Skip to content
Ruling November 24, 1967

Debate urgent;sub judice

Hon. Lucien Lamoureux

Hon. Lucien Lamoureux

Speaker of the House

Ruling Text

The difficulty in this case is that an application for an injunction had been made and, consequently, the matter "is now in a way, and up to a certain point, before the courts". Nonetheless, a distinction can be drawn "between an injunction and the procedure usually followed under the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act". In view of the circumstances brought to the attention of the House by the Member, the Chair accepts the application.
Edit Metadata

AI Summary

The Speaker permitted an urgent debate on a matter despite a related court injunction, ruling that the sub judice convention did not apply to the broader issue.

AI Analysis

Holding
"The application for an urgent debate is accepted as a distinction can be drawn between the specific court injunction and the broader policy matter, thus avoiding the sub judice convention."
Outcome
Sustained
Tone
Neutral
Procedural Stage
Application for Emergency Debate
Significance
Low High

Cited Authorities

Tags & Keywords