When the Supreme Court of Canada says “X” in 2007, and repeats “X” in 2011 adding explicitly that “X does not mean Y but means Z”, it is reasonable to assume (is it not?) that, once word of what was said in 2007 and repeated in 2011 spreads through the Canadian “jurisprudential aether”, however long that takes, the judges of the lower courts in Canada will pay attention.
It’s always worth quoting this reminder about pecking orders in the Canadian judicial universe:
. . . [more]
 Any legal system which has a judicial appeals process inherently creates a pecking order for the judiciary