Benjamin Oliphant

Aspiring Robot Lawyer. From Calgary but in Vancouver. Do mostly labour, admin, and constitutional law. Tweets are not endorsements or legal advice.

[Benjamin Oliphant @BenOliphant]

In terms of my own views on the subject, they tend to be more descriptive and (sometimes) critical, and often evolve over time. But as examples, here’s a short piece those interested might enjoy:  https://t.co/QVcVTQHkS5  Here’s an even shorter one: https://t.co/UAV75yY5Wb 3/6

[Howie Kislowicz @HowieKislowicz]

Delighted to have signed a contract with @UBCPress for "THE SURPRISING CONSTITUTION". a collection co-edited with @richard__moon and @KerriFroc. It includes excellent, thought-provoking chapters reflecting on how the the first 40 years of the Const Act, 1982 have surprised us.

[Benjamin Oliphant @BenOliphant]

This is fantastic, and exactly the type of thing law societies should be doing, in my view. Makes a lot more sense to me than imposing mandatory make-work project hours. I’m genuinely looking forward to taking this course.

[Benjamin Oliphant @BenOliphant]

I haven’t had a chance to review this closely yet, but @ColinFeasby’s stuff is always thoughtful and well worth a read - perhaps especially when he’s challenging your work. Looking forward to diving in.

[Benjamin Oliphant @BenOliphant]

@coleenlisa When I first read this I didn’t think Professor Kerr had this type of power but I checked and… she does. Congrats Counsel!

[Benjamin Oliphant @BenOliphant]

@SamuelOliphant Goff could have done it.

[Benjamin Oliphant @BenOliphant]

As a life-long and long-suffering Lions fan, this is the first time I’ve ever felt genuinely invested in the outcome of a Super Bowl. Pulling hard for Staff today - he deserves it.

[Benjamin Oliphant @BenOliphant]

@CamilleLabchuk @EmmMacfarlane Is my chapter an antidote to, or an illustration of, an increasingly unhinged 2022? I’m ok either way - it would just be nice to feel like I’m in the mix somewhere.

[Camille Labchuk @CamilleLabchuk]

Timely weekend reading for an increasingly unhinged 2022. Well done, @EmmMacfarlane and contributors. (Cc @BenOliphant!)

[Benjamin Oliphant @BenOliphant]

@rankinovitch Haha fortunately not. Watching the Flames, which has been… not as painful as in years past. So far.

[Benjamin Oliphant @BenOliphant]

@rankinovitch I think basically the way it works is that if you don’t want to miss a game you need both the local channels and NHL Live. But again the only thing I know for sure is that it’s very irritating.

[Benjamin Oliphant @BenOliphant]

@rankinovitch Oh so the opposite problem. I haven’t encountered that with Flames games in Canuck Zone. But I thought Edmonton and Calgary were also in different zones so it doesn’t make sense based on my very limited understanding of the zone system. Maybe it’s on your local tv channel?

[Benjamin Oliphant @BenOliphant]

Amen. I’ve always preferred 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 judgments that all make sense than 1 judgment agreeing on the result but that requires an unintelligible, internally inconsistent compromise precedent to make it happen. #TeamDividedCourt

[Kerri Froc @KerriFroc]

Interesting new s.2(b) case: https://t.co/u4MvcuMuhT

[Louis Century @LouisCentury]

On @avnishnanda’s recommendation, I read this wonderful biography of Thomas Berger, who died in April, and I’m so grateful I did. More than anything it is a model of courageous advocacy.

Sharing some anecdotes here. 🧵

[Benjamin Oliphant @BenOliphant]

Thoughtful thread.

[Benjamin Oliphant @BenOliphant]

This was roughly my reading as well. Are Kerry and I missing something?

[Kerry Sun @SunKerry]

@BenOliphant Taking all these propositions together:
0. Court jurisdiction is defined by s. 96.
1. Court jurisdiction must not be frozen at what it was in 1867, per living tree.
2. So the living tree means the meaning of s. 96 isn’t frozen.
3. But the living tree is itself limited by s. 96.

[Aaron Dantowitz @AaronDantowitz]

Justice Abella not pulling punches in a decision released the day before her official retirement (a pretty interesting one, by the way, about the core jurisdiction of superior courts): https://t.co/XCBa3gwLGB

[Benjamin Oliphant @BenOliphant]

Helpful post by Prof @pauldalyesq on the recent SCC decision regarding the protected “core jurisdiction” of the superior courts. https://t.co/pbgKQ5bRVf

[Benjamin Oliphant @BenOliphant]

This recent SCC judgment, while interesting, has not significantly advanced my understanding of constitutional interpretation. Not sure what to make of this passage, for instance. https://t.co/ChjZK4L3SN