New Brunswick man loses 'free the beer' case

[@robbery1717]

I have not been to a liquor store since this loss. I buy beer at a local brew pub and get wine from a grocery store. FU, NB government

[@rclavoieTO80]

Don't get between me and my Alpine!

[@Viennery]

Extortion laws protecting NB liquor's profits.

[@net81j]

How is it NOT "Impeding Trade"?

[@SpookshowBabie]

Wow, it's easier to do trade with another country than our own provinces, if that isn't a sign of a bloated bureaucratic federal system that is costing us way to much money/time/effort, I don't know what is.

[@buzzzdsy]

God, Canada is such a weird dream of a place.

[@craigfurlong7981]

So would that work with the pipeline between bc and ab? A province can restrict goods coming into it??

[@Benjiefrenzy]

According to this ruling, yes.

[@josephlubera4345]

The real problem is that y'all could have just had a beer together

[@DennisMartinezCalifornia]

In America we have what's called interstate commerce I feel bad for you Canooks

[@XxarnyxXx]

🍺🍻 Free the Beer

[@tonyzhu403]

Disappointed…

[@JohnSmith-wg3ed]

Imagine being an older guy who wants cheaper booze and ends up on the news for it

[@abrahkadabra9501]

There are two kinds of law in Canada: the law in the books and common law. The laws in the books are laws made by your legislature. Common law is the law in the books as interpreted by the judges of the land. All judges refer to Common Law when they pass a judgement on a case. That's what happened here. The judges knew what the laws in the books said but made their judgment based on previous rulings and that's why this crazy judgment was made.

[@malcommobo32]

Horatio Jones, I don't completely understand your argument, but at least you've made an argument, which is more than most commenters in this thread have achieved.

[@Benjiefrenzy]

The thing that upsets me is that the wording in the constitution seems to be fairly clear. It’s not vague in any sense. Or broad. A lot of times the wording is pretty broad and can be interpreted in many ways, however, in this case it seems the Supreme Court went into the case with the mindset of siding with New Brunswick and did a lot of verbal gymnastics to come to their predetermined conclusion.

[@nancyanne32]

Im murphy

[@ahoomun4848]

Glad the BRILLIANT economists at the supreme court have decided to uphold the ridiculous inter-province trade laws

[@malcommobo32]

It may surprise you to learn that Supreme Court judges are not economist, they're judges. Their job is to interpret the law, not to make economic decisions ( another big Revelation for you here, that is the job of someone called the Minister of Finance). This is something I learned in high school, so I assume you haven't yet reached that level of Education.

[@ahoomun4848]

Malcom Mobo sarcasm is something you must not have learned Obviously their not economists but they dont need to be to understand the problem that inter-provincial trade barriers pose given how its been a widely reported issue for decades.

[@JamesSmith-vk2ky]

Smokey and The Bandit much?

[@LolaLove44]

wow the news anchor is loud nose breather. his nose whistling is so distracting. holy.