回复: 联邦上诉院将有三位法官组成的陪审团审理此案
来转一则印度人请的律师 Cecil Rottenberg 对这次判决的评论:
The key point is the ability of Parliament to trash the property rights of the applicants whom were invited to our house and paid the necessary ticket. I believe that ticket has property rights that are protected by the Bill of Rights. Short of the Bill of Rights however there is no protection in Canada unlike the United States which has due process, for private property, and that is why in trashing the private property of those, in the backlog if there is nothing in the Charter which protects them. It is peculiar that the Magna Carta which was the revolution of the peasants as against the authority of the noblemen such that in the formation of Kingdom, expropriation could take place without compensation.
The spirit of this due process in Magna Carta has been carried down through the English common law into our country and presumably the Bill of Rights protected it. There are other problems with this case the chief one of which is that before a decision to terminate could be made, there had to be a decision. This decision was whether or not the termination law applied. Rennie J skates by this as if the argument were never made.