Recent Posts - Canuck Law

December 15, 2024December 15, 2024

Bill S-210: Age Restricting Pornography, Yukon Status of Women Council Opposed

This is a follow up to the previous article, which covered Women’s LEAF, the Women’s Legal Action and Education Fund. It’s not the only group opposed to this legislation. Bill S-210 passed through the Senate in the Spring of 2023, and has yet to undergo Third Reading in the House of Commons, after the hearings concluded. It was introduced by Quebec Senator Julie Miville-Dechêne.

The Bill itself is titled: An Act to restrict young persons’ online access to sexually explicit material. As the name implies, the substance is about age restricting access to pornography. Quite simply, this is to limit the access of minors to this content.

The Yukon Status of Women Council (YSWC) is the group that sent in this paper in opposition to Bill S-210. The majority of it has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

One of their current efforts is SWAPY, Supporting Worker’ Autonomy Project Yukon. While claiming to be against human trafficking and exploitation, they call for support and legalization of sex work, which is inherently exploitative.

They note that:

“It is critical to note that sex work and exploitation and trafficking are often conflated, which has far reaching impacts on policies and services which cause harm to those engaging in sex work, which is consensual (vs. exploitation, which is not consensual). Part of our work aims to counter these misconceptions and increase safety and options for peers.”

The argument is beyond the scope of this article, but it’s also irrelevant here. It’s also repeated in their submissions to the House of Commons. Bill S-210 is about implementing an age-restriction regime for accessing adult content. It’s about whether or not there should be some sort of screening to prevent minors from getting access.

While this seems broad, the Bill does have a “Defences” section within.

Defence — legitimate purpose
(2) No organization shall be convicted of an offence under section 5 if the act that is alleged to constitute the offence has a legitimate purpose related to science, medicine, education or the arts.

To be clear, Bill S-210 puts in a number of exemptions, such as: (a) science; (b) medicine; (c) education; and the “arts”. While the exact definitions are not spelled out, at least the first 4 are pretty obvious. It’s more subjective as to what “the arts” would encompass.

YSWC states several times that it’s trying to refute the narrative which conflates “consensual work” with overt “trafficking and exploitation”. It’s unclear how that applies here. Minors shouldn’t be permitted access, which is the goal of Bill S-210. Whether or not there’s exploitation at the other end is beside the point.

“The impact of this censorship extends beyond mere content moderation, affecting the livelihoods and autonomy of those who rely on online platforms for income and community building. Independent content creators, including sex workers and artists, face the threat of financial hardship and even more avenues for stigmatization and criminalization as a result of increased content restrictions and platform censorship, while larger adult websites would remain unaffected.”

How would implementing some age-verification system “create financial hardship” unless the content was (at least in part) directed at minors? Seems like those are the kinds of operations that SHOULD be closed down.

The group also claims that the alphabet “community” needs access to sexually explicit material for education and expression. This is identical to what Women’s LEAF argues. Assuming this is true, why then would this be detrimental, unless it was aimed at minors?

YSWC argues that Bill S-210 infringes on the “right to work” for sex workers. It does no such thing, but merely requires some effort to ensure all the customers are actually adults.

YSWC points out that requirements could be bypassed by using a VPN, and setting it to indicate that the device is located in another country. While true, it doesn’t really give a reason to abandon the Bill altogether.

As an aside, YSWC is also involved in a Court challenge against the Safer Communities and Neighbourhoods (SCAN) legislation. It allows for evictions of tenants on 5 days notice in the event of certain illegal activities. These include:

drug trafficking
bootlegging
prostitution

In early 2022, the Yukon Government committed to reviewing the SCAN Act.

While it could be argued the YSWC does valid advocacy work for women who’ve fallen on hard times, it still doesn’t explain the opposition to Bill S-224. Perhaps more general privacy concerns would gut their online businesses if people had to use their real identities to gain access.

BILL S-210, (AGE RESTRICTING PORNOGRAPHY):
(1) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bills
(2) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/44-1/s-210
(3) https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/S-210/third-reading
(4) https://sencanada.ca/en/senators/miville-dechene-julie/
(5) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Committees/en/SECU/StudyActivity?studyActivityId=12521982
(6) Women’s LEAF Submission Against Implementing Bill S-210
(7) Yukon Status Of Women Council Against Implementing Bill S-210

BILL S-224, (HUMAN TRAFFICKING):
(1) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bills
(2) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/44-1/s-224
(3) https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/S-224/third-reading
(4) https://sencanada.ca/en/senators/ataullahjan-salma/
(5) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Committees/en/JUST/StudyActivity?studyActivityId=12111640

Private Member Bills In Current Session:
(1) Bill C-206: Decriminalizing Self Maiming To Avoid Military Service
(2) Bill C-207: Creating The “Right” To Affordable Housing
(3) Bill C-219: Creating Environmental Bill Of Rights
(4) Bill C-226: Creating A Strategy For Environmental Racism/Justice
(5) Bill C-229: Banning Symbols Of Hate, Without Defining Them
(6) Bill C-235: Building Of A Green Economy In The Prairies
(7) Bill C-245: Entrenching Climate Change Into Canada Infrastructure Bank
(8) Bill C-250: Imposing Prison Time For Holocaust Denial
(9) Bill C-261: Red Flag Laws For “Hate Speech”
(10.1) Bill C-293: Domestic Implementation Of Int’l Pandemic Treaty
(10.2) Bill C-293: Concerns Raised In Hearings Over Food Supplies
(10.3) Bill C-293: Lobbying Interests Behind Nathaniel Erskine-Smith
(11) Bill C-312: Development Of National Renewable Energy Strategy
(12) Bill C-315: Amending CPPIB Act Over “Human, Labour, Environmental Rights”
(13) Bill C-367: Removing Religious Exemptions Protecting Against Antisemitism
(14) Bill C-373: Removing Religious Exemptions Protecting Against Antisemitism 2.0
(15) Bill C-388: Fast Tracking Weapons, Energy, Gas To Ukraine
(16) Bill C-390: Expanding Euthanasia Into PROVINCIAL Frameworks
(17) Bills C-398/C-399: Homeless Encampments, Immigration “Equity”
(18) Bill C-413: Prison Time Proposed For Residential School “Denialism”
(19) Bill S-210: Women’s Legal Action & Education Fund
(20) Bill S-215: Protecting Financial Stability Of Post-Secondary Institutions
(21) Bill S-243: Climate Related Finance Act, Banking Acts
(22) Bill S-248: Removing Final Consent For Euthanasia
(23) Bill S-257: Protecting Political Belief Or Activity As Human Rights
(24) Bill S-275: Adding “Sustainable And Equitable Prosperity” To Bank Of Canada Act

December 14, 2024December 15, 2024

Bill S-210: Age Restricting Pornography, Women’s LEAF Opposed To It

Bill S-210 passed through the Senate in the Spring of 2023, and has yet to undergo Third Reading in the House of Commons, after the hearings concluded. It had been introduced by Senator Julie Miville-Dechêne of Quebec.

The Bill itself is titled: An Act to restrict young persons’ online access to sexually explicit material. As the name implies, the substance is about age restricting access to pornography.

What’s interesting about this Bill is some of the groups that work to oppose it, and all while claiming to fight for women’s rights. One such organization is Women’s LEAF, the Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund. Leslyn Lewis was once a National Board Member of it.

LEAF describes itself as:

a national, charitable, non-profit organization that works towards ensuring the law guarantees substantive equality for all women, girls, trans, and non-binary people. LEAF has developed expertise in the gendered and intersectional impact of technology-facilitated violence through intervening in landmark cases before the Supreme Court of Canada and making submissions to Parliament to highlight gender equity implications of online hate.

At the hearings before the House of Commons, LEAF made submissions, arguing against Bill S-210. The reasons are baffling.

In fairness, LEAF is hardly the only one to argue against Bill S-210. We’ll get into some of the others as well in subsequent articles.

Rather than implement age-restriction specifically for obscene material, LEAF instead defers to the much broader Bill C-63. While decrying possible invasions of privacy, the group recommends something more expansive.

***NCDII stands for non-consensual distribution of intimate images.

LEAF also has a rather convoluted objection to age-verification, under the guise of victims’ rights. While hundreds of underage people (mostly girls) have been victimized, requiring identification would make it harder for them to access their own images.

This means that LEAF is well aware of that the content of minors is often published, but age-verification can’t be allowed in order to allow victims some recourse. Perhaps a more stringent screening process beforehand would be helpful.

LEAF also adds that “To steer clear of such an inordinate penalty, tech companies are likely to over-moderate content on their sites. 2SLGBTQIA+ community members will bear the brunt of this change: through sexual content moderation, queer and trans content is already disproportionately targeted, banned, restricted, and demonetized on social media platforms“.

While denying that the “community” is full of groomers, LEAF argues that age-verification will disproportionately impact these people.

Keep in mind, section 6(2) of Bill S-210 makes it clear that legitimate purposes related to: (a) science; (b) medicine; (c) education; or (d) “the arts” is a full defence. And “arts” is presumably a broad category. Nonetheless, LEAF still opposes age-verification.

DEPARTMENT/MINISTRY	YEAR	AMOUNT
Canadian Heritage (PCH), Court Challenges	2022	$25,000.00
Canadian Heritage (PCH), Court Challenges	2023	$54,475.05
Canadian Heritage (PCH), Court Challenges	2024	$54,475.05
Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC)	2022	$8,911.00
Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC)	2023	$8,400.00
Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC)	2024	$8,400.00
Justice Canada (JC)	2023	$33,712.34
Justice Canada (JC)	2024	$33,712.34
Women and Gender Equality (WAGE)	2022	$362,668.00
Women and Gender Equality (WAGE)	2023	$364,183.53
Women and Gender Equality (WAGE)	2024	$364,183.53

This is just some of their more recent financing.

The Canadian Court Challenges Program is an initiative set up with public money in order for various “independent” groups to bring lawsuits challenging public policy. In other words, taxpayers have to finance lawfare against their own institutions.

For an idea of the kind of litigation that LEAF brings, check out some of their earlier work. It’s not a stretch to describe them as anti-family, anti-woman, and anti-humanity.

Lately, LEAF has been using a lobbying firm called Counsel Public Affairs. Bridget Howe, Ben Parsons, Sheamus Murphy, and Laila Hawrylyshyn (all Liberals) have been making their rounds. Counsel P.A. also employs Amber Ruddy, drug lobbyist and former CPC National Secretary.

Women’s LEAF, like so many groups, is also significantly subsidized by taxpayers, across different Ministries. They then hire lobbyists to lean on politicians to implement their agendas. In other words, organizations like these are using public money to pressure politicians against implementing safeguards for what children view online.

You don’t hate these people enough.

Private Member Bills In Current Session:
(1) Bill C-206: Decriminalizing Self Maiming To Avoid Military Service
(2) Bill C-207: Creating The “Right” To Affordable Housing
(3) Bill C-219: Creating Environmental Bill Of Rights
(4) Bill C-226: Creating A Strategy For Environmental Racism/Justice
(5) Bill C-229: Banning Symbols Of Hate, Without Defining Them
(6) Bill C-235: Building Of A Green Economy In The Prairies
(7) Bill C-245: Entrenching Climate Change Into Canada Infrastructure Bank
(8) Bill C-250: Imposing Prison Time For Holocaust Denial
(9) Bill C-261: Red Flag Laws For “Hate Speech”
(10.1) Bill C-293: Domestic Implementation Of Int’l Pandemic Treaty
(10.2) Bill C-293: Concerns Raised In Hearings Over Food Supplies
(10.3) Bill C-293: Lobbying Interests Behind Nathaniel Erskine-Smith
(11) Bill C-312: Development Of National Renewable Energy Strategy
(12) Bill C-315: Amending CPPIB Act Over “Human, Labour, Environmental Rights”
(13) Bill C-367: Removing Religious Exemptions Protecting Against Antisemitism
(14) Bill C-373: Removing Religious Exemptions Protecting Against Antisemitism 2.0
(15) Bill C-388: Fast Tracking Weapons, Energy, Gas To Ukraine
(16) Bill C-390: Expanding Euthanasia Into PROVINCIAL Frameworks
(17) Bills C-398/C-399: Homeless Encampments, Immigration “Equity”
(18) Bill C-413: Prison Time Proposed For Residential School “Denialism”
(19) Bill S-215: Protecting Financial Stability Of Post-Secondary Institutions
(20) Bill S-243: Climate Related Finance Act, Banking Acts
(21) Bill S-248: Removing Final Consent For Euthanasia
(22) Bill S-257: Protecting Political Belief Or Activity As Human Rights
(23) Bill S-275: Adding “Sustainable And Equitable Prosperity” To Bank Of Canada Act

December 4, 2024December 5, 2024

Citizens Alliance Of Nova Scotia (CANS) Mootness Motion To Be Heard Friday

On Friday, Citizens Alliance of Nova Scotia (CANS) will argue against a Motion to have their case declared “moot” in a Yarmouth Court. This isn’t a determination on the merits, but to get the it thrown out regardless. This comes after the organization was denied public interest standing earlier this year.

Interestingly, CANS is doing this without formal representation. Their papers are being drafted by a few of their members, which is quite impressive. At the hearing for public interest standing, William Ray — author of the Stormhaven website — presented their case. The other co-Applicant, J.M., is a minor who does have a lawyer.

The Attorney General’s office is claiming that it’s a waste of time and money, as so long has elapsed, and there are no live issues. The usual “scarcity of judicial resources” justification has been pleaded. Unsurprisingly, CANS opposes the Motion, in part because Robert Strang is still in office. Part of CANS’ mission is to ensure this type of activity never happens again. The Briefs are well worth reading.

To support their Motion, the Government included an Affidavit from Tara Walsh, Senior Executive Director at Public Health. CANS filed Affidavits sworn by Chris Milburn and Shelly Hipson, along with her extensive research. J.M. didn’t submit one, which the lawyer is using to demonstrate that there’s no live issue to try.

In its current form, the case is an Application for Judicial Review. In theory, even if declared “moot”, it may still be okay to refile as an Action, with a Statement of Claim. There is far more latitude with those kinds of proceedings, whereas Applications are more restrictive. That is, after all, what happened with the travel mandates cases — although the idiot lawyers appealed.

The Friday hearing is to be available virtually. Anyone wishing to watch the hearing can contact the Court, or CANS directly. Information is also in their pinned Tweet.

COURT DOCUMENTS (MOOTNESS MOTION):
(1) CANS Walsh Affidavit Mootness Motion
(2) CANS Milburn Affidavit Mootness Motion
(3) CANS Hipson Affidavit Mootness Motion
(4) CANS Hipson Affidavit Mootness Motion More Attachments
(5) CANS Government Arguments Mootness Motion
(6) CANS Applicants Arguments Mootness Motion
(7) CANS Government REPLY Arguments Mootness Motion

COURT DOCUMENTS (PUBLIC INTEREST STANDING):
(1) CANS Applicants Brief For Public Interest Standing Augst 25 2023
(2) CANS Applicants Book Of Authorities August 25 2023
(3) CANS Respondents’ Brief respecting Public Interest Standing Motion
(4) CANS Applicants Rebuttal Brief For Public Interest Standing Motion November 20 2023
(5) CANS Applicants Book Of Documents Volume 1 Of 2 December 11 2023
(6) CANS Applicants Book Of Documents Volume 2 Of 2 December 11 2023
(7) https://www.canlii.org/en/ns/nssc/doc/2024/2024nssc253/2024nssc253.html

ABOUT THE GROUP:
(1) https://www.thecans.ca/
(2) https://www.thecans.ca/call-to-action-letters-of-support/
(3) Citizens Alliance Of Nova Scotia Quick Fact Sheet (pdf)

November 30, 2024November 30, 2024

Bill C-293: Who’s Pulling Nathaniel Erskine-Smith’s Strings?

Previously, this site covered Bill C-293, the Pandemic Prevention and Preparedness Act, from Liberal M.P. Nathaniel Erskine-Smith. See here and here for background information on the legislation.

In essence, it amounts to domestic implementation of the proposed Pandemic Preparedness Treaty that the World Health Organization wants all countries to adopt. Just as the Quarantine Act and subsequent Provincial Health Acts came from the International Health Regulations, this is more of the same. See Parts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7.

January 2022, Erskine-Smith introduced M-43, to address “vaccine equity”. If implemented, this would:

(a) donate at least 200 million doses, as promised, to vulnerable populations around the world through COVAX by the end of 2022, and ensure that all excess doses pursuant to Canada’s contracts are transferred as soon as possible;
(b) deliver an additional $1.1 billion as a net addition to the International Assistance Envelope and existing departmental resources to address global vaccine equity in Budget 2022, including:
(i) $780 million to Act-Accelerator partners to purchase vaccines, tests, treatments, PPR and oxygen in developing countries,
(ii) $290 million to strengthen pandemic preparedness and response capacity, including support for in-country delivery costs;
(c) contribute to a significant increase in global manufacturing capabilities for vaccines and other tools to fight COVID-19, including by:
(i) supporting the temporary waiver of intellectual property rights related to prevention, containment or treatment of COVID-19 at the World Trade Organization,
(ii) facilitating the transfer of technology to manufacture COVID-19 vaccines around the world, including financial support for regional hubs such as the South Africa Technology Transfer Hub; and

M-43 appears to create a giant slush fund that would pour billions of taxpayer dollars into “vaccine equity” arrangements around the world. It’s unclear what — if any — oversight there would be.

As with so many of these bills, some very important questions aren’t being asked: who’s actually behind it? Who are the people that are really writing them?

Here are some possible answers.

Daniel Kelter, Former Legislative Assistant, Now Lobbyist

According to his profile, from December 2015 until September 2018 — nearly 3 years — he worked for Erskine-Smith.

• Briefed the Member of Parliament on policy issues, including debates in front of the house, proposed legislation, and committee reports/issues
• Liaised and maintained relationships with Minister’s offices, constituency residents, parliamentary staff, and relevant special interest groups
• Designed and created communication products across social media and traditional media platforms, and created subsequent analytical reports on their impact
• Managed an office budget of $359,590 and provided accurate financial accounting to comply with House of Commons by-laws

If Kelter is to be believed, he essentially wrote Erskine-Smith’s speeches and various media appearances. He was a handler. The last several months, Kelter not only worked for him, but was the Director of Operations. His duties at this point were that he:

• Advised the Member on all policy issues before the House of Commons, and prepared briefs on issues and legislation when necessary
• Planned, in conjunction with the Member, legislative priorities and assisted with the development of speeches, press releases, media lines, QP card messages, key messages etc
• Managed a whole-of-organization approach to completing Member’s business, while overseeing an office team consisting of staff, interns, and volunteers
• Managed and reconciled a budget of $368,720 that included procurement, salaries, travel, and constituency or parliamentary events

Kelter then went on to take a similar role for Jane Philpott, who was Minister of Health. She also was a Treasury Board Member, and on the Cabinet Committee on Intelligence and Emergency Management.

Kelter’s current position is with a group called Carbon Removal Canada. They explain what their goals are, and why.

What does Carbon Removal Canada do?
Carbon Removal Canada collaborates with governments, local communities, Indigenous groups, innovators, advocacy organisations, and companies to grow the carbon removal sector in Canada.

Our goal is to advance responsible carbon removal solutions by educating stakeholders about using them to reduce CO₂ in the atmosphere while focusing on community well-being and social equity. We also assist in developing policies that increase the demand for and supply of carbon removal projects, ensuring that these projects are credible and impactful. Additionally, our policy research supports the growth of carbon removal by providing insights that meet the sector’s current needs and help shape effective policies.

Why Canada for carbon removal?
Canada has the right ingredients to be a global leader in the carbon removal sector, including natural resources, carbon storage infrastructure, a trained workforce, and a thriving innovation ecosystem.

Canada’s ambitious goal of reaching net-zero emissions by 2050 reflects its climate leadership as a nation — which will require a broad suite of solutions, including carbon removal, for goal achievement. With the right policies in place, the Canadian government, technology and business leaders have all the tools they need to seize this opportunity, spearhead the global growth of a brand-new sector, and build it from the ground up.

Why does Carbon Removal Canada advocate using carbon removal alongside emission reduction efforts?
Carbon removal is essential for a global clean energy transition, but it should complement, not replace, emissions reduction efforts. Carbon removal can help address emissions that are too challenging or cost-prohibitive to reduce with current technology on the path to net-zero. Importantly, after reaching net-zero, carbon removal can be used to eliminate historical emissions, getting global temperatures back to safer levels. The potential for carbon removal to contribute to a net-negative emissions world demands that it be used in addition to emissions reduction efforts.

Although Bill C-293 is the “pandemic prevention and preparedness”, at least officially, we’ve already seen the climate change industry getting into bed it. Many will claim that there’s a “mutual solution” in adopting environmental practices and preventing more outbreaks.

Teodora Durca, Former Parliamentary Intern, Now Lobbyist

For nearly a year in 2021/2022, Teodora Durca was an intern in Erskine-Smith’s office. Since then, she’s moved on to Sussex Strategy Group, a lobbying firm with offices in Toronto and Ottawa.

According to the Federal Lobbying Registry, her recent clients include:

Alectra Utilities Corporation
Association of Power Producers of Ontario
Atlantic Power
BluEarth Renewables Inc.
Canadian Power-to-X-Partners Inc.
Capstone Infrastructure Corporation
Electricity Distributors Association
Energy Storage Canada
Hydrostor Inc.
Invenergy Renewables Canada Development ULC
Kanin Energy Inc.
Next Hydrogen Solutions
Northland Power Inc.
Potentia Renewables Inc.

A quick look through the profiles shows that these companies are interested in legislative changes around renewable energy. Several are asking about subsidies and tax changes.

A few sections of Bill C-293 read as follows:

2(l)(iii) promote commercial activities that can help reduce pandemic risk, including the production of alternative proteins, and

include the following information, to be provided by the Minister of the Environment:
.
2(m)(i) after consultation with relevant provincial ministers, a summary of changes in land use in Canada, including in relation to disturbed habitats, that could contribute to pandemic risk, such as deforestation, encroachment on wildlife habitats and urbanization and that were made, in the case of the first plan, since the last report on changes in land use published under the Federal Sustainable Development Act or, in the case of the updated plans, during the reporting period for the updated plan

Why this matters is that changes made as a result of this legislation could easily lead to (more) money being funneled into “green energy” schemes. Durca’s clients stand to be made wealthy depending on what regulatory changes are made.

Erskine-Smith Met With ONE Global (Canada)

June 2022, Erskine-Smith introduced Bill C-293. A month later, he formally met with Elise Legault of ONE Global (Canada). This is a group that probably few have heard of. Previously, Legault had worked for UNESCO.

The ONE Campaign is a 501(c)(3) registered non-profit in the United States. Their donor lists contains many prominent names.

Aliko Dangote Foundation
Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation
Bloomberg LP
Bloomberg Philanthropies
Iger Bay Foundation
Bono
Cargill
Cary and Katya Pinkowski
Cindy and Ryan Beedie
David Geffen Foundation
Eleanor Crook Foundation
Elvia Arguelles Trust
Ford Foundation
Ann and John Doerr
Ann and Joshua Bolten
Hobson/Lucas Family Foundation
Dr. Mo Ibrahim
Open Society Foundations
The Rockefeller Foundation
The Ron Conway Family
Sheryl Sandberg & Tom Bernthal
Skoll Foundation
Sherwood Foundation
Tableau Foundation
Coca-Cola
Theresia Gouw and Matthew McIntyre
Tom Freston

The ONE Campaign is financed, in part, by the Gates Foundation and the Rockefeller Foundation. This is important because of other parts of Bill C-293.

2(i) identify preparedness strategies for public health services across Canada including in respect of
.
(i) the protection of vulnerable and marginalized populations,
(ii) working conditions of essential workers across all sectors,
(iii) the availability and management of relevant stockpiles, including testing equipment and personal protective equipment,
(iv) the surge capacity of human resources required for the testing and contact tracing of persons exposed to infectious diseases, and
(v) communication of risk to the public;

Both Gates and Rockefeller are heavily involved in the pharmaceutical industry. It stands to reason that these organizations would support legislation that sees more taxpayer money diverted to finance production. This site has extensively covered the lobbying connections with GAVI, Zakery Blais, Ashton Arsenault and Cameron Doherty.

Calling Lauren Chen A “Traitor” For Taking Russian Money

November 5th, 2024, Erskine-Smith trolled Lauren Chen (a.k.a. “Roaming Millennial”) for her being paid to push Russian propaganda. It’s at 11:46 in the video. He asked what would you call someone who takes outside money to push foreign interests.

By his own logic, Erskine-Smith could be viewed as a traitor for promoting legislation that subverts Canadian interests, on behalf of outside ones.

But this is what happens when lobbying is so prevalent. It’s never clear who actually writes what, and whose money made that happen.

In his online profile, Daniel Kelter claims that he “briefed [Erskine-Smith] on policy issues, including debates in front of the house, proposed legislation, and committee reports/issues”. This wouldn’t be nearly as concerning without all the lobbyist connections. It’s not a stretch to think that he’s been involved in drafting legislation as well.

So then, who wrote Bill C-293?

Was it Daniel Kelter? Teodora Durca? Bill Gates? Or some other handler?

BILL C-293:
(1) https://eppc.org/publication/the-whos-pandemic-treaty/
(2) WHO Constitution, Full Document
(3) https://www.who.int/about/governance/constitution
(4) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bills?chamber=1&page=3
(5) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/44-1/c-293
(6) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Members/en/nathaniel-erskine-smith(88687)
(7) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathaniel_Erskine-Smith
(8) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/43-1/c-235
(9) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/43-1/c-236

OTHER:
(1) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Members/en/nathaniel-erskine-smith(88687)/motions/11522893

LOBBYING INTERESTS:
(1) https://www.linkedin.com/in/dkelter/
(2) https://archive.is/THvzu
(3) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/advSrch
(4) https://carbonremoval.ca/
(5) https://carbonremoval.ca/faqs/
(6) https://carbonremoval.ca/team/
(7) https://www.linkedin.com/in/teodoradurca/
(8) https://www.sussex-strategy.com/people/teodora-durca
(9) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/advSrch?searchCommand=navigate&time=1733004385111
(10) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/cmmLgPblcVw?comlogId=539796
(11) https://www.linkedin.com/in/elise-legault-58a81132/details/experience/
(12) https://www.one.org/ca/one-global-canada/
(13)https://www.one.org/ca/about/financials/
(14) https://apps.irs.gov/app/eos/
(15) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Committees/en/SECU/StudyActivity?studyActivityId=12884001
(16) https://parlvu.parl.gc.ca/Harmony/en/PowerBrowser/PowerBrowserV2

Private Member Bills In Current Session:
(1) Bill C-206: Decriminalizing Self Maiming To Avoid Military Service
(2) Bill C-207: Creating The “Right” To Affordable Housing
(3) Bill C-219: Creating Environmental Bill Of Rights
(4) Bill C-226: Creating A Strategy For Environmental Racism/Justice
(5) Bill C-229: Banning Symbols Of Hate, Without Defining Them
(6) Bill C-235: Building Of A Green Economy In The Prairies
(7) Bill C-245: Entrenching Climate Change Into Canada Infrastructure Bank
(8) Bill C-250: Imposing Prison Time For Holocaust Denial
(9) Bill C-261: Red Flag Laws For “Hate Speech”
(10.1) Bill C-293: Domestic Implementation Of Int’l Pandemic Treaty
(10.2) Bill C-293: Concerns Raised In Hearings Over Food Supplies
(11) Bill C-312: Development Of National Renewable Energy Strategy
(12) Bill C-315: Amending CPPIB Act Over “Human, Labour, Environmental Rights”
(13) Bill C-367: Removing Religious Exemptions Protecting Against Antisemitism
(14) Bill C-373: Removing Religious Exemptions Protecting Against Antisemitism 2.0
(15) Bill C-388: Fast Tracking Weapons, Energy, Gas To Ukraine
(16) Bill C-390: Expanding Euthanasia Into PROVINCIAL Frameworks
(17) Bills C-398/C-399: Homeless Encampments, Immigration “Equity”
(18) Bill C-413: Prison Time Proposed For Residential School “Denialism”
(19) Bill S-215: Protecting Financial Stability Of Post-Secondary Institutions
(20) Bill S-243: Climate Related Finance Act, Banking Acts
(21) Bill S-248: Removing Final Consent For Euthanasia
(22) Bill S-257: Protecting Political Belief Or Activity As Human Rights
(23) Bill S-275: Adding “Sustainable And Equitable Prosperity” To Bank Of Canada Act

November 27, 2024November 28, 2024

Free Speech In Canada Apparently Worth Just $16,000 (Haverbeck V. Waugh)

A week ago, Ursula Haverbeck died. She was the 96 year old German woman who had gone to prison for publicly denying the Holocaust. While the major media coverage about her is overwhelmingly negative, she chose to stand for her beliefs. It’s really rare to see something like that these days.

Kevin Waugh, a “Conservative” Member of Parliament in Canada, introduced Bill C-250 back in 2022. This would put people in prison for up to 2 years for Holocaust denial. Far from being condemned, his actions were publicly lauded.

Leah Gazan, of the New Democratic Party, introduced Bill C-413 in October 2024. It was heavily modeled on Bill C-250, and would imprison people for up to 2 years for Residential School “denialism”.

At all levels of government in this country, politicians work to strip away freedom of speech under the guise of “fighting hatred”. This cuts across party lines, and isn’t limited to just a few. It also seems that outside influences appear to be guiding these efforts.

According to records from Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Waugh, and his wife, Ann, received a trip in 2018 worth $16,244.42 to Israel. This kind of travel is promoted as “fostering professional/cultural understanding, and meeting counterparts”.

Yes, this was just $16,000. The breakdown is as follows:

Transportation: $7,503.50
Accommodation: $2,928.84
Other: $5,812.09

This was sponsored by CIJA, the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs. It’s essentially the Canadian equivalent of AIPAC. Previously, the Canada-Israel Committee organized such annual trips, and their roster is full of prominent names. Believe it or not, this sort of thing isn’t illegal at all. In fact, it appears that Members of Parliament from all parties take part in it. By comparison, Trudeau ended up getting fined for his vacation with Aga Khan.

Waugh met with CIJA on February 15th, 2022. He had introduced Bill C-250 just days earlier, on February 9th. He’d probably deny the connection, but this is extremely unlikely to be any sort of coincidence. The Bill was ultimately abandoned when the substance was embedded into a Budget Bill.

Waugh takes a free trip to Israel in 2018. A few years later, he does the bidding of CIJA to introduce criminal penalties to Holocaust denial. Coincidence?

While it’s certainly true that Canadian politicians accept paid travel to other countries, none appear to even come close to the scale that occurs with Israel.

Germany lost a woman who was willing to go to prison for her beliefs. By contrast, Canadian politicians are implementing similar laws here in return for a free vacation. These people are nothing alike.

Yves-François Blanchet (Bill C-367) and Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe (Bill C-373) of the Bloc Québécois get honourable mentions for their work in eroding religious freedoms.

Maxime “The U.N. needs to shut up” Bernier has been completely silent on these issues, despite reinventing himself as a populist and free speech champion in 2018.

NUMBER	NAME	PARTY	YEAR	VALUE
1	DeBellefeuille, Claude	BQ	2007	$8,661.12
2	Dykstra, Rick	CPC	2007	$8,602.30 (USD)
3	Godin, Yvon	NDP	2007	$4,094.83 (USD)
4	Pearson, Glen	LPC	2007	$8,728.18
5	Savage, Michael	LPC	2007	$5,612.54
6	Simard, Raymond	LPC	2007	$8,188.00 (USD)
7	Smith, Joy	CPC	2007	$8,661.12
8	Stoffer, Peter	NDP	2007	$8,728.18
9	Sweet, David	CPC	2007	$7,374.72 (USD)
10	Van Kesteren, Dave	CPC	2007	$8,728.18
11	Warkentin, Chris	CPC	2007	$7,973.54

NUMBER	NAME	PARTY	YEAR	VALUE
1	Allison, Dean	CPC	2008	$9,411.00
2	Bennett, Carolyn	LPC	2008	$7,961.00
3	Breitkreuz, Garry	CPC	2008	$7,963.00
4	Brunelle, Paule	BQ	2008	$7,961.00
5	Crête, Paul	BQ	2008	$10,944.00
6	Dhaliwal, Sukh	LPC	2008	$8,758
7	Duceppe, Gilles	BQ	2008	$17,577.56
8	Goodyear, Gary	CPC	2008	$10,944.00
9	Guimond, Michel	BQ	2008	$8,728.18
10	Ignatieff, Michael	LPC	2008	$8,602.30
11	Kramp, Daryl	CPC	2008	$9,446.00
12	Lunney, James	CPC	2008	$7,961.00
13	Martin, Pat	LPC	2008	$7,961.00
14	McCallum, John	LPC	2008	$10,944.00
15	Ménard, Serge	BQ	2008	$7,971.00
16	Mulcair, Thomas	NDP	2008	$7,963.00
17	Nash, Peggy	NDP	2008	$9,411.00
18	Neville, Anita	LPC	2008	$7,961.00
19	Redman, Karen	LPC	2008	$11,785
20	Roy, Jean-Yves	BQ	2008	$7.961.00
21	Silva, Mario	LPC	2008	$7,992.33
22	Sweet, David	CPC	2008	$7,961.00
23	Wasylycia-Leis, Judy	NDP	2008	$7,961.00

NUMBER	NAME	PARTY	YEAR	VALUE
1	Brown, Gord	CPC	2009	$6,440.00
2	Cannan, Ron	CPC	2009	$9,446.00
3	Coderre, Denis	LPC	2009	$10,239.22
4	Cotler, Irwin	LPC	2009	$1,439.30
5	Dechert, Bob	CPC	2009	$3,983.00
6	Desnoyers, Luc	BQ	2009	$5,520.00
7	Devolin, Barry	CPC	2009	$9,446.00
8	Garneau, Mar	LPC	2009	$7,843.00
9	Glover, Shelly	CPC	2009	$7,843.66
10	Hoback, Randy	CPC	2009	$7,493.62
11	Hoeppner, Candice	CPC	2009	$7,843.00
12	Holland, Mark	LPC	2009	$9,446.00
13	Laforest, Jean-Yves	BQ	2009	$9,086.22
14	Lemieux, Pierre	CPC	2009	$7,493.62
15	Marston, Wayne	NDP	2009	$7,493.62
16	Mendes, Alexandra	LPC	2009	$7,253.64
17	Oliphant, Robert	LPC	2009	$10,602.00
18	Rae, Bob	LPC	2009	$3,804.80
19	Uppal, Tim	CPC	2009	$7,843.00

NUMBER	NAME	PARTY	YEAR	VALUE
1	Block, Kelly	CPC	2010	$8,451.30
2	Del Mastro, Dean	CPC	2010	$7,956.22
3	Duncan, John	CPC	2010	$6,435.34
4	Fast, Ed	CPC	2010	$9,006.68
5	Laforest, Jean-Yves	BQ	2010	$9,086.22
6	Paillé, Daniel	BQ	2010	$7,904.51
7	Rathgeber, Brent	CPC	2010	$9,078.16
8	Saxton, Andrew	CPC	2010	$8,684.01
9	Simms, Scott	LPC	2010	$8,770.68
10	Thibeault, Glenn	NDP	2010	$8,906.68
11	Watson, Jeff	CPC	2010	$9,586.18

NUMBER	NAME	PARTY	YEAR	VALUE
1	Adler, Mark	CPC	2011	$5,920.31
2	Bezan, James	CPC	2011	$10,781.52
3	Brison, Scott	LPC	2011	$8,820.48
4	Cotler, Irwin	LPC	2011	$5,700.00
5	Cuzner, Rodger	LPC	2011	$9,397.33
6	Foote, Judy	LPC	2011	$5,030.08
7	LeBlanc, Dominic	LPC	2011	$14,680.00
8	Miller, Larry	CPC	2011	$10,525.04
9	Murray, Joyce	LPC	2011	$8,580.00
10	Ravignat, Mathieu	NDP	2011	$7,281.39
11	Shipley, Bev	CPC	2011	$5,370.04

NUMBER	NAME	PARTY	YEAR	VALUE
1	Ambler, Stella	CPC	2012	$10,238.84
2	Blanchette-Lamothe, Lysane	NDP	2012	$9,209.84
3	Caron, Guy	NDP	2012	$8,226.84
4	Chisholm, Robert	NDP	2012	$10,016.28
5	Cleary, Ryan	NDP	2012	$6,030.00
6	Davies, Don	NDP	2012	$10,677.68
7	James, Roxanne	CPC	2012	$7,059.14
8	Lapointe, François	NDP	2012	$11,740.46
9	Larose, Jean-François	NDP	2012	$9,031.84
10	Lunney, James	CPC	2012	$3,992
11	Nicholls, Jamie	NDP	2012	$7,808.28
12	Papillon, Annick	NDP	2012	$9,031.84
13	Rafferty, John	NDP	2012	$10,161.68
14	Trottier, Bernard	CPC	2012	$9,856.28
15	Williamson, John	CPC	2012	$9,961.96
16	Young, Terence	CPC	2012	$10,389.22

NUMBER	NAME	PARTY	YEAR	VALUE
1	Aspin, Jay	CPC	2013	$11,165.60
2	Bateman, Joyce	CPC	2013	$7,915.48
3	Bruinooge, Rod	CPC	2013	$9,937.98
4	Clarke, Rob	CPC	2013	$11,165.60
5	Easter, Wayne	LPC	2013	$9,786.96
6	Lamoureux, Kevin	LPC	2013	$10,053.40
7	Lunney, James	CPC	2013	$5,032.71
8	Menegakis, Costas	CPC	2013	$10,490.70
9	Michaud, Élaine	NDP	2013	$8,185.48
10	Scott, Craig	NDP	2013	$10,892.92
11	Young, Wai	CPC	2013	$12,683.80

NUMBER	NAME	PARTY	YEAR	VALUE
1	Bélanger, Mauril	LPC	2014	$9,537.50
2	Bennett, Carolyn	LPC	2014	$3,981.61
3	Byrne, Gerry	LPC	2014	$12,580.74
4	Falk, Ted	CPC	2014	$12,450.71
5	Hoback, Randy	CPC	2014	$5,092.21
6	Jones, Yvonne	LPC	2014	$11,935
7	Morin, Isabelle	NDP	2014	$9,782.96
8	Opitz, Ted	CPC	2014	$5,026.24
9	Sandhu, Jasbir	NDP	2014	$14,679.57
10	Sweet, David	CPC	2014	$4,915.36
11	Wilks, David	CPC	2014	$8,608.12

NUMBER	NAME	PARTY	YEAR	VALUE
1	Lunney, James	INDEPENDENT	2015	$3,285.89

NUMBER	NAME	PARTY	YEAR	VALUE
1	Albas, Dan	CPC	2016	$12,750
2	Blaney, Steven	CPC	2016	$5,616.78
3	Di Iorio, Nicola	LPC	2016	$6,930.36
4	Dubé, Matthew	NDP	2016	$12,342.24
5	Fillmore, Andy	LPC	2016	$10,294.97
6	Fuhr, Stephen	LPC	2016	$11,207.65
7	Garrison, Randall	NDP	2016	$7,800.22
8	Genuis, Garnett	CPC	2016	$12,650.80
9	Gladu, Marilyn	CPC	2016	$9,394.06
10	Godin, Joël	CPC	2016	$11,929.56
11	Grewal, Ra	LPC	2016	$9,391.15
12	Lefebvre, Paul	LPC	2016	$10,236.50
13	Levitt, Michael	LPC	2016	$9,393.35
14	Longfield, Lloyd	LPC	2016	$11,379.11
15	Mendicino, Marco	LPC	2016	$6,714.00
16	O’Regan, Seamus	LPC	2016	$11,186.79
17	Raitt, Lisa	CPC	2016	$8,643.72
18	Rankin, Murray	NDP	2016	$9,495.06
19	Rayes, Alain	CPC	2016	$10,705.65
20	Rempel, Michelle	CPC	2016	$6,296.13
21	Richards, Blake	CPC	2016	$7,880.54
22	Rioux, Jean	LPC	2016	$11,137.02
23	Ruimy, Dan	LPC	2016	$6,841.14
24	Sorbara, Francesco	LPC	2016	$10,350

NUMBER	NAME	PARTY	YEAR	VALUE
1	Brosseau, Ruth Ellen	NDP	2017	$11,705.62
2	Calkins, Blaine	CPC	2017	$11,492.23
3	Dhillon, Anju	LPC	2017	$9,550.21
4	Hardcastle, Cheryl	NPD	2017	$9,522.18
5	Harder, Rachael	CPC	2017	$7,410.21
6	Maloney, James	LPC	2017	$14,116.86
7	McCauley, Kelly	CPC	2017	$12,724/81
8	Nuttall, Alexander	CPC	2017	$10,423.31
9	O’Connell, Jennifer	LPC	2017	$11,375.14
10	Romanado, Sherry	LPC	2017	$11,840.21
11	Rusnak, Don	LPC	2017	$14,013.00
12	Sarai, Randeep	LPC	2017	$11,806.43
13	Schulte, Deborah	LPC	2017	$15,238.90
14	Zimmer, Bob	CPC	2017	$12,437.04

NUMBER	NAME	PARTY	YEAR	VALUE
1	Amos, William	LPC	2018	$11,245.24
2	Brosseau, Ruth Ellen	NDP	2018	$2977.22
3	Fergus, Greg	LPC	2018	$8,696.85
4	Kusie, Stephanie	CPC	2018	$13,390.91
5	McLeod, Cathy	CPC	2018	$7,721.70
6	Ng, Mary	LPC	2018	$7,355.84
7	Oliver, John	LPC	2018	$7,197.11
8	O’Toole, Erin	CPC	2018	$7,884,47
9	Schmale, Jamie	CPC	2018	$7,286.99
10	Sikand, Gagan	LPC	2018	$7,150.00
11	Stubbs, Shannon	CPC	2018	$14,212.93
12	Sweet, David	CPC	2018	$1,116.22
13	Vandal, Dan	LPC	2018	$9,282.93
14	Waugh, Kevin	CPC	2018	$16,244.42

Palestinian Authority and the Canadian Palestinian Foundation of Quebec

(2018) Brosseau, Ruth Ellen
(2018) Boulerice, Alexandre
(2018) Caron, Guy
(2018) Casey, Bill
(2018) Chen, Shaun
(2018) Davies, Don
(2018) Genuis, Garnett
(2018) Johns, Gord
(2018) Mathyssen, Irene
(2018) McDonald, Ken
(2018) Ouellette, Robert-Falcon
(2018) Stetski, Wayne
(2018) Tabbara, Marwan
(2018) Tan, Geng

International Democratic Union (IDU)

(2018) Tony Clement

Foreign Affairs Department, The Knesset, Jerusalem

(2018) Sweet, David

NUMBER	NAME	PARTY	YEAR	VALUE
1	Lapointe, Linda	LPC	2019	$13,552.80

March Of Dimes

(2019) Barlow, John
(2019) Damoff, Pam
(2019) May, Bryan

NUMBER	NAME	PARTY	YEAR	VALUE
1	Aldag, John	LPC	2022	$16,695.62
2	Barrett, Michael	CPC	2022	$16,209.30
3	Dancho, Raquel	CPC	2022	$13,313.79
4	Duncan, Eric	CPC	2022	$10,528.25
5	Jeneroux, Matt	CPC	2022	$11,453.80
6	Kelly, Pat	CPC	2022	$10,760.73
7	Lattanzio, Patricia	LPC	2022	$16,903.70

NUMBER	NAME	PARTY	YEAR	VALUE
1	Aitchison, Scott	CPC	2023	$13,994.14
2	Berthold, Luc	CPC	2023	$10,227.60
3	Blanchette-Joncas, Maxime	BQ	2023	$7,524.88
4	Blois, Kody	LPC	2023	$23,930.48
5	Bradford, Valerie	LPC	2023	$14,007.89
6	Chambers, Adam	CPC	2023	$18,950.85
7	Champoux, Martin	BQ	2023	$18,246.85
8	Chahal, Harnirjodh (George)	LPC	2023	$23,744.00
9	Chen, Shaun	LPC	2023	$11,563.58
10	Findlay, Kerry-Lynne	CPC	2023	$23,883.00
11	Fortin, Rhéal	BQ	2023	$18,846.85
12	Goodridge, Laila	CPC	2023	$18,446.20
13	Hallan, Jasraj Singh	CPC	2023	$23,017.04
14	Hepfner, Lisa	LPC	2023	$18,644.15
15	Housefather, Anthony	LPC	2023	$10,866.91
16	Kramp-Neuman, Shelby	CPC	2023	$11,728.58
17	Lapointe, Viviane	LPC	2023	$7,636.23
18	Martel, Richard	CPC	2023	$10,894.04
19	Paul-Hus, Pierre	CPC	2023	$17,233.40
20	Rempel Garner, Michelle	CPC	2023	$12,252.48
21	Scheer, Andrew	CPC	2023	$18,446.20
22	Schiefke, Peter	LPC	2023	$11,316.78

KEVIN WAUGH, CPC MP:
(1) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/44-1/c-250
(2) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Members/en/kevin-waugh(89084)
(3) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/cmmLgPblcVw?comlogId=521753
(4) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=111&regId=917368&blnk=1
(5) https://www.conservative.ca/mp-waugh-introduces-legislation-to-prohibit-holocaust-denial/
(6) https://archive.ph/fCnNn

November 20, 2024December 16, 2024

Canada Post Employees Appeal Dismissal Over Arbitration Requirements, Faulty Pleadings

Employees at Canada Post (a.k.a. the “Posties”) are trying to appeal a March 2024 ruling that saw their lawsuit struck, without an opportunity to amend. Rule 51 of the Federal Courts Rules allows for findings of Associate Judges to be reviewed by way of Motion. However, it wasn’t the Court that screwed them over, but their counsel.

They should have been advised from the beginning that filing the lawsuit in the first place was a dead end, with no chance of success. Or perhaps they were….

Backstory Of What’s Been Going On

For context: back in the Spring of 2022, an Arbitration Panel ruled against employees at Canada Post. The Union had challenged the new policy requirements for injections that the Federal Government had brought in. Understandably, many workers weren’t happy about it.

The Canadian Union of Postal Workers, or CUPW, is the group representing employees. There is, of course, a collective bargaining agreement that everyone is expected to follow. Article 9 specifies the grievance resolution process, and binding arbitration is the end. Arbitration is considered to be final, as it’s an alternative to going to Court. Although the CUPW did fight for its workers, they still lost. Arbitrator Thomas Jolliffe ruled against them.

However, if the process is unfair, there’s often a way to have it looked at. This is done by an Application for Judicial Review. It’s analogous to appealing an unfavourable ruling, if not handled properly. But that’s not what ended up happening.

Leighton Grey, an Alberta lawyer, apparently convinced a few hundred employees to ignore the decision of Arbitator Jolliffe, and the grievance process altogether. June 2022, he filed an 18 page Statement of Claim. Yes, he sued Canada Post, instead of asking the earlier decision to be reviewed.

The Claim itself was very poorly written, and lacked much of the necessary information to proceed. It pleaded no facts whatsoever about individual Plaintiffs — remember, it was only 18 pages — and didn’t provide the necessary particulars to support allegations of bad faith and malice. There was also the problem that while Canada Post was a Crown Corporation, legally, it was considered separate from the Government.

For the next year, the file was largely inactive. The Claim was later amended, and not for the better. Eventually, the Court ordered the case to advance, so the Defendants moved to have the case thrown out.

And the case was eventually struck, without Leave to Amend. Plaintiffs weren’t allowed to sue, just because they were unhappy with the Arbitration results. Moreover, the Claim wasn’t pleaded anywhere close to properly.

At least some of those clients now have a new lawyer, Jason Gratl. He’s now seeking an extension of time to file a Rule 51 Motion for Reconsideration. An included Affidavit also alleges Grey didn’t file Notice of Motion as expected.

Timeline Of Events Leading To This Point

This is a follow up to a March 2024 article on the Canada Post lawsuit. Even more background information is here, to help understand the chain of events. It’s important to note that the CUPW went through the full arbitration process — as required — prior to this lawsuit commencing.

Leighton Grey Implies Federal Court “Rigged” Outcome

In a post on Twitter, Grey comments about a case involving over 300 military veterans being struck. That too was struck for the 2 main reasons: (a) not following prescribed grievance scheme/lack of jurisdiction; and (b) failure to properly plead the Statement of Claim.

“Same judge”
“Same judgment”
“Same reasons”
“Same comments”
“Even the same costs”
“Is anyone else seeing a pattern?”

Yes, there obviously is a pattern. 2 grossly inept and incompetent lawyers — Grey and Catherine Christensen — filed claims when there was no jurisdiction to do so. Neither of them pleaded their cases with anywhere near the detail necessary to advance a suit anyway.

There’s also the issue raised that Canada Post, a Crown Corporation, is considered separate from the Government. While pedantic to many, it was raised at the hearing.

However, in the way this is presented, it looks as though Grey implies Associate Judge Coughlan has been maliciously fixing her decisions. Although careful not to state it directly, it’s the impression that his audience would be left with. He suggests that she, and perhaps the entire Federal Court, is corrupt.

Should lawyers be actively working to undermine trust and confidence in the Judiciary? That’s what it looks like Grey is intentionally doing.

Valour Legal Action Centre, the firm Christensen runs, tweeted out similar comments, implying that Associate Judge Coughlan fixed that one as well. These are very risky things to say, especially in light of the serious and legitimate errors raised in the respective cases.

Accusing the Federal Court, and Associate Judge Coughlan, of “hiding behind the grievance system”, amounts to an allegation of corruption. Is this wise to post on Twitter?

Grievance/Arbitration Requirement Bars Court Action

Canada Post is a unionized workplace, and there are systems in place to handle grievances. This is spelled out in Article 9 of the collective bargaining agreement. Most relevant is the requirement to seek arbitration if other, lesser methods fail. An Arbitrator’s ruling is to be considered final. There is no inherent right to sue.

As for the Canadian Government itself, legally, it’s distinct and separate from the Crown Corporations — yes, unfair — despite Canada Post obeying its orders to force injection mandates.

Arbitration didn’t go the way the workers wanted, so Grey sued the company anyway. Having the case struck for lack of jurisdiction was entirely predictable. However, he implies that the Federal Court had predetermined the outcome.

Grey also filed lawsuits against: (a) Canadian National Railway; and (b) Purolator in recent years. He’s well aware of this issue, as counsel in those cases have raised it as well.

As for the new lawyer, Jason Gratl, he’ll have a difficult time with his Rule 51 Motion, assuming he gets the time extension. In theory, a competent lawyer could plead a new Statement of Claim properly. That said, the lack of jurisdiction is fatal. No amount of pleading facts or detail will get around this, which makes one wonder why he’s doing this at all.

Rule 51 Motions are meant to correct errors made by the Associate Judge. They’re not a way to fix a mess created by incompetent counsel.

Statement Of Claim Not Pleaded Properly, Once Again

Material facts
174 Every pleading shall contain a concise statement of the material facts on which the party relies, but shall not include evidence by which those facts are to be proved.

Particulars
181 (1) A pleading shall contain particulars of every allegation contained therein, including
(a) particulars of any alleged misrepresentation, fraud, breach of trust, willful default or undue influence; and
(b) particulars of any alleged state of mind of a person, including any alleged mental disorder or disability, malice or fraudulent intention.

Regular readers on this site will have heard of Rules 174 and 181 of the Federal Court Rules. Similar provisions exist in all Provincial Courts as well.

However, Grey doesn’t do this at all. The Statement of Claim is just 18 pages, and there’s no information pleaded about any specific Plaintiff. “Facts” are supposed to include the who, what, where, when and how of events unfolding. There has to be enough detail about each Plaintiff that the Defendants can respond.

Grey doesn’t plead any facts that would establish any Charter breaches either. There are specific requirements that have to be met for each tort that each Plaintiff is raising.

Facts Required For Section 2a (Religion) To Be Considered

(1) that he or she sincerely believes in a practice or belief that has a nexus with religion, and
(2) that the impugned state conduct interferes, in a manner that is non‑trivial or not insubstantial, with his or her ability to act in accordance with that practice or belief

https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2017/2017fc1092/2017fc1092.html#22

Facts Required For Section 7 (Security) To Be Considered

(1) plaintiff must plead facts to establish a deprivation of their right to life, right to liberty or right to security of the person.
(2)The claim must then set out facts to show that any deprivation of these rights was effected in a manner contrary to the principles of fundamental justice.

https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2022/2022onsc2732/2022onsc2732.html#par69

Facts Required For Section 15 (Equality) To Be Considered

(1) on its face or in its impact, the state action creates a distinction based on a prohibited ground (either enumerated or analogous); and
(2) the state action imposes burdens or denies a benefit in a manner that has the effect of reinforcing, perpetuating or exacerbating disadvantage

ENUMERATED GROUND	ANALOGOUS GROUND
Explicitly In Charter	Recognized By Courts
Race	Sexual Orientation
National/Ethnic Origin	Marital Status
Colour	Off-Reserve Band Member
Religion	Citizenship
Sex	–
Age	–
Mental/Physical Disability	–

However, “vaccination status” has never been recognized as an analogous ground.

https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2022/2022onsc2732/2022onsc2732.html#par80

General Formula For Charter Damages Under Section 24

(i) establish whether there has been a Charter breach;
(ii) show why damages are a just and appropriate remedy, having regard to the related functions of compensation, vindication of the right (in question), and/or deterrence of future breaches;
(iii) if the plaintiff is successful in meeting these two steps, the state then has the opportunity to demonstrate that damages are inappropriate or unjust; and
(iv) if the state is unsuccessful, assess the quantum of damages

https://www.canlii.org/en/mb/mbca/doc/2012/2012mbca64/2012mbca64.html#11

And again, Grey would have to plead sufficient facts about each Plaintiff who was invoking these rights. However, there’s no information provided about any of them. No wonder the case was struck. It’s impossible to establish there’s been a Charter breach (part i), when there are no facts pled to even theoretically support such a claim.

As for “pleading particulars”, Rule 181 of Federal Court Rules, Grey makes all kinds of allegations of malice, conspiracy, and malfeasance of public office. He needs to explain the who, what, where, when and how that all of this happened.

Grey includes allegations such as Criminal Code violations — which would get the Claim immediately struck — because a Civil Court has no jurisdiction to hear them.

In fact, there’s no shortages of torts listed, but there are no facts or particulars included that would support a claim for any of them, in favour of any Plaintiff. It’s “Mr. Bad Beyond Argument 2.0”.

A proper Statement of Claim with this many Plaintiffs would be hundreds of pages long. It’s not something that Grey — or this new lawyer — can fix with amendments.

What Happens Now?

The Plaintiffs seeking to have the decision reviewed — which is not all of them — first need to convince the Court to grant an extension of time to have their main Motion heard. The first is a procedural Motion, and in theory, is doable.

Then, they need to be persuasive that Associate Judge Coughlan shouldn’t have thrown the case out completely, that she should have at least given Leave to Amend. This will be difficult, especially with: (a) Court not having proper jurisdiction; and (b) the Statement of Claim being so deficient of necessary information. It seems extremely unlikely for a review to be successful.

Arbitator Jolliffe’s ruling is considered binding.

To be honest, Jason Gratl would have far better luck suing Grey for incompetence, negligence, and malpractice. His performance falls far short of what one should expect from a senior lawyer. At least his clients would get some of their money back.

We’ll have to see how this plays out.

LITIGATION:
(1) Canada Post Statement Of Claim July 2022
(2) Canada Post Amended Statement Of Claim June 7 2023
(3) Canada Post Order Timetable July 2023
(4) Canada Post Defendants Motion Record October 2023
(5) Canada Post Plaintiff Responding Motion Record January 2024
(6) Canada Post Plaintiff Responding Motion Record CP February 2024
(7) Canada Post Further Amended Statement Of Claim February 2024
(8) Canada Post Decision Striking Amended Pleading
(9) Canada Post Notice Of Change Of Solicitor November 2024
(10) Canada Post Affidavit of Karine Solakian November 2024
(11) Canada Post Notice Of Motion November 2024

TWITTER:
(1) https://x.com/GreyMatterConvo/status/1858612823900770492
(2) https://x.com/GreyMatterConvo/status/1858635451839508580
(3) https://x.com/GreyMatterConvo/status/1858635720052584917
(4) https://x.com/ValourLegal/status/1858178030369186289

ARBITRATION:
(1) https://www.cupw.ca/sites/default/files/urb-ja-31-2022-ca-en.pdf
(2) Canada Post Collective Bargaining Agreement 2022
(3) Canada Post Arbitration update, February 2022 (removed)
(4) Wayback Machine Archive
(5) CUPW On Some Updates On Arbitration
(6) Wayback Machine Archive On Arbitration Updates
(7) https://www.cupw.ca/en/last-days-arbitration-vaccination-practice-grievance
(8) Wayback Machine Archive Of April 1st, 2022 Update
(9) https://www.cupw.ca/en/arbitrator-dismisses-grievance-against-canada-post%E2%80%99s-mandatory-vaccination-practice
(10) Arbitration Decision (Removed)
(11) Canada Post Arbitration Ruling, Full Text
(12) Wayback Machine Archive Of Arbitration Decision
(13) https://www.fct-cf.gc.ca/en/court-files-and-decisions/court-files#cont

OTHER LAWS AND DECISIONS
(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2022/2022bcsc1507/2022bcsc1507.html#par52
(2) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2023/2023fc252/2023fc252.html#par51
(3) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fca/doc/2015/2015fca20/2015fca20.html
(4) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2017/2017fc786/2017fc786.html#par32
(5) https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/sor-98-106/index.html
(6) https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/F-7/FullText.html
(7) https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/P-33.3/

Bill S-210: Age Restricting Pornography, Yukon Status of Women Council Opposed

Like this:

Bill S-210: Age Restricting Pornography, Women’s LEAF Opposed To It

Like this:

Citizens Alliance Of Nova Scotia (CANS) Mootness Motion To Be Heard Friday

Like this:

Free Speech In Canada Apparently Worth Just $16,000 (Haverbeck V. Waugh)

Palestinian Authority and the Canadian Palestinian Foundation of Quebec

International Democratic Union (IDU)

Foreign Affairs Department, The Knesset, Jerusalem

March Of Dimes

Like this:

Canada Post Employees Appeal Dismissal Over Arbitration Requirements, Faulty Pleadings

Backstory Of What’s Been Going On

Timeline Of Events Leading To This Point

Leighton Grey Implies Federal Court “Rigged” Outcome

Grievance/Arbitration Requirement Bars Court Action

Statement Of Claim Not Pleaded Properly, Once Again

What Happens Now?

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Daniel Kelter, Former Legislative Assistant, Now Lobbyist

Teodora Durca, Former Parliamentary Intern, Now Lobbyist

Erskine-Smith Met With ONE Global (Canada)

Calling Lauren Chen A “Traitor” For Taking Russian Money

Share this:

Like this:

Palestinian Authority and the Canadian Palestinian Foundation of Quebec

International Democratic Union (IDU)

Foreign Affairs Department, The Knesset, Jerusalem

March Of Dimes

Share this:

Like this:

Backstory Of What’s Been Going On

Timeline Of Events Leading To This Point

Leighton Grey Implies Federal Court “Rigged” Outcome

Grievance/Arbitration Requirement Bars Court Action

Statement Of Claim Not Pleaded Properly, Once Again

What Happens Now?

Share this:

Like this: