i haven't read the case, but the entire premise of a judge citing the criminal code in a ruling is pretty weird, to begin with. that's something they'd do in, like, france, or something. in the british common law system, a judge is supposed to consult previous judicial precedent. stare decisis.

about the only way a judge could have missed that a section has been struck down is if he never bothered to look up the precedent in the first place, and i don't even know what you do when a judge is refusing to consult precedent. it's probably without precedent. i mean, maybe there's an answer, i don't know. but, you'd think it's grounds for removal from the bench.

i mean, that is the job of a judge - to consult precedent and rule accordingly. if a judge is refusing to to do his job, he should be removed.

this is no doubt long overdue, as a clerical procedure. but, let us not believe that the problem here is that the code was not amended; the problem here is that the judge is not consulting precedent.

http://globalnews.ca/news/2945753/travis-vader-verdict-what-is-section-230-of-the-criminal-code/