Supreme Court of Canada Hockey Humour

[MBates]

This case just decided today:

http://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc...16146/index.do

Thought it was worth noting for the Alberta Justice Brown putting in a good effort at writing some hockey lore into his decision (citing Ken Dryden's book The Game).

If you read past the first two paragraphs which I am quoting, that's your own fault...because it is as boring as law can be...

[1] In wintertime ice hockey is the delight of everyone.[1] Across the country, countless players of all ages take to ice rinks and frozen ponds daily to shoot pucks at the net. Often the puck is stopped or turned aside by a goaltender blocking it with a blocker or catching it with a catcher. This is notoriously difficult business.[2] The goaltender’s attention must remain fixed on the play, and not on off-ice matters. His or her focus must not drift to thoughts of the crowd, missed shots or taunts from opponents. And, certainly, the goaltender should strain to avoid being distracted by the question before the Court in this appeal — being whether, for customs tariff classification purposes, he or she blocks and catches the puck with a “glove, mitten or mitt”, or with an “article of plastics”.

[2] Having considered this question, the Canadian International Trade Tribunal (“CITT”) concluded that certain blockers and catchers imported by the respondent Igloo Vikski Inc. were each classifiable as a “glove, mitten or mitt”. The Federal Court of Appeal, however, held that those blockers and catchers are also classifiable, prima facie, as “articles of plastics”. It referred the matter back to the CITT so that it could apply what the Court of Appeal considered the appropriate analysis for resolving duplicative prima facie classifications. For the reasons that follow, I am of the respectful view that, in so doing, the Federal Court of Appeal erred. I would therefore allow the appeal and restore the decision of the CITT.

[corporatejay]

I had Brown for CivPro. Really great guy and well liked by all at the UofA. Glad to see he still hasn't lost his sense of humour.

[GirlySports]

i can't even get to the first two paragraphs. What's all the stuff at the beginning? What's this case about? My head hurts.

[corporatejay]

I think the case is about whether the Federal Court erred in overturning the CITT decision that blockers and trappers are "mitts" and not plastics which likely falls under different tariff rates...

I only read the header though.

[calgaryblood]

I think you need to be a lawyer to find this funny.

[pylon]

When 'as well' 'also' and 'similar' is too low brow, construct a convoluted, confusing sentence using 'prima facie!'. It makes you seem smarter.

"Thesaurus.com. Serving lawyers since 1996."

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by pylon

When 'as well' 'also' and 'similar' is too low brow, construct a convoluted, confusing sentence using 'prima facie!'.

But the thesaurus is there to give you synonyms, and those mean totally different things from prima facie (which means "at first sight" or "on its face")?

[GGG]

Are they trying to classify a hockey catcher as clothing like a regular glove or mitten?

Should it be in some sort of sports equipment category?

[Northendzone]

does this thread have something to do with people?

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

i can't even get to the first two paragraphs. What's all the stuff at the beginning? What's this case about? My head hurts.

I thought you worked at the CCC!

The importer appealed the CSBA's decisions that 4 of 5 of their hockey equipment imports fell under one tariff classification and wanted them all under the other classification (probably cheaper).

The CSBA referred it to the CITT which dismissed the importer's appeal. They then appealed again to the The Federal Court of Appeal which allowed the appeal and sent it back down. The Supreme Court then ruled (3 vs 1) that the CITT was correct and that the appeal was disallowed.

As far as the "hockey humor" though, I don't get it at all. I don't understand what the metaphor of the goaltender is supposed to be. Is the goalie the importer? The CITT? The FCA? The Supreme Court Justice himself?

[Cuz]

Originally Posted by pylon

When 'as well' 'also' and 'similar' is too low brow, construct a convoluted, confusing sentence using 'prima facie!'. It makes you seem smarter.

"Thesaurus.com. Serving lawyers since 1996."

I used Prima facie in many papers while in university