'A just court looks at the evidence in front of it;
a monkey court look at tie of the lawyer.'
or, is it just supporting a
Say what you may, the Canadian climate is not exactly conducive to growing bananas. But, as far as having a monkey-court,
consider the following actual event. The case in point is, run-of-the-mill, a bullying insurance company versus a bullied client, and the players are:
monke... hum... Justice Y and Justice M. (Justice is used in this setting solely as a title the protagonists of this farce address themselves. Apparently, the actual concept of justice is devoid in its entirety from its true meaning, in this type of court.)
Justice Y is a learnt Justice who can't be bothered with facts. Having been presented with ample and well documented irrefutable evidence that a deceit, falsehood or, perhaps, even an outright fraud has been committed; Judge Y declares: 'there is absolutely no evidence!'
It should be noted here that Justice Y doesn't suggest that the evidence is lacking in any way, insufficient, weak, not to be believed--no! None of that! Just asserting that there is absolutely no evidence.
Enter Justice M. To be fair, Justice M comes well prepared. So much so, that his judgment is written well in advanced before entering the court and before hearing a single word there. He goes on to deliver his verbal judgment at length, reading from his "notes". (which, presumably, were taken during the actual court proceedings).
Would it be a surprise if a day-in-court feels more like a day at the zoo? As for the question: does Canada support a monkey-court? You be the judge of that.
Ha... There is one more thing. The court is known as the 'Queen's Bench'. All I can say to that is: 'God Save the Queen!'
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.