‘Residential School Lawyer Appointed to Supreme Court’

The newest Prime Ministerial appointment to the unaccountable Supreme Court of Canada was an architect of the ‘no-fault’, billion-dollar Residential Schools rewards program (“Under our system, attendance based on government records triggered automatic compensation, without making ‘survivors’ explain or prove their personal victimization”)

“The ‘Liberal’ government’s Supreme Court nominee says her experience as a lawyer working on the residential-school settlement taught her about the importance of ‘reconciliation’ and the responsibility of those in power to learn about the lives of others…

“Many in the legal and ‘indigenous’ {‘descendants of Siberian settlers’} communities expressed disappointment last week that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau didn’t choose an ‘indigenous’ judge to sit on the country’s top court. But {aboriginal} Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould told reporters that Justice Sheilah Martin, who, since June, 2016, served as a judge of the Courts of Appeal of Alberta, the Northwest Territories and Nunavut, will serve the country well.

“She brings diversity from living in various places across our great nation, working in the North, working directly with ‘indigenous’ peoples throughout her career,” 
said Ms. Wilson-Raybould, who called it an “incredible appointment”.

“Justice Martin said her experience working alongside former Assembly of ‘First Nations’ Chief Phil Fontaine on the Indian residential school settlement and hearing the stories of abuse left her moved and shaken…

Supreme Court of Canada Justice Sheilah Martin (CANADIAN PRESS)

“Justice Martin also referenced the Supreme Court’s {racist} ‘Ipeelee’ decision of March, 2012,
which said that sentencing judges must take into account the historical experience of ‘indigenous’ offenders.

{What Happened To Legal Equality?: http://endracebasedlaw.net/what-happened-to-legal-equality/

Conning The System:

The Folly Of ‘Gladue’:

Undermining Public Safety:

Judge Gives No Jail Time:

Doing The Crime, But Not The Time‘ (Widdowson):
https://www.facebook.com/ENDRACEBASEDLAW/photos/a.336196793149227.59519.332982123470694/567640893338148/?type=1 }

“The session was moderated by University of Ottawa law professor François Larocque, who billed it as a chance to get to know Justice Martin, and not an opportunity to comment on specific legal cases. Justice Martin will fill the vacancy created by the retirement of Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin on Dec. 15. Her nomination will keep the court at five men and four women…

“Speaking generally, Justice Sheilah Martin, 60, said that as a former law professor, she’s rarely heard a good argument in favour of less education. But that need has to be balanced with ‘judicial independence’ {Judges hide their ‘political bias’ behind this…}.

“When you’re dealing with the education of judges – or I guess in this case, potential judges – one always has to be exceptionally mindful of the countervailing requirement of ‘judicial independence’, and who leads the education, what its content is,”

she said, noting many provincial and national organizations work in this area.

“In addition to her work on the bench, Justice Martin spoke about her upbringing in an English family in Montreal. “It gives me a very full sensibility about ‘minority language rights’,” she said. Justice Martin spoke frequently in French throughout the session…”

–‘Reconciliation, fairness top of mind for new Supreme Court nominee Sheilah Martin’,
Laura Stone, Toronto Globe and Mail, December 5, 2017

Feature IMAGE: Maclean’s/Shutterstock


A group of students and parents from the Saddle Lake Reserve, en route to the Methodist-operated school in Red Deer, Alberta. (Woodruff, Library and Archives Canada, PA-040715)

“Describe the five (5) most significant cases or matters that you dealt with while in legal practice or as a judge and how you dealt with them:

1. Work on the Indian Residential School Settlement

“When I was a lawyer and academic, I was asked by Grand Chief Phil Fontaine of the Assembly of ‘First Nations’ {‘Siberian settler communities’} to become a member of a team tasked with reformulating an approach to redress the harms caused by the forced attendance of tens of thousands of Indian children at residential schools. At the time, there were numerous class actions brought by private law firms against governments and churches. The federal government had introduced an alternative process to litigation, which was limited to compensating individuals, but only after they had proven their attendance, personal losses and recoverable damages.

“I was one of three lawyers on a multi-disciplinary team which included ‘survivors’ {the deliberately-prejudicial term for ‘former students’}, elders, and ‘Indigenous People’ {‘descendants of Siberian settlers’} from across Canada. The enormity of the harms suffered called for a different approach based on the wider themes of {partial} ‘truth’ and {one-way} ‘reconciliation’. We worked together to formulate a comprehensive settlement: a recognition of the ‘truth’ of what had occurred; a meaningful apology; redress for ‘inter-generational’ and cultural harms; personal compensation in an accessible process; community rejuvenation; and the establishment of a {‘Partial’} Truth and {One-way} Reconciliation Commission.

“The month before I was appointed a judge, our discussions with the federal government resulted in the appointment of former Supreme Court Justice Frank Iacobucci to implement these discussions and to include the remaining class actions for resolution. The result was the ‘Indian Residential Settlement Agreement’. In addition to helping conceptualize the overall components of the settlement, I worked closely on the compensation scheme for individuals, which was now only one part of a larger and more significant whole.

Under our system, attendance based on government records triggered automatic compensation, without making ‘survivors’ explain or prove their personal victimization {Unfair to the rest of Canadians}. While individual abuse could still be the subject of a personal claim before a special tribunal, ending the need for each survivor to prove individual damage was a key aspect of the settlement: a concession that attendance alone at residential schools caused recognized and compensable personal, familial, community and inter-generational harms.

{Something that was never proven, simply assumed. In addition, the positive aspects of the schools were minimized, when not completely ignored…

‘SCAPEGOATING THE RESIDENTIAL SCHOOLS – 1′: http://endracebasedlaw.net/scapegoating-the-residential-schools-1/

‘SCAPEGOATING THE RESIDENTIAL SCHOOLS – 2′: http://endracebasedlaw.net/scapegoating-the-residential-schools-2/

‘SCAPEGOATING THE RESIDENTIAL SCHOOLS – 3′: http://endracebasedlaw.net/scapegoating-the-residential-schools-3/

‘SCAPEGOATING THE RESIDENTIAL SCHOOLS – 4′: http://endracebasedlaw.net/scapegoating-the-residential-schools-4/ 

‘THE POSITIVE SIDE OF RESIDENTIAL SCHOOLS’: http://endracebasedlaw.net/the-positive-side-of-residential-schools/ }

“This was among the most meaningful and challenging work of my career. Even though I had studied equality rights, I was confronted by how ‘privilege’ had insulated me from being fully aware of what had truly happened in residential schools. By contrast, those affected could not choose to be unaware of a lived experience with such devastating and lasting consequences: families and communities torn apart; missing children; children prohibited from speaking their languages; abuse; isolation; and loneliness. This “education” was intended to teach these children not to value themselves, their families, their culture, customs and heritage. 

{This incredibly one-sided viewpoint is contradicted in the above posts, and by numerous others. She demonstrates no historical perspective – NONE – on this issue…}

“This experience reinforced in me the recognition that everyone has a personal responsibility to learn about the lives of others. As a result, I have become immersed in learning and teaching about the {racist} ‘Gladue’ principles in sentencing, and have read the {one-sided} ‘Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples’ and the {Partial} Truth and {One-way} Reconciliation Committee Report.”

–‘Questionnaire for the Supreme Court of Canada Judicial Appointment Process’



“Assembly of ‘First Nations’ National Chief Perry Bellegarde expressed disappointment the appointee was not ‘indigenous’, but said he looked forward to more appointments of ‘First Nations’ lawyers to judicial positions, and to the promotion of those already on the bench to more senior levels.

“As national chief I will continue to advocate for more ‘First Nations’ people at all tables where decisions are made that affect ‘our people’ and ‘our rights’,”
he said.

“N‘D’P Leader Jagmeet Singh said his party supports the bilingualism requirement in principle, but said there should be “special {racial} consideration” when it comes to ‘indigenous’ candidates.

“I think there needs to be an understanding of the unique situation that ‘indigenous’ communities have faced historically and a recognition of the language of ‘indigenous’ communities {They have over 60 languages. They mostly communicate with one another in English or French…},”
he said…

“N‘D’P justice critic Murray Rankin welcomed the appointment of Martin, calling her an “extraordinary jurist“. But he expressed disappointment an ‘indigenous’ candidate was not picked.

“I think all Canadians are disappointed {Speaking on behalf of all Canadians – especially when you’re not even the Opposition, never mind the Government – just sounds stupid…}. Certainly the N‘D’P is disappointed that there wasn’t an ‘indigenous’ person who was appointed,”
he said.

–‘Extraordinary jurist’: Sheilah Martin named new justice to the Supreme Court of Canada’,
Kathleen Harris, CBC News, Nov. 29, 2017


“Martin also provided some perspective when asked about what she sees as emerging issues facing the Supreme Court.

“Among those will be the balance of personal rights with the ‘rights of collective groups’, she said, and pointed to language rights as a possible example of that. 

{The Strange Case of Canadian ‘Legal Equality’ (Charter Section 15):
https://canadiansforlegalequality.wordpress.com/2016/03/08/the-strange-case-of-canadian-legal-equality/ }

“She also pointed specifically to challenges arising from free speech and difficulties around interpreting law in the digital age.”

–‘Sheilah Martin, Supreme Court nominee: ‘Judges need to show respect to get respect’’,
Amanda Connolly, Global News, December 5, 2017


‘The One Who Keeps Trying’ (Photo–Jeff McIntosh-CP)

“The Prime Minister’s Office cited her strong focus on education, equality rights and increasing the number of ‘under-represented’ groups in law schools and the legal profession…

“Last year, the ‘Liberal’ government brought in a new Supreme Court appointment process to encourage more openness and diversity, which also requires justices to be functionally bilingual {Why? Don’t they have translators for those who appear before the court anyway? Just more Francophone favouritism…}.

–‘Sheilah Martin, Alberta-Based Judge Named To Supreme Court Of Canada’,
Huffington Post, 11/29/2017


‘Judicial Activism’
“In March 2016, Martin issued the first judicial approval in Canada for a person requesting assisted death after the Supreme Court’s decision in ‘Carter v Canada’ (AG)… Martin decided that statements in support of the application from two doctors were sufficient, a decision which rejected guidelines from the Supreme Court of British Columbia and the Ontario Superior Court of Justice that more statements were required.

“Martin also held that no psychiatric assessment on the day of death was necessary, and that the applicant’s request should not fail on technical or legalistic grounds. Martin also ruled that the ruling would apply across Canada, which allowed the applicant to travel out of province in order to fulfill her wish of assisted death…”


See also:
Bad For Democracy’ (Supreme Court) {August 26, 2016}
“The Court can do anything it wants if it can find a branch on its “living tree” of the Constitution to hang its authority. The Court considers precedent, which is to say, its own past decisions. But it writes many judgments in a peculiarly elastic way… Worse, the Court is not above simply reversing its past judgments should they be inconvenient..”
https://endracebasedlaw.wordpress.com/2016/08/26/bad-for-democracy/ ♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠
Post also at:


ERBL Main Page



ERBL inc. Canada News


Mail to: endracebasedlawpetition@gmail.com

Thank you from ERBL inc. Canada

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.