Federal Court invents creature for its new coat of arms

It’s a ‘flying sea caribou.’ Get it? Because we don’t.


We all liked Lord of Rings. And the Federal Court of Canada has every right to put mythical creatures in its newly commissioned coat of arms. But a “flying sea caribou?” That’s what the chief herald came up with when asked how it symbolizes the nature of the national trial court’s work. Inspired by the fact the fed judges fly around the country a lot, the nation’s heraldic authority produced a pair of winged, claw-handed caribou with fish tails, glaring at each other across a shield and the motto: “Equity, droit, admiralty.” Let’s hope the court’s judgments are a little less fanciful.

The Lawers Weekly

Filed under:

Federal Court invents creature for its new coat of arms

  1. What’s wrong with a flying Sea Caribou? It’s just simply another Chimera…I mean they could have used a Heffalump or Jabberwocky.

    • I like it, they should have included a beaver and tim-bit in there somehow.

  2. Maybe it’s supposed to be Ogopogo.

    • Ogopogo! A federal or provincial responsibilty? Discuss.

  3. Look are you going to ride them that hard for showing a little creativity?

  4. This grotesque genetic manipulation has to stop. Haven’t they seen the “Island of Dr. Moreau”? A mixture of judge, cariboo, fish and Harpy is perhaps not the best at inspiring thoughts of rational justice. Perhaps if it wore a wig…

  5. Today’s real question: which is which?

    Standing behind the bilingual court’s new “equity, droit, admiralty” motto are two imaginary creatures (one male and one female) with the head of a caribou, the wings of a raven and the tail of a salmon.

  6. It’s a good mix of Gryffindor *and* Slytherin.

  7. I like it myself – get away from the same old tired Lions and Unicorns – I mean really folks! I think they look kinda cool

  8. Now this is getting silly. This is supposed to be a “coat of arms” representing strength and power not mythology.

  9. Has the author of this article looked at Canada’s coat of arms lately? There is a unicorn on it.

    I can only assume the author of this stupid article knows nothing of heraldry. Next time, why not do some research before you infect the nation with your ignorance.

  10. I wonder how much this rip-off cost us? Plenty I’m sure…. I’m surprised that these minions feel they require a special coat-of-arms to trample on people’s rights, at the behest of the cheque signers. Maybe one of their family members has a struggling graphic design biz that needed some extra cash. Well done son, here’s your 500 grand, plus expenses of course. Perhaps they could stick Paul Cosgrove’s noggin on it. My personal favourite is how these folks have made that phony Charter thing only useful for cops and their pals. Keep up the good work !!!!

      • It’s refreshing to learn that court employees are able to read and make rude, simplistic attempts at defending the bizarre goings-on. A couple thousand bucks…..I think not. These people do nothing that costs a couple thousand bucks. I can see it now……. several committees and sub-committees noshing on lobsters at the Sheraton, in an attempt to narrow the list of possible contributors. Yes Madame Chair, I was wondering if I could have my pay doubled? I don’t see why not, those suckers who toil at factory jobs can’t stop us, so go for it. Also, what was wrong with the old one? Oh yes, things are much better now that we have the likeness of some corny centaur or something on it behind his Royal Highness. For your information, I archive this crap and those courts have become a completely predictable scam, that exist almost entirely for the uninterrupted flow of unearned wealth to the players. It’s real sad, but also real true !!!!!

          • I appreciate the link, however I am manifestly unable to believe one single thing that is put forward by any government, on any level, in this country.

  11. I stand corrected by the “Northener” and apologize for not doing proper/enough research.
    Having said that, “heraldry” originated from the need to distinguish combatants when their faces were hidden by iron and steel helmets during the days of the Anglo-Saxons and before.
    Fast forward to today.
    In today’s justice system you have the right to view your accuser.
    Hence, in my opinion, it’s hypocritical to bow down to “heraldry”.

    • The point of the coats of arms was that combatants would know who their opponents were, even though their faces were protected by helmets.
      Hence, in my opinion, it fits quite well with the modern right to know whom you are facing in the adversarial justice system.

Sign in to comment.