I don't know about Canada, but in the USA precedent is only applicable if it's brought up and the judge decides its relevant. In non-contested situations (eg:

I don't know about Canada, but in the USA precedent is only applicable if it's brought up and the judge decides its relevant. In non-contested situations (eg: only the government is before the court, there is no opposition attorney) there would be no reason to bring up precedents that don't support the governments position. This is part of the reason secret courts are so fundamentally wrong.