As reported by Antoine Robitaillemy book The thoughts of the Trudeaus, Quebec and the judicial power demonstrates that judges appointed by Justin Trudeau to the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court often render judgments consistent with this thinking.
After having defined it, I analyzed the substantive judgments rendered by these judges and relating to themes at the heart of the relationship between this thought and Quebec. In general, they are 58.6% consistent with this thinking, 27.6% non-compliant and 13.8% neutral. In terms of individual or linguistic rights, with judgments unfavorable to Law 101, they are 70.6% compliant, 17.6% non-compliant and 11.8% neutral. In terms of federal or Quebec powers and constitutional amendments, they are 42.9% compliant, 50% non-compliant and 7.1% neutral.
What lessons can we learn from this?
Quebec must more often challenge federal measures that encroach on its jurisdiction in court.
He must claim the power to appoint the judges of his Court of Appeal and his Superior Court. Even if the latter’s judgments are not analyzed in my study, this claim should target it, because several of the recent issues regarding judicial appointment concern it. Let us think of the lawyer who associated Bill 21 with Nazi laws shortly before being appointed judge to the Superior Court. Furthermore, confirming a trend revealed by the National Postof four judges appointed to this court in Montreal last week, two have the same names as rather recent Montreal donors to the Liberal Party of Canada (one of these names is also linked to smaller donations to the Bloc made a long time ago ).
To preserve public confidence, Quebec must demand an investigation into the federal process for appointing judges.