Hackland不是总理任命的。
再补充一下啊：
总理宣布委任的一般是Chief Justice、Associate Chief Justice、Puisne Chief Justice这个级别的大法官。在宣告中是PM announces打头，
而Hackland是由司法部长宣布任命的，在宣告中是Ontario Judicial Appointments Announced。
而最高法院的大法官是由总理推荐，总督委任的。省级高等法院Superior Court和联邦最高法院Supreme Court不是一回事，以前俺有弄混过。
关于大法官任免的程序：http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_appointments_in_Canada
--------------------------------
WHAT DO JUDGES DO?
A judge’s role is to make a decision between parties in a legal dispute, based on the facts of the case and the law that applies to the facts. The parties must accept the judge’s decision as final, unless one of them appeals the judge’s decision to a higher court.
How do judges get appointed?
Judges are appointed “to the Bench.” The federal government appoints judges who hear cases in the superior courts (which include: provincial and territorial superior courts, provincial courts of appeal, the Federal Court, the Federal Court of Appeal, the Court Martial Appeal Court of Canada, the Tax Court of Canada, and the Supreme Court of Canada（最后这句不严谨...）). The provincial and territorial governments appoint judges who hear cases in the provincial and territorial (lower) courts.
Judicial candidates must have practiced law in Canada and have other important qualifications. After they are appointed, judges have access to special training on all aspects of judging and all areas of the law.
How long can a judge remain a judge?
Once a judge is appointed, they are eligible to be a judge until the age of retirement. For federally appointed judges, retirement is mandatory at age 75. In some provincial and territorial jurisdictions, the retirement age is 70.
A judge can be removed from office only if an independent investigation shows that they have not met the high standard of personal conduct required of judges, both in court and in public, and that the Canadian Judicial Council recommends to Parliament (through the Minister of Justice) that the judge be removed from office.
Judicial councils have responsibility for promoting professional standards and conduct of judges. There is a separate judicial council for judges appointed by a province or territory, and those appointed by the federal government. A judicial council may recommend that a judge be removed from office if it finds that a judge has been guilty of serious misconduct.
The Canadian Judicial Council is responsible for federally appointed judges only. The process for making a complaint about a federally appointed judge and the Council’s review of that complaint is described in another part of this website called Expected Conduct of Judges.
What is judicial independence?
Judicial independence is paramount in the Canadian judicial system. The Canadian Constitution provides that the judiciary (the judges) is separate from and independent of the other two branches of government – the legislative and the executive. So, while the government’s role is to create laws for Canadian society, a judge’s job is to interpret those laws. It is important to remember that the courts do not make new laws; they make decisions based on existing laws that the government has passed.
Judicial independence means that judges are not subject to pressure and influence, and are free to make good decisions based solely on fact and law. Independence is ensured by three things:
Security of tenure – Once appointed, a judge is entitled to serve on the Bench until the age of retirement, unless there is good reason for them to be removed from office.
Financial security – Judges are paid sufficiently so they are not dependent on or subject to pressure from other institutions.
Administrative independence – The chief justice in each province and territory decides how that court manages the litigation process and which cases the judges will hear.
-------------------------------------------
【Judicial Appointments】
http://www.canada.justice.gc.ca/eng/news-nouv/index.asp?tid=4
【Hackland的委任通知】
The Honourable Charles T. Hackland, a Judge of the Superior Court of Justice in and for the Province of Ontario is appointed a Regional Senior Judge of the Superior Court of Justice in and for the Province of Ontario for the East Region. Mr. Justice Hackland is replacing Madam Justice Monique Métivier.
Mr. Justice Hackland received a Bachelor of Arts in 1972 from Carleton University and a Bachelor of Laws in 1975 from the University of Ottawa. He was admitted to the Bar of Ontario in 1978. Mr. Justice Hackland was an associate with Binks, Chilcott & Simpson from 1980 to 1986, a partner with Lang, Michener from 1986 to 1990 and a partner with the Ottawa firm of Gowling Lafleur Henderson LLP until being appointed a judge in 2003.
These appointments are effective immediately.
Yes. same thing happend in my area. it is much better now . The workers from private comany work harder and they are easy going compared with the government workers who always complaint.
福特的改革是很多人支持的，否则他当初不会高票当选，可他不但没把事情做好，还不断出状况。即便是改革受阻，还是有支持者的，毕竟改革的方向是没错的。其实只要他好好干，做砸了也不外乎是能力问题。但这次不同了，太令人失望...不能因为觉得福特比苗大维有担当就惯着他。
借用楼上5 past 6的话：希望这次耳光能让胖福清醒些，知道如果还有下一次的话，该怎么做官和做人。
yes. support Ford . He is the only one. a lot of new immigramt cannot find even low paid job. The workers in who have joined the unions make very high salary but they never stop fighting for more or they strike. I cant believe how greedy they are! Ford is only one who is brave enough to say NO to them.
福特不但自己往树上撞，还搞得法官很无语，不依法判决就是自己失职，依法判决福特必挂...
此案的Integrity Commissioner肯定见过很多猛的傻的，可真没见过像福特这么猛的傻的，如果是左翼陷害，还有要提示那么多次吗...
十头牛都拉不回来的撞树了，怪左翼迫害，左翼都大跌眼镜... 法律明文不去看，盲目自大，还好意思怪司法迫害，法官为了他干掉了一段判词，还允许他参选，明显都是偏袒他，可他有真心悔过吗？还好意思鼓动市民保卫民主，其实就是在糟蹋民主体制。民主是可以拿来胁迫法律的武器吗？人心不足蛇吞象...
市府议会讨论他个人的利益冲突问题，他没有依法回避，不断的干扰，出事后却只拿那3千说事，混淆视听，真替他感到可耻可悲...
“It's a simplistic law, but our smug/simpleton mayor forced the judge's hand. From the ruling:
"In view of the respondent’s leadership role in ensuring integrity in municipal government, it is difficult to accept an error in judgment defence based essentially on a stubborn sense of entitlement (concerning his football foundation) and a dismissive and confrontational attitude to the Integrity Commissioner and the Code of Conduct. In my opinion, the respondent’s actions were characterized by ignorance of the law and a lack of diligence in securing professional advice, amounting to wilful blindness. As such, I find his actions are incompatible with an error in judgment.
In summary, I find that the respondent has failed in his burden to show that his contraventions of the MCIA were the result of a good faith error in judgment."
... And we pay, for all this lost time that could have been used to benefit the city, for all this legal mess and for a new by-election.”
我看福特免职：始作俑者 咎由自取