This shitty thing... The law clearly states that the judges is to grant no more than 1:1 for pre-trial custody in except in exceptional cases only. At this point I don't know if there is a single judge in Canada that know what the word exceptional means.

Look at the "victim's surcharge". Same thing. Literally "An offender who is sentenced for an offence under the Criminal Code or Controlled Drugs and Substances Act is required to pay a fee called a victim surcharge. This money does not go directly to the victim." It also has the same caveat, wherein it is to be applied except in exceptional cases, and yet it is applied less than 21% of the time.

It appears that the exception is for judges to follow the law.

This decision by the supreme court of Canada is not in keeping with the requirement for the legislative branch to enforce laws. This was a self-serving and biased decision, by a set of judges, who do not wish to have the legislative branch, the representatives of our voices, interfere with their interpretation of which laws Canada should have.

Mandatory minimums aside (that's a different debate altogether) the fact that a judge can ignore the law over 79% of the time, for years and suffer no consequences for that is appalling. We as a society require our judges enforce the law. If the law is wrong, then the will of the people will speak during the next election and the next elected government will be able to overturn or change any laws as they see fit.

It's called a democracy.

But what we have here is not a claim from the SCC that the government needs to change the law, what we have is the SCC deciding which laws they themselves will be following.

Rule on the constitutionality sure. Pressure the government to change ti because cases will be thrown out after a law is found to be unconstitutional. But follow the damn law and ensure it is being followed, while it is the law of the country, otherwise you undermine your own authority and appear self-serving, biased, and hypocritical.