Supreme Court Justice Christa Brothers may be legally right that the courts can’t intervene in the Owls Head delisting and sale, but she’s politically wrong if she believes the ballot box is “the proper recourse” when politicians mislead on specific issues.
Stephen Kimber
The Halifax Examiner
August 15, 2021
Originally published here
“Elected officials on occasion make decisions, and use procedures, that leave some constituents feeling betrayed and even incensed. Where those officials exceed their power, judicial review may provide a remedy. But where the decisions are within their lawful authority, as in this case, the court cannot intervene.In such circumstances, if a remedy is sought by the public, the proper recourse in our constitutional democracy is not through the courts, but at the ballot box.”
Nova Scotia Supreme Court Justice Christa Brothers Owls’ Head decision on an application for Judicial Review
July 30, 2021
… How many of those of us who will have cast ballots in Tuesday’s Nova Scotia general election will have done so based solely on the government’s Owls Head decision?
Some, certainly. But not many, not anywhere near enough for the ballot box to serve as “the proper recourse in our constitutional democracy” to confront this government’s egregious violations of public trust and accountability at Owls Head.
It’s not that voters don’t care about Owls Head. They do.
… And yet… There are so many other issues clamouring for our attention during this election campaign.
So, how does the blunt instrument of our vote enable us to hold a government accountable for a specific decision like Owls Head?
