SOSC 1350 - Week 3 - Part 3

Summary

This script delves into the legal intricacies of a case involving Judge Starks, whose decision was scrutinized for bias. It traverses through the appeals process, culminating at the Supreme Court of Canada. The majority upheld Judge Starks' ruling, viewing her community insights as informed perspective rather than bias. However, a dissenting view argued for a new trial, claiming her comments lacked evidence. The script also hints at a broader narrative beyond the courtroom, suggesting external factors may have influenced the case's outcome.

Takeaways

• 😀 The video discusses the concept of 'judges judging judges', referring to the appellate process where higher courts review decisions made by lower courts.
• 👩‍⚖️ The case of Rodney Small was initially presided over by Judge Sparks, whose decision was appealed due to perceived bias.
• 🔄 The case went through multiple levels of appeal, starting with the Nova Scotia Supreme Court, then the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal, and finally reaching the Supreme Court of Canada.
• 🏛️ The Supreme Court of Canada consists of nine judges who may provide majority, concurring, or dissenting opinions on cases.
• 🌟 Justices L'Heureux-Dubé and McLachlin, two of the first three women appointed to the Supreme Court of Canada, wrote a concurring opinion that strongly endorsed Judge Sparks' original ruling.
• ⚖️ The majority opinion in the Supreme Court upheld Judge Sparks' decision, though not all judges agreed with her reasoning, indicating a nuanced view on the case.
• 🔍 Justice Cory, in a concurring opinion, acknowledged that Judge Sparks' comments could be seen as biased but did not cross the line into actual bias.
• 🚫 The dissenting judges argued that Judge Sparks' personal experiences should not substitute for evidence and that her comments indicated a reasonable apprehension of bias, warranting a new trial.
• 📊 Despite the dissent, it was later proven that Judge Sparks' observations about racial dynamics and policing in Nova Scotia were accurate, as evidenced by the Marshall Inquiry.
• ❓ The video concludes by suggesting that one of the Supreme Court judges may have had a conflict of interest, hinting at potential bias in the judicial process.

Q & A

What does the phrase 'judges judging judges' refer to in the context of the transcript?

The phrase 'judges judging judges' refers to the process where higher courts review and evaluate the decisions made by lower court judges, determining whether the conclusions reached were correct or not.

Why was the case appealed to the Nova Scotia Supreme Court?

The case was appealed to the Nova Scotia Supreme Court because the decision made by Judge Sparks was challenged, specifically the claim of reasonable apprehension of bias in her ruling.

What is the difference between the Nova Scotia Supreme Court and the Supreme Court of Canada mentioned in the transcript?

The Nova Scotia Supreme Court is a higher level of court within the province of Nova Scotia, whereas the Supreme Court of Canada is the highest court in the country, which is the final appellate court for cases from all provinces.

How many judges sat on the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal for the case mentioned in the transcript?

Three judges sat on the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal for the case, with two of them ordering a new trial and one dissenting.

What is a 'dissent' in the context of a Supreme Court decision?

A 'dissent' in the context of a Supreme Court decision refers to the opinion of one or more judges who disagree with the majority's ruling and provide their own reasoning for this disagreement.

What was the majority decision of the Supreme Court of Canada regarding Judge Sparks' ruling?

The majority decision of the Supreme Court of Canada was to uphold Judge Sparks' original ruling, with six judges agreeing that the original decision should stand, but for different reasons.

What did Justice L'Heureux-Dubé and Justice McLachlin's concurring opinion emphasize about Judge Sparks' ruling?

Justice L'Heureux-Dubé and Justice McLachlin's concurring opinion emphasized that Judge Sparks' comments reflected an appropriate recognition of the facts and evidence in the case and the context within which the case arose, and that her firsthand awareness of racism in the community was the basis for an informed perspective, not bias.

What was the dissenting opinion of the Supreme Court regarding Judge Sparks' ruling?

The dissenting opinion of the Supreme Court, held by three judges, argued that Judge Sparks' comments did amount to a reasonable apprehension of bias and that her ruling should be overturned, as her life experience was not a substitute for concrete evidence.

Why was there an additional concern about bias beyond the legal case of RDS, as mentioned in the transcript?

There was an additional concern about bias beyond the legal case of RDS because some claim that at least one of the Supreme Court judges was himself biased, which raises questions about the impartiality of the court's decision.

What was the Marshall Inquiry mentioned in the transcript, and how does it relate to Judge Sparks' comments?

The Marshall Inquiry was an investigation that took place in the 1990s in response to a wrongful conviction of an indigenous man in Nova Scotia. It conclusively proved that there was disproportionate enforcement of law against racialized people in the province, thereby supporting Judge Sparks' comments about racial dynamics and police behavior in her community.

Outlines

00:00

🏛️ Judicial Hierarchy and Appeals Process

The paragraph discusses the complexity of the judicial system, particularly the process of appeals and how higher courts review decisions made by lower courts. It uses the term 'judges judging judges' to emphasize the hierarchical nature of the courts. The narrative begins with a trial presided over by Judge Starks, whose decision is then appealed to the Nova Scotia Supreme Court, and subsequently to the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal, before finally reaching the Supreme Court of Canada. The paragraph explains the confusion surrounding the naming of the courts, highlighting that the Nova Scotia Supreme Court is not the same as the Supreme Court of Canada. It also touches on the concept of reasonable apprehension of bias and how it factors into the decision to order a new trial.

05:01

🍕 Understanding Majority, Concurring, and Dissenting Opinions

This paragraph uses a humorous analogy of Supreme Court judges deciding whether to put olives on a pizza to explain the different types of opinions that can emerge from a court decision. It distinguishes between a majority opinion, which is the decision that stands, a concurring opinion, where a judge agrees with the majority but for different reasons, and a dissenting opinion, where a judge disagrees with the majority. The paragraph emphasizes that even if there is a dissent, the majority or concurring opinion carries the day. It then applies this concept to the Supreme Court's review of Judge Sparks' decision, noting that six of the nine judges upheld her original ruling, but for varying reasons.

10:03

👩‍⚖️ The Role of Lived Experience in Judicial Decisions

The paragraph focuses on the judicial opinions written by Justice L'Heureux-Dubé and Justice McLachlin, who were part of the majority decision to uphold Judge Sparks' original ruling. It highlights their endorsement of Judge Sparks' use of her lived experience as a black person in her community to inform her decision, arguing that this perspective is valid and necessary for a comprehensive understanding of the case. The paragraph also discusses the significance of these justices being women and their role in carrying forward the legacy of Justice Bertha Wilson, who was a pioneer in advocating for diverse perspectives in the judiciary.

15:05

🤔 The Fine Line Between Personal Perspective and Bias

This paragraph delves into the concurring opinions of other Supreme Court judges who found Judge Sparks' comments questionable but ultimately acceptable. It discusses how these judges felt that Judge Sparks' comments could be seen as biased, but did not cross the line into tainting her overall decision. The paragraph captures the nuance in the judges' opinions, where they acknowledge the potential for bias in Judge Sparks' remarks but also recognize the evidence and judicial process she employed in her decision-making.

20:07

🚫 The Dissent: Challenging the Original Ruling

The paragraph outlines the dissenting opinion of three Supreme Court judges who believed Judge Sparks' original ruling should be overturned. These judges argued that Judge Sparks based her comments solely on personal experience, which they deemed insufficient as evidence to support her conclusions. They maintained that lived experience does not equate to evidence and that without concrete evidence, Judge Sparks' comments represented a reasonable apprehension of bias, warranting a new trial.

25:08

🏁 Conclusion of the Legal Saga and Implications Beyond the Courtroom

The final paragraph summarizes the Supreme Court's decision as the end of the legal case for RDS but not the end of the story. It introduces the idea that one of the Supreme Court judges may have been biased, raising questions about the impartiality of the court's decision. This paragraph sets the stage for further discussion on the implications of the case outside the courtroom, suggesting that the legal outcome may not be the final word on the matter.

Keywords

💡Judgment

Judgment in the context of the video refers to the legal decisions made by judges at various levels of the court system. It is central to the video's theme as it discusses how different judges at different court levels make and review judgments. For instance, Judge Starks makes an original judgment in a trial, which is then subject to appeal and reviewed by higher courts, highlighting the significance of judgment in the legal process.

💡Appeal

An appeal is a legal process where a higher court reviews a decision made by a lower court. In the video, the concept of appeal is crucial as it describes the journey of a case from the original trial to the Supreme Court. The video mentions 'appeal number one' and subsequent appeals, illustrating how the case progresses through the judicial system in an attempt to seek a review of Judge Starks' original ruling.

💡Bias

Bias, in the video, refers to the perceived or actual favoritism or prejudice in a judge's decision-making. The video discusses the concept of 'reasonable apprehension of bias,' which is a legal test to determine if a judge's comments or actions could lead a reasonable person to believe that the judge is biased. The video uses this term to analyze Judge Sparks' comments and whether they demonstrate bias, which is a central issue in the case being discussed.

💡Supreme Court

The Supreme Court is the highest court in a judicial system and has the final say in legal matters. In the video, the Supreme Court of Canada is the final authority where the case under discussion is appealed. The video explains how the Supreme Court's decision is the endpoint of the legal process, as it cannot be appealed further, emphasizing its role as the court of last resort.

💡Concurring Opinion

A concurring opinion is a legal term used when a judge agrees with the decision of the majority but offers different reasons for their agreement. The video uses the example of a hypothetical pizza order to explain concurring opinions, where a judge might agree that olives should be on the pizza but for reasons other than those given by the majority, such as health benefits rather than taste.

💡Dissent

Dissent in a legal context refers to a judge's disagreement with the majority's decision. The video mentions dissenting judges in the Supreme Court who believe that Judge Sparks' original ruling should be overturned, indicating a fundamental disagreement with the majority's judgment. This highlights the diversity of opinions that can exist even among the highest judicial authorities.

💡Lived Experience

Lived experience is the personal knowledge and understanding gained through an individual's life and interactions. In the video, it is discussed in relation to Judge Sparks' comments, which were based on her experience and understanding of racial dynamics in her community. The video explores the debate over whether a judge's lived experience can be a valid basis for their decisions, or if it introduces bias.

💡Evidence

Evidence in a legal context refers to the information presented in court to prove or disprove a fact or claim. The video discusses the dissenting judges' view that Judge Sparks' comments were based on personal experience rather than concrete evidence, suggesting that her decision should be overturned because it lacked the necessary evidentiary support.

💡Informed Perspective

An informed perspective is a well-considered viewpoint based on knowledge or experience. In the video, Justices L'Heureux-Dubé and McLachlin use this term to argue that Judge Sparks' ruling was based on an informed perspective about her community, suggesting that her personal knowledge and experience were appropriate factors in her decision-making process.

💡Race and Law Enforcement

The video touches on the relationship between race and law enforcement, particularly in the context of Judge Sparks' comments about racial dynamics and police interactions with people of color. This theme is relevant to the video's discussion of bias and the role of a judge's personal experience in legal decisions, as it highlights the social issues that can influence the judicial process.

Highlights

The concept of 'judges judging judges' illustrates the appellate process where higher courts review decisions from lower courts.

Judge Starks' original trial and her conclusion were appealed to higher courts, showcasing the judicial review process.

The Nova Scotia Supreme Court is not the same as the Supreme Court of Canada, highlighting potential naming confusion.

The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal's decision involved a dissenting opinion, demonstrating the variability in judicial interpretations.

The Supreme Court of Canada's review involved nine judges, emphasizing the significance of the case.

Majority and concurring opinions in the Supreme Court can lead to different rationales supporting the same outcome.

Dissenting opinions in the Supreme Court provide alternative views and can impact the perception of a case's fairness.

Justice L'Heureux-Dubé and Justice McLachlin's endorsement of Judge Sparks' ruling underscores the value of critical perspectives in judging.

The Supreme Court's decision to uphold Judge Sparks' original ruling despite some judges finding her comments 'unfortunate' reflects a nuanced view on judicial discretion.

The dissenting judges' argument that Judge Sparks' comments represented a reasonable apprehension of bias highlights the tension between personal experience and judicial evidence.

The Marshall Inquiry's later findings support Judge Sparks' insights on racial dynamics, suggesting her intuition was validated by subsequent evidence.

The Supreme Court's final decision is the end of the legal process, as it is the highest appellate court in Canada.

The case of RDS in the Supreme Court is not the end of the story, as it raises questions about the impact and interpretation of the ruling beyond the courtroom.

The involvement of Justice Antonio Lamer in the dissenting opinion foreshadows his role in the continuing narrative of the RDS case.

The transcripts provide a detailed examination of the judicial process, highlighting the complexities and implications of judicial decisions.

Transcripts

part three judges judging judges at the

Supreme

Court who judges judges judges judges

judge judges try saying that 10 times

fast um okay so let me let me let me

maybe before I get into that so we we

maybe I'll just say first of all why did

I call it judges judging judges judging

judges uh and the the reason I I call it

that is because that's what we've got

going on at this point is you had judge

Starks in the original uh uh trial

coming to her uh conclusion passing her

judgment and that was appealed to a

higher level of court and a higher level

of court and a higher level of court so

it's judges judging judges judges are

reviewing what the judges at lower

levels of Court did and deciding whether

or not they came to the right

conclusion um so let me just say like

you know how how did we get here how do

we get to the Supreme Court as you had

the original trial with with uh judge

Sparks

sitting so I'll just write judge Sparks

is ruling you had her original ruling

her reasons for quitting Rodney small

Etc you had appeal appeal number one

which this is confusing because it's

called the Nova Scotia Supreme Court but

it's not the Supreme Court we're talking

about but the Nova scoia Supreme Court

uh it's it's just it's just the the the

next highest level of court in Nova

Scotia is the Nova Scotia Supreme Court

and then that that decision was appealed

to the Nova

scoia novaia court of appeal and then

that appeal number three went to the

Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada so

normally when we're talking about the

Supreme Court we're talking about the

Supreme Court of Canada bit of bit of a

confusing name noas scal Supreme Court

but

regardless um yeah so what what have you

had here what what do we have so we had

the original trial we talked about the

trial we know why it was appealed it was

appealed to What's called the novas scoa

Supreme Court

and that judge sitting there reviewed

that decision and said I think this was

bias this was reasonable apprehension of

bias I'm going to order a new trial

while well you know hearing that Council

for the accused U Rodney Darren Small's

lawyer said I don't think so I'm going

to appeal this even higher so he

appealed it to the Nova Scotia court of

appeal from that point on the had three

judges sitting there in the novas scoia

court of appeal they reviewed the case

they reviewed the decisions two of them

said this was reasonable apprehension of

bias we are ordering a new trial this

this original decision suggested bias

we're going to order a new trial but one

of them said no this seems more like

judicial notice like this is not

reasonable apprehension of bias this is

somebody taking judicial notice of

what's going on in her community uh I'm

going to I would uphold that if I could

so you had one judge dissenting in the

novaia court of appeal so still if

that's where it had ended uh judge

sparks' original decision would have

been overturned and a new trial would

have been ordered but you know Rodney

Small's lawyer again said I'm going to

appeal this to the highest court I can

I'm appealing this decision again it

went to the Supreme Court of Canada and

in the Supreme Court you've got I'll

just write this down as well just to

explain what we've got below you know

nine judges in the Supreme Court

um yeah you've got nine judges sitting

in the Supreme Court uh and they usually

don't agree uh So you you're probably

familiar with this idea of a descent let

me just explain a little bit like what

goes on when you get to the the Supreme

Court level because you've got nine

judges not all of them sit for every

case um you've got like nine sometimes

seven sometimes five almost always an

odd number just to avoid having like

split

decisions but let's say nine judges in

the Supreme Court EG trying to order a

pizza so let's say our nine Supremes get

together and they're trying to order a

pizza and uh the question is should we

get olives on this pizza or

not should we get

olives and you've got a bunch of folks

we'll call them the majority that say

yes

because olives are delicious so you've

got a majority of folks that say yeah

olives are delicious we're going to have

olives on this pizza and it's because

olives are delicious and maybe you've

also got a concurrence so somebody else

who jumps in and says yes because olives

are

healthy so I'll just explain here that

maybe you've got most people saying

let's say let's say you've got four

people saying out of the nine people

yeah we're going to get olives on this

pizza and it's because they are

delicious and then a concurrent supports

the same conclusion we're going to get

olives on this pizza but they do so for

different reasons so a concurring

opinion would be saying um you know it's

it's the it's the fifth person saying

yeah we can do olives on this pizza but

it's not because they're delicious you

know I don't think they're that tasty

but we're going to get them on the pizza

because they've got great Omega-3s we're

going to get them on the pizza because

that's a source of healthy fats or

something like that so that's what it

would mean they they come to the same

conclusion but for different reasons

some of them here are saying it's

because all are delicious some of them

here are saying that it's because

they're healthy but ultimately that's

going to be the decision that stands

because you've got you know the majority

of people saying it even if it's even if

it's just four people here in the

majority a fifth person is going to sign

on for different reasons uh but uh they

they are concurring opinion and then

you've got probably the easiest one to

to understand which is no uh descent no

and they're going to say because

olives olives are not delicious and not

healthy you know those people who saying

we're not getting olives on these pizza

they're gross and you know there's

better sources of Omega-3s that aren't

covered in salt uh so that's kind of

what I'm just trying to explain here

when you get to the Supreme Court um

when you get to these higher levels of

Court you can have majorities you can

have concurring opinions with the

majority and you can have dissents uh a

majority is easy to understand it's the

decision that rules the day uh it's the

most people there uh uh and um it's the

most people there uh and sometimes in

order to get their way they are joined

by a concurring opinion so let's say you

know let's say this is four people and

this is one person here well that's

going to tip the scales so that now we

definitely have like a yes decision in

the end they've got different reasons

for coming to that conclusion but they

come to that conclusion together so even

though you had four people speaking in

dissent this is just a hypothetical here

um but you had four people speaking in

descent that that that decision is not

going to stand uh because you don't have

four people joined in this conclusion

even if even if you had four people all

agreeing on on why they should come to

that conclusion you only had four people

coming to that particular conclusion and

here you've got essentially five people

coming to the conclusion we'll get

olives on this

pizza hopefully that was a good example

uh if if not um maybe you'll understand

when we actually get to real court cases

but let's say that they were trying to

to order a pizza there but yeah let's

let's talk about what actually happened

in the Supreme Court maybe this will be

a better uh example so let's look first

at the majority and concurring opinions

uh in the in the Supreme Court

um yeah so six of the Supreme Court

judges up held judge sparks' original

ruling but for different reasons um so

about that I'll just say it's kind of

it's kind of like the the pizza example

up here we can even change the numbers

maybe that uh and this these weren't the

exact numbers I don't think but but you

had let's let's just say hypothetically

essentially six people saying yes we

will uphold this decision but they had

different reasons for doing so so they

six people all all said yeah we can get

olives on this pizza or six people all

said uh we uphold judge sparks' original

ruling there is not going to be a new

trial here so there's yeah we're

upholding the original ruling but we

have different reasons for saying so and

so I've pulled out some of the ones that

really stand out so one of the judicial

and it's called a Judicial opinion so

what a judge actually writes uh to to

justify the position that they take it's

not like my opinion or your opinion

where we say this is all very subjective

a Judicial opinion is them laying out

their reasons so so so one of the

judicial opinions that was written fully

endorsed judge sparks' original ruling

so some of these judges who said that

that judge sparks' original ruling

should be uphead upheld fully endorsed

uh the original ruling and so I'm just

going to read out this quotation from um

from this from from from a couple of the

judges uh who were part of that majority

or or who wrot a concurring opinion as

part of uh part of what ended up being

the majority

so they said that judge sparks' comments

uh reflect an entirely appropriate

recognition of the facts and evidence in

this case and of the context within

which this case arose a context known to

judge spars and to any well-informed

member of the community end quote so

these folks ruled that the comments made

by judge Spar Sparks did not demonstrate

a reasonable apprehension of bias so

ultimately judge sparks' original uh

decision should

stand um perhaps as a way to translate

this Translate

translation translation first firsthand

awareness of racism in this

community is not

bias but it is rather the basis for

coming to an informed

perspective about this

Community there we go

community so uh these so I'll just say

the the judicial opinion written by um

Justice L dubet and Justice mlin I'll

just I'll name them here so Justice L

dubet and Justice mlin they formed um

part of of what was ultimately the the

decision that stood their judicial

opinion here the two of them wrote one

together is they said this is not bias

this was not a biased opinion that this

was not a biased position that judge

Sparks was espousing having this

firsthand awareness of racism in this

community was not coming to a bias was

not adopting a biased perspective they

said this was the basis of an informed

perspective about this community in so

far as as judge Sparks Drew on her her

own intimate knowledge of this

community these two judges were saying

here at the Supreme Court that was the

basis of coming to an formed perspective

about that community of being able to

make uh a decision in this case so this

was ultimately uh an a clear endorsement

of what um uh judge Sparks had said so

Justice L and Justice McLaughlin in so

far as they ultimately supported uh the

the majority ruling that uh judge spar's

original ruling should should stand uh

they were endorsing judge sparks'

original ruling very clearly and perhaps

on that point I'll just say that who

were these two folks and why am I

highlighting them first it's because

Justice Luigi Bay was the second woman

appointed to the Supreme Court and

Justice mlin was the third third woman

appointed so uh by this point in time um

Bertha Wilson had retired uh she was uh

I think 1991 I think is when she retired

but she retired in the early 9s uh so at

this point in time um she had she had

bowed out of the Supreme Court but you

had folks like justice l b and Justice

mlin the second and third woman

appointed to the Supreme Court I think

they're the only women in the court um

at this particular point in in time and

they seemed to take what Bertha Wilson

had said to heart and so they seem to

recognize I'll just read out how I've

got it in my notes here they seem to

recognize the importance of critical

perspectives recognizing that gender is

one way uh a perspective gets

marginalized but race is another in the

same way so like with Justice Wilson and

the Laval case they're not saying it's

their perspective they're saying it's

necessary to see things from other

perspectives so yeah maybe I'll I'll

just I'll just reiterate that that

Justice L Bay and Justice mlau and

they're both white women they're not

saying that they are black and they

understand the black experience they're

not saying that at all but they are

looking at judge sparks' original ruling

and they're saying that that judge

Sparks is original ruling in so far as

she was taking first she was taking

firstand awareness of racism in her

community because she is a black person

in that Community reflect an entirely

appropriate recognition of the facts and

evidence in this case and of the context

within which this case arose a context

known to judge Sparks and to any

well-informed member of the community so

they are are endorsing this idea yeah

you should be able to draw on your lived

experience um to adopt a critical

perspective on something they're not

saying it's their experience but they're

upholding this idea that you should be

able to do that to come to an informed

perspective

um so they had the clearest endorsement

of of judge sparks' ruling and they were

part of the people who said that it

should be upheld so there was ultimately

you know judge sparks' ruling was upheld

you also had other folks who were uh

less uh gave less glowing uh uh um

readings of Judge sparks' original

comments but nevertheless you know said

that they should should be upheld so

let's consider uh uh one of the

concurring opinions here so another of

the concurring judicial opinions others

found judge sparks' original ruling

questionable but ultimately within the

bounds of

acceptability

so let me read out what I've got on

screen just quoting from one of the the

um judicial decisions that that that um

supported the majority quote uh of

judicial opinions that supported the

majority so quote it is true that judges

do not have to remain passive or divest

themselves of all their experience uh

which assists them in their judicial

fact finding yet judges have wide

Authority and their public utterances

are closely scrutinized neither the

parties uh nor the informed and

reasonable Observer should be should be

led to believe by the comments of the

judge that decisions are indeed being

made based on

generalizations judge Spark's comments

were unfortunate and

necessary end

quote but unfortunate and unnecessary

end quote but not evidence of

bias so what were they or what was what

was Justice Corey saying here uh justice

Corey was saying um translation let's

write this down

translation we can see how what

judge judge

Sparks said could be

construed as bias

and she

shouldn't she shouldn't have said it for

that

reason however her comments aren't

aren't so

bad aren't so bad as to taint her

overall

decision so that's perhaps how we could

translate that uh I'm just looking here

could could be construed as

bias and however uh yeah her comments

aren't so bad as to to tange her overall

decision yeah so this is this was

another of the um decisions that that

ultimately support the the judicial

opinions that supported the majority uh

less glowing endorsement not really an

endorsement at all of what judge Sparks

had originally said so something like

justice Corey's judicial opinion and the

Supreme Court which is closer to what

most of the judges in the Supreme Court

said is they said we can see how uh uh

judge sparks' original comments could be

construed as bias and we really think

she shouldn't have said that so most of

the judges in the Supreme Court looked

at the original ruling and they said we

wish you hadn't have said this uh you

shouldn't have said this thing about uh

you know I'm not saying that the police

officer overreacted but certainly police

officers do overreact particularly when

they are dealing with longwe groups it

seems to be keeping with the public

attitude of the day they're saying uh

judge Sparks Connie you should have kept

that to yourself if that's what you were

thinking you shouldn't have said that

because everybody's going to think

you're biased if you say that so that's

what they were saying to her you should

have kept that to

yourself but looking at this in context

you said this and you didn't say that

you were just pulling your decision out

of the air you didn't say you were just

pulling your decision out of your

feelings about white cops you weren't

just pulling the decision out of your

feelings about racism in this community

uh you weren't just pulling this out of

the air you looked at the evidence uh

you considered your personal perspective

and brought that in here um but you also

considered all the other evidence before

you uh this was a typical judicial

decision just weighing the evidence that

was in front of you probably shouldn't

have said it in this way probably

shouldn't have said you were drawing on

some personal knowledge here uh but you

know you were still doing the task of

judging still doing the task of a of a

judge weighing the evidence in front of

you and actually considering what was

presented there in your courtroom to

come to a reasonable decision so they

said she came to a reasonable decision

but they were not endorsing her they

were not saying you go girl um they were

saying we this is really skirting the

line here you probably shouldn't have

said that uh I probably shouldn't have

said you were drawing on your personal

uh uh perspective your personal lived

experience or whatever uh but you know

we can let it slide because as much as

you said that you also you did all the

other things to come to a reasonable

decision in the end so they said your

original decision can stand you know

ultimately like I said six judges all

agreed that uh the original decision

should stand most of them were closer to

what Justice Corey was saying here most

of them were not giving a glowing

endorsement but she did have a couple

folks like justice L dubet and Justice

mclin giving a pretty glowing

endorsement saying this was an example

of an informed

perspective I'm sorry I don't know if

you heard me losing my voice there at

the end of the sentence but but okay so

I got through that sentence so these

These are the folks who upheld judge

sparks' original decision uh but there

was a descent three judges joined

together in descent so what do I have on

the screen here three of the

judges three of the judges uh of the

three of the Supreme Court judges

dissented arguing that judge sparks'

original ruling should be

overturned um quite opposite to majority

and concurring opinions the dissenting

judges in the Supreme Court held that

judge spar's comments did amount to

reasonable apprehension of bias so to go

back to my Olive example you know I just

took you through all the people who

agreed to have olives on this pizza um

the pizza got ordered with olives on it

because you know the majority of people

agreed to have olives on that pizza um

they had different reasons for coming to

that conclusion but they all agreed have

olives on that pizza they all agreed uh

you know six people agreed uphold judge

sparks' original ruling for different

reasons but they all agreed to it but

then you had three folks in the Supreme

Court saying no we're not getting olives

on this pizza we don't want olives on

this pizza we we have to accept this

because that's the conclusion the rest

of you are coming to but we disagree

with your reasons uh and we would not

support the idea there should be olives

on this pizza we should not support the

idea that judge spar's original uh

decision uh should be

upheld um so as the judges said it as

the dissenting judges said

it

um yeah so the descending judges

maintained the judge Sparks based her

comments on nothing more than personal

experience however as they said it quote

life experience is not a substitute for

evidence there was no evidence before

the trial judge to support the

conclusions she

reached so very simple

translation this one doesn't take a lot

to unpack but they said lived

experience lived experience lived

experience there we go is not

evidence evidence lived

experience lived experience only

uh lead lived experience leads only to

partial perspectives or

bias um so this was a condemnation of um

judge Starks a resounding condemnation

of Judge Spark's original ruling uh they

said basically show us concrete evidence

about police racism in your community or

or

GTFO um so without the evidence at the

time to support her comments about you

know knowing these patterns in her

community they they said that this was

reasonable apprehension of bias the

dissenting judges if they had been able

to convince you know enough of the other

judges at the Supreme Court they would

have ordered a new trial they would have

said the original trial showed

reasonable apprehension of bias we want

a new trial we'll give the new trial in

this in this

case um perhaps the last thing I'll say

before wrapping this up and I recognize

this clip is getting a bit

long

um and maybe I'll open put it down here

like

ironically there was

evidence to support judge

spurs' comments so I'll just and and you

can take this as you as you like um but

I'll just I'll just add here at the end

so judge Sparks you know she in her in

her comments said I'm drawing on

basically my my knowledge in addition to

considering you know the evidence that

of everything was presented today uh I'm

I'm also uh drawing on my um knowledge

of this community and you know racial

Dynamics in this community and the way

that white officers interact with u

people of color in this community Etc so

judge Sparks didn't have statistics to

back up what she was saying she wasn't

quoting from um you know some uh uh um

she wasn't she wasn't quoting from like

a a peer reviewed source to to back that

up she was drawing on her own experience

as it turns out she was right

um and so like uh um I'll just write it

down like the Marshall

inquest that came out in the the 1990s

uh uh in response to a wrongful

conviction of um an indigenous man in

Nova Scotia it

actually

conclusively

proved that uh there was like a a

disproportionate uh enforcement of uh

law against uh violence and law uh

against um racialized people in Nova

Scotia uh at the time so like it turns

out like judge sparks' intuition that

there was uh um a pattern of the racial

Dynamics between uh White police

officers and and people of color in Nova

Scotia her intuition was actually backed

up then like later on by things like the

the like maybe even at the time it was

available like the Marshall inquest so

so take from that what you will so the

the this the three dissenting judges

here said she didn't have evidence to

support what she was saying she was just

drawing on like her personal lived

experience that's not a substitute for

evidence we think there should be a new

trial they were saying that with full

knowledge that her intuition was proven

correct um so the descending judges also

said uh that you know she shouldn't have

been able to draw on her lived

experience here to back this up even in

the context where her lived experience

could have had evidence to back it up so

take from that what you will um take

from that what you will you know um uh

uh

um let me end this clip uh an important

point for us to note however so the

dissenting opinion here it was written

by Justice John Major but um you know

one one of the dissenting

judges judges was uh justice Antonio Lam

I'll just write Justice lame there so

there were three judges who who

dissented signed into to this dissenting

opinion one of them was Justice lame mer

his role becomes more important as we

look beyond the courtroom in the next

clip um so that's where the court case

ended the Supreme Court is where the

buck stops you can't appeal the Supreme

Court decision once the like if the

Supreme Court of candada up rule

something like in the United States like

if the Supreme Court of the United

States rules something there's nowhere

higher you can appeal to that's where

the the buck stops it's the court of

last appeal the court of highest appeal

so that's where the the the court case

of RDS ended that's where the legal case

of RDS ended but it's not where the

story of RDS ended or not where the

story of the RDS case itself even ended

and that's because some claim uh that at

least one of the Supreme Court judges

was himself quite biased and therefore

not discharging his duty to be an

impartial Arbiter let's have a look at

that and the final clip down below this

um where we'll consider the The Saga

outside the Supreme Court on that uh

concerned the RDS case