Arvay is an outlaw biker, or endorses the criminal activities of outlaw bikers.
Lawyers represent on criminal defendants daily; this does not mean they endorse crime.
Arvay’s victory in this case simply means that he won his client’s case at the Supreme Court; he is at this moment arguably Canada’s champion litigator. And he would not have gotten there by avoiding controversial cases.
Veritas,
from: http://www.lp.org/platform
There will be some that disagree on this Supreme Court decision (even with the safeguards addressed). All, you and I included, must decide what we must do for our own personal values and choices. Wouldn’t Libertarians agree with choice, which this gives all Canadians? I’m don’t consider myself a pure Libertarian, but I agree with choice in this matter, personal between a person and his or her physician. In the same way I want a personal choice on whether or not I or anyone else am deemed a US-defined US citizen for taxation purposes. For what its worth, I also believe in separation of church and state. I would support your personal choice and I support others’ personal choices and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that should apply for ALL Canadians.
It is the expertise of a constitutional lawyer that I am recognizing here, not whether anyone is playing God or any other deity.
Good luck with your own personal choice.
@Veritas
“It’s about mercy.”
@Veritas
*I will re-think supporting Mr. Arvay, and will seriously think of withdrawing my financial support of “our” court case*
Why? Whether u agree or not with this decision… its your decision and legal right to decide what to do… not the gov’t… why allow the gov’t decide on how u deal with it rather then yourself… Mr Arvay made sure your legal rights are protected… that is what these cases he deals with are about… your rights & the rights of All Canadians. Canada seems to feel that piece of paper… Constitution/Charter of Rights… are just suggestions to live by rather then our rights… This current gov’t has more court cases involving violations of the charter then any other… they are using our money for these court cases… they have lost more cases then they have won… I applaud Mr Arvay on winning & ensuring our charter rights…. I support all cases that protect our rights… whether or not I believe in the case or not… that is not the question…
@Veritas, This is an issue which I am saddened by but that is not the concern of the ADCS litigation that I do support.
I also believe Stephen Kish yesterday wrote that the action today was not something that ADCS is part of.
Note to Moderators……you should put a disclaimer on this ruling that it is being cited SOLELY to show the legal skills of Joe Arvey.
While I may disagree with the ethics of this particular court case and would be on the other side of the table, as a supporter of ADCS it affirms that we have the best legal talent possible.
The victory in this court case tells me that the ADCS funds are being well spent to bring victory in overturning the FATCA IGA.
At ADCS and IBS we are united in one thing and that is overturning the FATCA IGA in Canada.
Does the result today affirm that money is being well spent by hiring Joe Arvey to plead our case? ABSOLUTELY.
This reminds me of Jeff Fieger the attorney on the USA whom I had great professional respect for but disagreed with his politics. If I had needed a lawyer, I would have hired Fieger!!
If I need a top notch surgeon, I do not care about his/her politics or even ethics.
@Veritas, the other side of the coin, had Joe lost this case I would be rethinking my funding support of ADCS. Not because of the ethics of the case but because of the performance of the litigator.
I want the best hired gun to end the FATCA IGA.
Who here isn’t willing to set aside how they feel about James Bopp winning the Citizens United case making corporations people too, in supporting his anti-FATCA lawsuit? To do otherwise is to support DA’s efforts to undermine his credibility.
@Veritas, perhaps your issue should be with the Supreme Court, and those who wish for self-determination when they can no longer bare to suffer.
My late mother is now cheering on two counts:
1. We have a very accomplished lawyer on our side against the all-powerful Govt. of Canada.
2. In the future, others can choose to PAINLESSLY end the type of suffering she was forced to endure as she died of metastatic melanoma (skin cancer) six years ago. No one should be forced to endure agony, and the anticipitory fear of unmanaged pain, for three months AFTER your body stops allowing you to eat.
The victory should warm the hearts of Brockers, knowing that Joseph Arvay and his team can get a UNANIMOUS decision against the Government of Canada.
Let the lurkers be assured, THIS website is about FATCA and related Canadian federal legislation and not about that case, so regardless of how you feel about that other issue, you are welcome here.
This shows Ginny and Gwen are well represented. I’m very pleased about Joseph Arvay’s win. In my darkest days and nights, following FATCA awareness, I worried that my worry about facing total poverty due to U.S. tax tyranny would eventually lead me to a state of extremely poor health. This Supreme Court decision gives me the relief of knowing that if I should ever choose to die with whatever scrap of dignity remains, I won’t have to figure out how to do it on my own. Now not to worry anyone because I switched to fighting mode and that would likely not have happened if I’d found myself totally alone in railing against the injustice of the terrible trio of CBT/FBAR/FATCA. Now we have Joseph Arvay’s laudable legal expertise to bolster our resolve to right the wrong that befell us when our government signed the abominable FATCA IGA last February. It’s certainly encouraging.
@Tom Alciere, exactly….!!!!
As I said, I disagree with the decision and I at the same time am very glad that we have such a talented litigator to defeat the FATCA IGA in Canada.
My disagreement on the issue would be with the Justices and the manner in which the law is written by the politicians.
This victory in Court by Arvey affirms my belief that the FATCA IGA will absolutely be defeated in Court.
So yes, ADCS did in fact hire the best.
@Bubbles….”Who here isn’t willing to set aside how they feel about James Bopp winning the Citizens United case making corporations people too, in supporting his anti-FATCA lawsuit? ”
Again…..exactly……….
A lawyer is a craftsman……..some are better than others…….both Bopp and Arvey at the very top of their craft…….
“This shows Ginny and Gwen are well represented.” Absolutely.
Also, notice in the article and other media articles, Joe Arvay puts in as many extra hours as it takes to do the job right, even if he has to work those extra hours unpaid. In other words, he will not charge us extra fees beyond our negotiated amount no matter what the job requires. Once again our gov’t spent our tax dollars to defend their case while fighting awarding any costs to the other (winning) side, which as Arvay said, was being “stingy and mean spirited”. Just wait until he fights these “stingy and mean spirited” gov’t again and achieves a victory for us!
@the Mom
So sorry to hear about how your mother suffered before she died. I am happy it’s over for her finally. Today’s decision will be a godsend for those who would like the choice of whether they’ll take that journey or not.
@Veritas,
It sucks to be conflicted.
You are obviously someone who values life and has deep, powerful feelings that it should be preserved. As you have probably already noticed, Brock is full of people with varying, diverse opinions on many topics.
However, the one thing we all agree on here is that FATCA and CBT suck, way more than our differences. This agreement is what makes us powerful. Forgetting that means we lose, and they win.
Well-said, WhiteKat.
Thank you Calgary411.
@Bubblebustin, thank you.