First Reading is a daily newsletter keeping you posted on the travails of Canadian politicos, all curated by the National Post’s own Tristin Hopper. To get an early version sent directly to your inbox, <a data-evt-val="{&quot;control_fields&quot;: {&quot;mparticle&quot;: {&quot;keys&quot;: {&quot;click_source_type&quot;: &quot;click_source_type&quot;, &quot;anchor_text&quot;: &quot;anchor_text&quot;, &quot;target_url&quot;: &quot;target_url&quot;, &quot;layout_section&quot;: &quot;layout_section&quot;}, &quot;mp_event_type&quot;: &quot;Navigation&quot;, &quot;extra_keys&quot;: [&quot;click_vertical_position_percentage&quot;, &quot;click_vertical_position_pixels&quot;]}}, &quot;click_source_type&quot;: &quot;in-page link&quot;, &quot;anchor_text&quot;: &quot;sign up here&quot;, &quot;target_url&quot;: &quot;https://nationalpost.com/newsletters/&quot;, &quot;layout_section&quot;: &quot;in-page-link&quot;}" data-evt="click" data-evt-typ="click" href="https://nationalpost.com/newsletters/">sign up here</a>.

Earlier this month, the legal world was thrown into a tizzy by comments coming to light in which Richard Wagner, chief justice&nbsp;of the Supreme Court, effectively said that precedent isn’t all that important in Canadian law anymore.

For one thing, Canadian laws keep getting struck down based on made-up scenarios that never happened{ai:summary}Richard Wagner, chief justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, recently suggested that legal precedent may not hold significant weight in Canadian law, sparking considerable debate in the legal community. This statement has raised concerns about the implications for future legal interpretations.#politics

FIRST READING: The Supreme Court’s troubling habit of making stuff up

Loading...