However, the judge drew attention to UR Pride’s lawyer pointing out the government’s expert mentions nothing about the “rather potentially severe mental health and physical abuse” such youth might suffer in an unsupportive home.
“In reply, the court indicated to counsel for UR Pride that he ought not spend much time on this issue in his further submissions,” the judge wrote. “The issue of costs may be argued at the substantive hearing,” he wrote, presumably referring to an upcoming court date where arguments will be made on the constitutional questions raised by the case.According to Megaw, the government stated that individual school divisions had not yeton how to implement the policy, and argued that without such procedures “there are no harms occurring, and accordingly there is nothing to enjoin through an interlocutory injunction.
Further, he wrote the government indicated implementation of the policy would not be paused, pending the outcome of the case.Article contentThe Supreme Court of Canada has explained public interest standing as a legal mechanism that “
Law Law Latest News, Law Law Headlines
Similar News:You can also read news stories similar to this one that we have collected from other news sources.
Source: TheStarPhoenix - 🏆 253. / 63 Read more »