Jordan [1] is a judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada that has the effect of limitating the total length of trials in all Canadian provinces.
It establishes that the length of trials should be no longer than 18 months for cases studied by provincial courts and 30 months for cases examined by superior courts.
This judgment is based on the intimate opinions of the judges appointed to the highest court of law by the pro-federalism and pro-monarchism political parties that have governed the Canadian confederal / federal government since 1999.[2]
It is also based on the principle of protection of the rights of accused persons under section 11 (b) of the Constitution Act, 1982:
11. Any person charged with an offence has the right…
(b) to be tried within a reasonable time…
While it ostentatiously seeks to facilitate the administration of the justice system in Canada and to provide a semblance of justice, this Supreme Court decision is nevertheless of paramount importance in another aspect.
It exposes to the citizens the failure of the Supreme Court of Canada to protect them effectively and to honor the fundamental rights promoted in the imperative rules of universal law !
Jordan judgement outranks the rights of the accused, which are expressly enacted in section 11 (b) of the Canadian Constitutional Order, 1982.
But it waives to protect the targeted victims of crimes and all citizens since their fundamental rights are not as explicitly expressed in the constitutional decree of the chameleon state.
These rights of honest citizens and victims of crimes flow from the whole set of imperative rules which are enacted in:
- The Universal Declaration of Human Rights;
- The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights;
- The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights;
- The Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power;
- The Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law;
- And the Declaration on the Right and Responsibility of Individuals, Groups and Organs of Society to Promote and Protect Universally Recognized Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
But it is currently impossible for Canadian Supreme Court justices to enforce the rights of victims and honest citizens in a context where the 1982 Canadian constitutional order does not provide for them anywhere, while section 52 (1) Explicitly states that:
52 (1). The Constitution of Canada is the supreme law of Canada, and any law that is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution is, to the extent of the inconsistency, of no force or effect.
Over the last few months, we have witnessed numerous requests on the basis of the Jordan judgment by persons charged with crimes of all kinds who claim their release:
Another alleged murderer gets a stay of proceedings on Jordan…
Jordan is invoked in virtually all of the cases determined at trial in the Superior Court for the District of Montreal.[3]
So we find that public safety is no longer assured as a result of the Jordan case.
There is an urgent need to resolve the constitutional problems of the national State of Quebec and of the confederal / federal State of Canada !
Jordan case also shows that Quebec justice is a matter that is highly dependent on the moods of the ruling political parties and the Director of Criminal and Penal Prosecutions of which they are appointing:
No fewer than 134 accused whose cases lasted before Quebec justice were released before being tried for nine months, not at their request, but rather at that of the Crown.
The Director of Criminal and Penal Prosecutions (DPCP), although his responsibility is to charge and convict, has released twice as many accused as defense lawyers since Jordan …
Nearly 20 people charged with fraud were able to get by … including co-accused of the former mayor of Laval, Gilles Vaillancourt, charged in 2013 following an extensive investigation by UPAC..[4].
Even if we are supposed to respect the imperative rules of universal law, it is clear that judicial independence is subject to all sorts of perversions…
The Libertine party therefore seized the opportubities offered in the aftermaths of Jordan and Cody[5] cases, in order to bring down all the causes likely to trouble its partners.
[1] Queen v. Jordan, [2016] 1 SCR 631. https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/16057/index.do
[2] The Jordan Judgment was signed by the nine Supreme Court justices who were in office in 2016: Beverley McLachlin, (appointed 1999 and current Chief Justice), Rosalie Silberman Abella (2004-), Michael J. Moldaver (2011-), Andromache Karakatsanis (2011-), Richard Wagner (2012-), Clement Gascon (2014-), Suzanne Côté (2015-), Russell Brown (2015-) and Thomas Albert Cromwell (2008-2016).
[3] See: Le Devoir, May 20, 2017, Un autre accusé libéré en vertu de l’arrêt Jordan / Another defendant released under Jordan, article by Sarah R. Champagne.
[4] See: Journal de Montréal, May 10, 2017, La Couronne a fait libérer 134 accusés en neuf mois / The Crown released 134 accused in nine months, article by Éric Thibault.
[5] Queen v. Cody, [2017] SCC 31. https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/16693/index.do
citoyenne constituante 