Author: Ronnie

Posted on

Adelberg Amended: “Wrongful Termination” Claim Alleges Arbitrary Detainment

Today we get a 3-in-1: Adelberg, Action4Canada and Dorceus.

The infamous Adelberg Federal case has finally been amended. There’s quite the story behind it.

Readers have commented at times asking why this subject is covered to such a degree. In short: it’s a multimillion dollar grift that is still ongoing. Desperate clients and donors are still being taken advantage of by unscrupulous lawyers. No one else reports on it.

While the main focus here is on Adelberg, the others will be briefly discussed as well.

February, 2023: the Federal Court struck the case in its entirety as “bad beyond argument”. Furthermore, the Schedule “A” Plaintiffs (members of the Government) were barred because of a grievance requirement. However, the Schedule “B” Plaintiffs (those in Federally regulated industries) could at least theoretically refile.

June, 2024: the Federal Court of Appeal did something interesting. Although the suit was primarily about employment, it ruled EVERYONE could technically bring travel claims, despite them likely being moot. It also tentatively allowed the RCMP Plaintiffs to proceed with employment claims for the time being. It did confirm that the initial filing was grossly deficient, inadequately pleaded, and “bad beyond argument”.

January, 2025: the Supreme Court of Canada refused to hear an Appeal that would allow the Schedule “A” Plaintiffs to file employment claims.

September, 2025: The remaining Plaintiffs file a new Statement of Claim. Aside from minor tweaks, it’s basically the same as before. That said, there is a 100 page “Schedule” attached. It includes: (a) names; (b) birthdates; (c) employment dates; (d) vaccination status; and (e) if any travel claims are being advanced. It still falls far short of the necessary information to proceed.

***Note: to prevent doxing, the personal information in the “Schedule” will not be published.

Aside from the bare-bones nature of the information, it’s now only being provided in September, 2025. The original Claim was filed in May, 2022. And it still covers less than half of the remaining Plaintiffs. Why wasn’t client information sought out 4 years ago?

But that is only the beginning of the problems here.

“Wrongful Termination” Suit Alleges Arbitrary Detention

At its core, Adelberg is a mass Tort for wrongful termination. It claimed that some 600+ Federal employees and employees of Federally regulated industries were fired or forced out for refusing vaccination. There were also vague claims about travel rights being infringed.

However, for some unknown reason, counsel has decided to plead that Plaintiffs’ Section 9 Charter rights were also violated in the process. This is the prohibition against arbitrary arrest or detention.

The Statement of Claim is very disjointed, so it’s hard to follow at times. But it appears to state that requiring the injection pass to obtain goods or services, or to travel, amounts to arbitrary detention. Apparently it violated Plaintiffs’ rights to address this by way of habeas corpus.

***Apologies for not catching it before, as it was in the earlier version. However, there were so many flaws that it got overlooked.

The pleading goes off on tangents about topics unrelated to work or travel. Despite those being the priorities, they receive little attention.

Lawsuit Fails To IDENTIFY All Plaintiffs

There are 46 “John Does” in the Statement of Claim, and another 23 “Jane Does”. Quite literally, there are dozens of Plaintiffs asking for money who refuse to identify themselves. Amusingly, it includes 17 current and former police officers who won’t give their names.

As should be obvious, this is complete nonsense.

Amended Claim Doesn’t Plead Necessary Facts Or Particulars

JURISDICTION PLEAD FACTS PLEAD PARTICULARS
Federal Court Rule 174 Rule 181
Alberta Rule 13.6 Rule 13.7
British Columbia Rule 3-1(2)(a) Rule 3-7(17)
Manitoba Rule 25.06(1) Rule 25.06(11)
Nova Scotia Rule 38.02(2) and (3) Rule 38.03(3)
Ontario Rule 25.06(1) Rule 25.06(8)

Frequent readers will have seen this chart.

“Pleading facts” means laying out who said or did what, when and where. It doesn’t mean arguing caselaw, or trying to test evidence.

“Pleading particulars” is required when Plaintiffs are alleging fraud, malice, malfeasance, etc… There’s an extra burden to spell out the nature of the allegation.

No Facts Pleaded For s.2(a) Freedom Of Religion Torts

Despite the sweeping declarations, not a single Plaintiff actually pleads any detail about how their religious freedoms were violated with introduction of vaccine mandates. This tort has specific elements to plead, and it’s not optional.

(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
https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2017/2017scc54/2017scc54.html#par68

No Facts Pleaded For s.6, Mobility Rights Torts

Despite allegations that travel and mobility rights had been violated, no Plaintiff specifies any instance of this happening. This is regardless of whether international travel, s.6(1), or interprovincial travel, s.6(2) is considered. No one pleads either tort.

For Section 6(1), Canadian citizens have the right: (a) to enter; (b) remain in; and (c) leave Canada. Litigants would have to prove that at least one of these was violated.

For Section 6(2), citizens and permanent residents have interprovincial mobility rights to obtain a livelihood in any Province they wish. They would have to claim that discrimination comes from where they reside.

(a) The principle: The right to pursue the gaining of a livelihood in any province;
(b) The exception: This right is subject to any laws or practices of a general application in force in that province;
(c) The exception to the exception: Except if these laws discriminate among persons primarily on the basis of the province of residence.

https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2013/2013scc47/2013scc47.html#par18
https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1997/1997canlii17020/1997canlii17020.html#par51

No Facts Pleaded For s.7, Security Of The Person Torts

No Plaintiff pleads any facts to establish that their safety was in danger from these mandates. It’s worth pointing out that Courts have consistently refused to find “practicing a specific profession” as worthy of s.7 protections. This dates back to the 1990s. Unsurprisingly, lawyers argue torts they know will be thrown out.

(1) Plaintiff must plead facts to establish a deprivation of their right to life, right to liberty or right to security of the person, and
(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
https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2017/2017onsc2312/2017onsc2312.html#par30

No Facts Pleaded For s.9, Arbitrary Detention/Imprisonment Torts

As stated earlier, there’s no indication that any Plaintiffs are claiming that they were detained, let alone arbitrarily. This tort doesn’t apply in the context of wrongful dismissal. Supposedly it applies when dealing with people obtaining goods or services, or travelling, but it’s not explained how.

(1) Plaintiff must have been detained or imprisoned, and
(2) that detainment or imprisonment must have been arbitrary

No Facts Pleaded For s.15, Equality Rights Torts

Not a single Plaintiff pleads any facts that they were subjected to any humiliating or dehumanizing treatment from their “unvaccinated” status. Theoretically, it may be able to get it added as an “analogous ground”, but counsel makes no effort to do that.

Enumerated grounds: explicitly stated in the Charter
Analogous grounds: other ones Courts have endorsed over the years.

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 –

(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

https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2022/2022onsc2732/2022onsc2732.html#par80
https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2021/2021onca534/2021onca534.html#par133

No Facts Pleaded For Miscellaneous Torts

There are several general torts included in the Statement of Claim.
(a) Malfeasance of public office
(b) Intimidation (through 3rd parties)
(c) Conspiracy
(d) Intentional infliction of mental anguish

However, there’s still the same problem. Not a single Plaintiff pleads anything that would theoretically support such claims advancing. The “Schedule” attached covers less than half the Plaintiffs, and is limited to:

  • Name
  • Employer
  • Birthdate
  • Date employment started
  • Date required to take injections
  • Date sent home without pay
  • Date fired or resigned
  • Damages (if quantifiable)
  • Travel restrictions

There’s nothing to indicate what religious beliefs any of the Plaintiffs follow, and how they were impacted. There’s nothing specific outlining any travel plans that were disrupted. No one describes how the security of their bodies was threatened if they refused. There’s no information that clearly explains how any tort is engaged.

And of course, no Plaintiff alleges details of arbitrary arrest.

The Claim still fails to include nearly all of the required information. For all the declarations of a “conspiracy”, there’s very little concrete information to go off of. From a procedural point of view, Defendants need to know what they are being accused of.

Now, let’s move on to the other cases: Action4Canada and Dorceus.

Action4Canada Faces Another Application To Strike

In August, 2022, Action4Canada’s pleading was struck as “bad beyond argument“. Then it was appealed, unsuccessfully, for no coherent reason. Now, there is a shorter version available, but the same problems remain.

(1) A4C Amended Claim Application To Strike VIHA
(2) A4C Amended Claim Application To Strike Kwok Translink
(3) A4C Amended Claim Application To Strike Federal Defendants
(4) A4C Amended Claim Application To Strike Provincial Defendants

Dorceus Appeal Will Go Absolutely Nowhere

December, 2024, a massive healthcare workers case in Ontario was struck as “bad beyond argument“. All claims against the Government and unionized employers were completely struck, though the non-union ones could be sued individually.

While this is being appealed, it seems unlikely to change anything.

(1) Dorceus Appellants Factum
(2) Dorceus AG Respondents Factum

Limitation Period Expires For CSASPP Defamation Appeal

As an aside, the 60 day limitation period has lapsed to seek permission to appeal with the Supreme Court of Canada. Free speech prevails here.

Frivolous Cases Waste Donor/Client Money

These grift lawsuits date back to 2020, and continue to waste time, money and energy. Filing Claims that fail to meet any basic level of professionalism does no one any favours — except Government officials.

Appealing, instead of amending, doesn’t help clients. It only works to delay and derail opportunities to hold people accountable.

Is there merit to the Plaintiffs’ demands? Quite likely, yes. When they say they were forced out of their jobs, or prohibited from travelling, most (if not all) are telling the truth. On the surface, there’s no reason to doubt the sincerity of any of them.

That said, these pleadings are so poorly written that none of these cases will ever get to Trial. It is entirely the fault of the people drafting the papers.

And groups like The Democracy Fund and JCCF are publicly silent about all this.

But there is a solution: go after lawyers’ insurance money.

(1) Adelberg Fresh As Amended Statement Of Claim NO SCHEDULE

Posted on

Bill S-224: Lowering The Burden To Prosecute Human Trafficking (Died In Last Session)

Senator Salma Ataullahjan introduced Bill S-224 back in late 2021. It cleared the Senate, and Second Reading in the House of Commons. In fact, it came very close to getting passed.

Put simply, it would have amended the Criminal Code to make it easier for police to lay charges in cases of suspected human trafficking. It would have removed an element of the offence — fear for one’s safety — thus lowering the burden. There was a surprisingly vocal set of opponents fighting against it.

Broadly speaking, “trafficking” would fall into 2 major categories: (a) sex work, such as pornography or prostitution; or (b) forced labour in general. Participants in the 2023 study focused on the former.

***It’s true that this Bill died when the last session of Parliament ended. That being said, legislation that doesn’t advance is often brought back at later times. This may be one such case.

What Would Bill S-224 Actually Change?

Exploitation
279.04 (1) For the purposes of sections 279.01 to 279.03, a person exploits another person if they cause them to provide, or offer to provide, labour or a service by engaging in conduct that, in all the circumstances, could reasonably be expected to cause the other person to believe that their safety or the safety of a person known to them would be threatened if they failed to provide, or offer to provide, the labour or service.

Factors
279.04 (2) In determining whether an accused exploits another person under subsection (1), the Court may consider, among other factors, whether the accused
(a) used or threatened to use force or another form of coercion;
(b) used deception; or
(c) abused a position of trust, power or authority.

The proposed Bill S-224 would remove the requirement that victims fear for their safety if they don’t comply with the demands.

Exploitation
279.‍04 (1) For the purposes of sections 279.‍01 to 279.‍03, a person exploits another person if they engage in conduct that
(a) causes the other person to provide or offer to provide labour or a service; and
(b) involves, in relation to any person, the use or threatened use of force or another form of coercion, the use of deception or fraud, the abuse of a position of trust, power or authority, or any other similar act.
(2) Subsection 279.‍04(2) of the Act is repealed.

Critics claim that taking out that requirement will make it easier for police to charge third parties for the so-called “legitimate” work they may be involved with.

Opposition To S-224 Framed As “Protecting Rights”

Some of the “solutions” being proposed are:

  • Reject Bill S-224 in its entirety.
  • Decriminalize/legalize sex work.
  • Support non-carceral forms of safety, including decent and affordable housing for all, restorative and transformative justice initiatives, and community-based anti-violence programs geared toward preventing gendered violence and supporting survivors.
  • Invest in community initiatives run by and for people working in the sex industry that are non directive and based in human rights, and not focused on “exiting” sex work. Programs contingent on people stopping or “exiting” sex work or that have eligibility requirements fail to address the complexity of sex workers’ lives.
  • Invest in Indigenous community initiatives, migrant worker community initiatives, and youth based initiatives that furnish people with networks of community support that undercut the precarity and vulnerability that place people in vulnerable situations.
  • Ensure full and permanent immigration status for all in Canada, without exception.

Advocates who oppose Bill S-224 are quick to point out that sex work isn’t necessarily exploitative by nature. They then go on to demand housing for all, and immigration status for all.

Bill S-224 Opposed By Ford Government

Bizarrely, one of the strongest opponents is the Ontario Government, currently headed by Doug Ford.

Keep in mind, Ford had no problem spending endless amounts of money a few years back. He sent the police to shut down businesses, enforce stay-at-home orders, mask mandates, vaccine mandates, etc…. But his administration objects to changes of law that would make it easier to pursue human traffickers.

In their brief to Parliament, it’s lamented how the inevitable legal challenges would be wasteful, and a poor use of taxpayer money. It’s rationalized that because the current laws are constitutional, they don’t need to be tweaked.

Overall, this is a very strange hill to die on. One would think that special interest groups would be fighting for more aggressive laws to jail such people. Considering the focus on how much exploitation there is in immigrant and poorer communities, wouldn’t such changes be welcomed?

Sure, other groups sent in brief in support of S-224, but they’re not the concern.

It’s worth mentioning that organizations opposing this Bill receive taxpayer subsidies.

(1) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/44-1/s-224
(2) https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/S-224/third-reading
(3) https://sencanada.ca/en/senators/ataullahjan-salma/
(4) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Committees/en/JUST/StudyActivity?studyActivityId=12111640
(5) https://parlvu.parl.gc.ca/Harmony/en/PowerBrowser/PowerBrowserV2/20230612/-1/39495?gefdesc=&startposition=20230612164645
(6) Bill S-224 Brief Butterfly HIV Legal
(7) Bill S-224 Brief CASWLR
(8) Bill S-224 Brief Joint Criminologists
(9) Bill S-224 Brief Ontario Government
(10) Bill S-224 Brief Ontario Native Women
(11) Bill S-224 Brief Vincent Wong
(12) Bill S-224 Brief West Coast LEAF

Private Member Bills In PREVIOUS 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”
(19.1) Bill S-210: Women’s Legal Action & Education Fund
(19.2) Bill S-210: Yukon Status Of Women Council Against Restrictions
(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

Posted on

Boulachanis: Murderer, Trafficker And Escapee Sent To Women’s Prison

It’s bad enough that male convicts can simply game the system to ensure they’re placed with women. It seems that even being a convicted murderer, a narcotics trafficker, or having a history of escaping isn’t necessarily enough to prevent it. Nor are allegations of sexual assault while in custody. Regardless of circumstances, women simply don’t have rights to assert.

This covers John Boulachanis, who now goes by Jamie Boulachanis. He had previously been involved in drug trafficking, and murdered an accomplice he feared would turn him in.

Bagnald, Blackplume and Patterson were looked at previously.

In a convoluted decision, Justice Sébastien Grammond of the Federal Court allowed him to be transferred, at least until the issue was finally worked out. However, the Federal Court of Appeal stayed that decision.

Boulachanis Is Murderer With Previous Escape

[17] Upon her return to Canada, Ms. Boulachanis was charged with first‑degree murder and detained in provincial custody. In 2013, she managed to escape while being transported in a prison van, but was caught soon after. After going through a metal detector, she handed over saw blades, handcuff keys and part of a screwdriver hidden in her body cavities. In 2015, a search of her cell turned up a variety of objects and instruments that could be used to escape, including braided ropes, handmade handcuffs and tools. She was also convicted of obstructing justice for inducing witnesses to lie during her murder trial.

From Justice Grammond’s own reasons, Boulachanis had escaped custody previously, and had the tools to do so another time. He was still allowed to be in a women’s jail. Additionally, he had fled the country, and was only apprehended when he returned.

According to the Federal Court, Boulachanis lived under false identities in Greece, the United States, and elsewhere in Canada. Another reason to view him as a security risk.

Tortured Logic Coming From Federal Court

[30] To determine whether Ms. Boulachanis presented a strong prima facie case, it can be helpful to begin by reviewing the positions of the parties. Ms. Boulachanis’s position is straightforward: keeping her in a men’s institution is discriminatory, and in addition, this violates the interim policy. Since she is legally a woman, she has the strict right to be accommodated in a women’s institution.

[31] On the contrary, the Attorney General’s argument is based on the exception that appears in the interim policy. He argues that Ms. Boulachanis’s case, because of her high risk of escape, raises “overriding health or safety concerns which cannot be resolved.” The decision to keep Ms. Boulachanis in a men’s institution would be the result of weighing her right to equality against the objectives of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, SC 1992, c 20 [the CCRA], namely those regarding public safety. Citing the decision in Doré v Barreau du Québec, 2012 SCC 12, [2012] 1 SCR 395 [Doré], the Attorney General argues that the outcome of this weighing exercise was reasonable.

[35] In our society, certain facilities or areas are often reserved for men or for women. Reconciling these deeply entrenched practices with the right to equality of trans people often raises challenges. Nevertheless, there is prima facie discrimination when a trans person is forced to use facilities reserved for people of their anatomical sex, when they do not correspond to their gender identity or expression: see, for example, Sheridan and Kavanagh. Such an approach is consistent with a perspective based on individual autonomy in gender identity and expression.

[36] Thus, Ms. Boulachanis was subject to prima facie discrimination because of her gender identity or expression, given that she was denied a transfer to a women’s institution, even though that is what corresponds to her current gender identity and expression and the designation of sex that now appears on her act of birth. That was also the conclusion of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal in Kavanagh, at paragraph 141. The interim policy the Service adopted in December 2017 was also based on the idea that respecting the right to equality of trans people required that their choice to be in a men or women’s institution be respected.

[37] Ms. Boulachanis was also subject to prima facie discrimination from another perspective. While all inmates undergo a risk assessment to determine their security classification, it is only in the case of trans women inmates that the Service use this assessment to deny them the possibility of being accommodated in a women’s institution. A cisgender woman who presented just as great a risk as Ms. Boulachanis would automatically be sent to a women’s institution. That is another reason for a finding of prima facie discrimination.

[40] In this case, the Attorney General is not claiming that the simple presence of trans women in women’s institutions would cause undue hardship. It appears that the adoption of the interim policy, which clearly provides for this presence, implicitly set aside the arguments that, more than fifteen years ago, led to the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal’s finding in Kavanagh, at paragraphs 155–160.

[41] What the Attorney General is arguing is that accommodating trans women inmates in a women’s institution must be subject to an assessment of the level of risk to health and safety. To justify this condition that would be applied only to trans women inmates, the Attorney General strongly insists on the fact that men and women’s institutions do not meet the same security requirements. In particular, the evidence clearly shows that the construction standards are different and that the use of firearms to ensure safety is prohibited in all women’s institutions, whereas it is allowed in men’s institutions, depending on their security level. These differences in the design and operation of the two categories of institution apparently reflect the fact that men are, in general, more dangerous than women, that the criminal behaviour of men and women is different, and that women may benefit from a different correctional approach based on their specific needs. In this regard, the policy adopted by the Service is largely inspired by the report of Justice Louise Arbour concerning the riot that occurred at the Kingston women’s prison in 1994 (Commission of Inquiry into Certain Events at the Prison for Women in Kingston, Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada, 1996).

[42] I have no difficulty accepting the fact that it is appropriate to separate men and women in a correctional environment and that it is appropriate to implement less strict security measures in response to the different situation of women. But that is not the issue. The real issue is to determine whether, in a context where it is justified to keep separate institutions for men and women, Ms. Boulachanis should be treated as a man or as a woman.

[45] I find it hard to believe that physical capability is so important in assessing the risk posed by an inmate that, for that reason alone, trans women inmates must be treated as men. Furthermore, I note that the assessment to determine Ms. Boulachanis’s security classification makes no mention of her physical capabilities.

[48] In the absence of a reliable scientific basis, we are reduced to speculation, which is fertile ground for discriminatory prejudice. At the hearing, the Attorney General made certain hypotheses about the physical and psychological effects of the various phases of the sex reassignment process on risk and dangerousness. I have serious doubts about the validity of such hypotheses. Moreover, we should also consider the social effects of this process, in particular on the ability to maintain relationships with potential accomplices or criminal networks.

It’s worth pointing out that the Attorney General isn’t challenging the policy in any way. In other words, there’s no issue in principle with men being in women’s prisons. It’s only that this specific one cause security risks.

The Judge doesn’t think that just because Boulachanis is a man, that he should be treated as such.

Another noteworthy point is that there appears to be no concern for the well being of the female inmates at the prison.

Timeline Of Major Events In Case

August 9, 1997: John Boulachanis is charged with first degree murder of Robert Tanguay.

1998 to 2011: Boulachanis lives under various assumed names, and in other countries. He is eventually arrested after returning to Canada.

September 2016: Over several days, a Jordan Application is argued. The Defendant says that his rights have been violated due to the extensive delays in prosecuting him.

October 6th, 2016: The Quebec Court denies the Jordan Application to stay the case.

October 27th, 2016: Quebec Superior Court permitted the testimony of a certain witness to be admitted at Trial, but with limiting instructions to be issued when the time came.

November 29th, 2016: The Quebec Court refuses a request to get certain prosecution statements removed from the record.

December 17th, 2016: Boulachanis is convicted, receives automatic life sentence.

January 20th, 2017: Quebec Court of Appeal agrees to expedite a challenge to the sentence.

January, 2019: Now serving a life sentence, Boulachanis begins taking synthetic hormones.

April 11th, 2019: Boulachanis has a hearing Federal Court. The prison staff refused his request to be transferred to a female prison. They do however refer to him as “Jamie”.

April 15th, 2019: Federal Court orders that Boulachanis can be transferred to a women’s prison for the time being.

April 23rd, 2019: Federal Court of Appeal hears argument that Boulachanis should stay where he is, and that female prisons are not designed to hold someone like him.

April 24th, 2019: Federal Court of Appeal stays the transfer pending final determination of the original Application.

January 8th, 2020: Quebec Court of Appeal rejects an Appeal of 2016 decision that refused the Jordan Application.

January 11th 2021: Boulachanis is transferred to Joliette Women’s Institution. Despite the FCA overturning Justice Grammond’s ruling, he’s in with women. Presumably, it was settled internally.

December 16th, 2021: Supreme Court of Canada grants an extension of time to file material for an Application for Leave to Appeal, but denies the Application itself. This was over the order which refused to stay his case for delay.

September 25th, 2024: CSC conducted a reassessment of his security clearance, which was currently at a “moderate” level.

The case didn’t end in 2021. Boulachanis filed a Habeas Corpus Application, which was refused. His security classification was raised, due to an incident of him trafficking morphine within the prison. As a result, he risked being sent back to a men’s prison.

Ultimately, the Court refused to get involved in the case, stating they were not the “arbiters of the institutional day-to-day”.

In any event, he never had any business being locked up with women, regardless of the other security risks he posed.

COURT DECISIONS (TRANSFER):
(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2019/2019fc456/2019fc456.html
(2) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fca/doc/2019/2019fca100/2019fca100.html
(3) https://www.canlii.org/fr/qc/qccs/doc/2025/2025qccs1049/2025qccs1049.html

COURT DECISIONS (MURDER CASE):
(1) https://www.canlii.org/fr/qc/qccs/doc/2016/2016qccs6867/2016qccs6867.html
(2) https://www.canlii.org/fr/qc/qccs/doc/2016/2016qccs6876/2016qccs6876.html
(3) https://www.canlii.org/fr/qc/qccs/doc/2016/2016qccs6877/2016qccs6877.html
(4) https://www.canlii.org/fr/qc/qccs/doc/2016/2016qccs6879/2016qccs6879.html
(5) https://www.canlii.org/fr/qc/qcca/doc/2017/2017qcca66/2017qcca66.html
(6) https://www.canlii.org/en/qc/qcca/doc/2020/2020qcca4/2020qcca4.html
(7) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc-l/doc/2021/2021canlii129761/2021canlii129761.html

Posted on

Haedyn Patterson: How This “Woman” Acted While In Custody

Let’s look at an older case that’s still applicable today. Haedyn-Khris Racquel Beaumann, (or Patterson?) whose real name is Kevin David Patterson, fled to British Columbia after committing murder back in 2014. To avoid extradition to Washington State, he filed endless legal challenges. Eventually, he resorted to playing the “transgender” card, in order to further delay.

While the case was (more broadly) covered over the years, reporting didn’t really address the specific allegations of how Patterson acted in custody. He managed to get transferred to the Alouette Correctional Centre for Women, or ACCW. It’s shocking what the staff tolerated, and how little the safety of the women trapped with him mattered.

Also see Bagnald and Blackplume for some of the other psychos that are locked up.

Female Prison To Be Staffed By Female Guards

9. As a general matter, females are housed separately from men in British Columbia’s correctional system. As is explicitly acknowledged by BC Corrections in a document entitled “Statement of Philosophy – Correctional Service for Women,” female inmates tend to have backgrounds, needs, and safety concerns that are distinct from male inmates. Notably, many female inmates have historically suffered abuse at the hands of men, and as a result of this trauma are more vulnerable and susceptible to ongoing and future trauma and abuse.

34. In accordance with the Cross Gender Staffing Policy, all front-line correctional officers at ACCW are female. These officers are responsible for supervising the inmate population on the units, doing visual safety checks of inmates in all areas of the centre, including individual cells, performing physical searches, taking escorts into the community, facilitating programs, etc. The few male staff members at ACCW are either supervisors or managers.

35. The majority of the inmates at ACCW have suffered from violence or other forms of abuse by men, tend to be marginalized, are more likely to be easily controlled or overpowered by men, and have high levels of trauma.

36. There are many challenges to managing the inmate population at ACCW. Ensuring the safety and security of staff and inmates in the context of a correctional centre is a complex balancing act. One of the biggest challenges staff face is managing the interaction among inmates to prevent or minimize tensions and conflict among them, and to protect vulnerable inmates from being taken advantage of.

Then, there’s this nonsense:

“51. Transgender inmates at SPSC are welcome to wear wigs or prosthetics in accordance with their gender expression, though BC Corrections does not supply these items. All inmates at SPSC must, however, wear the same outer clothing for safety and security reasons.”

The Response to the Petition is interesting. It’s stated quite plainly that with the odd exception in management, the staff is female. This is due largely to trauma and violence inmates have suffered. And it’s all perfectly reasonable.

However, this logic completely falls by the wayside when it’s explained that male prisoners can simply call themselves women and be transferred there. Guards at least are subjected to a high level of background checks, whereas anyone can be an inmate.

Patterson got himself transferred to the Alouette Correctional Centre for Women in Surrey, B.C. But because of how he acted, he was eventually sent back. He challenged the decision.

ACCW admits that they had at least 15 transgender prisoners between 2016 and 2019. So, this isn’t a one-off, but is a regular concern. But what about the women there?

Alouette Explains Reasons For Sending Patterson Back

In response to Patterson’s Petition, the prison filed a formal reply. It outlined in detail the problems that they had with him.

59. In late 2017 (i.e. after three years in custody), while incarcerated at SPSC, the petitioner informed BC Corrections for the first time that she identifies as female. The petitioner was transferred from SPSC to ACCW on September 12, 2018.

60. Prior to her transfer to ACCW, the petitioner was required to sign a “Behavioural Expectations Contract”. These are sometimes used where an inmate has demonstrated negative behaviour and BC Corrections staff determine a behavioural expectations contract may assist in correcting that behaviour. The terms of the contract ensure inmates have a clear understanding of what is expected of them and to provide a clear behavioural plan for the inmate to follow.

64. During her stay at ACCW, Ms. Bryson worked closely with the petitioner to manage her behavioural issues and to support her compliance with the behavioural expectations at ACCW, as set out in her Behavioural Expectations Contract. Nevertheless, the petitioner’s behaviour proved extremely difficult to manage.

65. Throughout her time at ACCW, and despite Ms. Bryson’s efforts to work with the petitioner, the petitioner routinely engaged in disruptive behaviour that breached ACCW’s rules. These behaviours ranged from horseplay, prohibited intimate relationships with other inmates, disobeying staff direction, and behaving in an abusive manner toward others. By the time that she was transferred back to SPSC, there were 288 negative entries in her C-Log related to her time at ACCW.

66. In addition to these more routine examples of negative behaviour, there were four serious incidents involving the petitioner during her time at ACCW. These incidents, which took place on January 30, April 3, July 24 and August 14, 2019, demonstrated a pattern of repeated and significant misbehaviour that put the safety and security of the petitioner, ACCW staff, and other inmates at risk.

80. On August 14, 2019, Dr. Nader Sharifi, Medical Director of Correctional Health Services emailed ACCW’s Warden, Lisa Martin. Dr. Sharifi indicated that the petitioner had not been adhering to her transcare medication and that felt obligated to inform Ms. Martin of that fact as, in his view, it could endanger the safety at ACCW and its operations.

84. A Code Yellow was called and additional responding staff attended the scene. The petitioner was non-compliant and combative with staff. It eventually took eight staff members, including staff who are members of the Emergency Response Team, to restrain the petitioner with a “wrap” and move her to a harm reduction cell.

85. As a result of the petitioner’s combative behaviour on August 14, 2019, three staff members submitted Worker’s Compensation Claims for various injuries sustained during the code response including scratches, swelling, and injuries to the neck, knees, and back.

It’s difficult to believe that this went on. Prison staff knew in advance that Patterson was a serious problem. They also noted that “identifying as a woman” only set in after approximately 3 years in custody. And of course, he was wanted in the United States for first degree murder.

Not only was he transferred to ACCW, but allowed to remain there in spite of being a constant nuisance, menace, and danger to the women.

Patterson Threatened To Kill Staff, Other Inmates At ACCW

70. This incident was particularly concerning to ACCW staff. As noted above, the petitioner is facing extradition to the United States on a charge of first degree murder. One way to defeat an extradition proceeding is to be charged in Canada with a crime of equal or greater severity. Given this context, the petitioner’s comments “don’t forget I have nothing to lose” were taken very seriously.

Notwithstanding that he never should have been at ACCW to begin with, it’s mind boggling that he was allowed to remain for so long.

Timeline Of Major Events In Case

September 17th, 2014: Patterson commits murder and soon flees to Canada.

November 20th, 2014: The U.S. officially requested Patterson be extradited.

December 11th, 2014: The Minister of Justice authorized the extradition.

February 11th, 2015: British Columbia Supreme Court rejected Patterson’s application for bail. He had requested temporary release while extradition was being sorted out.

May 6th, 2015: At an extradition hearing, Justice gives oral reasons for committing Patterson into custody until the American authorities can get him.

July 20th, 2015: British Columbia Court of Appeal rejects a request to review the bail findings from earlier in the year. Patterson is to stay in custody.

October 17th, 2015: Minister of Justice orders unconditional surrender of Patterson.

February 3rd, 2017: British Columbia Court of Appeal dismissed an Appeal from the B.C. Supreme Court, which would have forced Patterson’s extradition to the U.S. The Court also refused an Application to consider new evidence.

Late 2017: Although no exact date is given, Patterson informs prison staff for the first time that he identifies as a woman.

March 15th, 2018: Supreme Court of Canada declined to hear an Appeal from the February 2017 decision of the BCCA.

September 12th, 2018: Patterson is transferred to ACCW.

December 7th, 2018: British Columbia Court of Appeal throws out Patterson’s Appeal.

July 11th, 2019: Supreme Court of Canada granted an extension of time to serve and file the Application for Leave, to challenge the December 2018 ruling. However, the Application itself was dismissed.

January 14th, 2020: British Columbia Court of Appeal rejects yet another request for interim release, pending extradition.

April 2nd, 2020: British Columbia Court of Appeal dismissed an Application by the Attorney General of Canada to have Patterson declared a “vexatious litigant”. However, it was noted that any further misuse of the Court may change their minds.

April 30th, 2020: British Columbia Court of Appeal dismisses Patterson’s Appeal of the January 24th, 2019 decision.

After exhausting all legal options in B.C., Patterson was eventually extradited. He was found guilty of murder.

One has to assume that the prison staff don’t want to put up with people like this. Patterson wasn’t even delusional, he was just gaming the system to avoid extradition for murder. To play devil’s advocate, perhaps the guards were trying to put together an extensive paper trail.

This sort of policy puts staff and prisoners alike in danger. Even if male inmates don’t injure or kill anyone, it’s still an intrusion that no one wants.

It’s apparently common practice to supply prisoners with synthetic hormones while they’re locked up. Not only to women have to contend with male prisoners, but they’re drugged up at the same time. It’s just asking for trouble.

There’s also the issue of all the expenses involved here. Patterson racked up huge legal bills, which taxpayers are presumably on the hook for.

COURT DOCUMENTS:
(1) Patterson Petition
(2) Patterson Response To Petition
(3) Patterson Notice Of Hearing

Posted on

Universal Ostrich Farms, Part 8: Giving Away Someone ELSE’S Land

The Supreme Court of Canada (S.C.C.) will be asked to hear a case challenging a Government decision to kill 400 or so birds in the name of public health. Worth noting, the S.C.C. declines to hear 90-95% of cases every year. While the subject matter would be fairly unique, numerically, it will be tough to sell it as “national interest”.

This is of course Universal Ostrich Farms, in Edgewood, B.C.

A quick summary of recent events:

  • The CFIA, or Canadian Food Inspection Agency, issued an order at the end on 2024 to cull approximately 400 ostriches from a farm in the Interior B.C. This was on the basis that the ostriches had the “H5N1 virus” based on “PCR testing”.
  • The farmers filed an Application for Judicial Review in Federal Court.
  • The Federal Court granted a temporary stay of the culling until the case was heard.
  • The Federal Court (Justice Zinn) dismissed the Application in May.
  • The Federal Court of Appeal issued another stay in June, until the Appeal was heard.
  • The Appeal was dismissed in August.
  • The Court of Appeal refuses a further stay in September.
  • Just now, the Supreme Court has issued a stay of their own, however, the CFIA will retain possession of the farm until the proceedings are concluded.

Beyond the Court drama, there’s a lot going on with the ostriches that received far less attention. Most importantly, these animals aren’t to be food at all. Instead, they are lab animals, supposedly infected with some manmade “antigens”.

See Parts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 in the series for more information.

If nothing else, this situation has shown the cognitive dissonance of protesters. Back in 2021, the rallying cries were that “Covid is a hoax”, or at worst that “It’s just the flu”. Now, the animals are being heralded as the anti-pharma solution to the next pandemic.

Remember: in 2020/2021, PCR testing was seen as “junk science” and completely unreliable. Many of these same protesters railed against it. But now that UOF’s business model is “antibody production”, suddenly PCR tests are a fairly accurate diagnostic tool. Even the Pelech Affidavit only gave mild criticism over cycle counts.

The above video was shot by Drea Humphrey (Rebel News), and posted online. It shows Katie Pasitney telling the RCMP to back off, since the farm is “on Indigenous land”. The news has also been shared on places like Facebook.

Protesters here are likely many of the same ones angry that B.C. Courts have been ruling that various tribes have rights to other people’s private property. They viewed it as Government overreach. But for UOF, it’s apparently okay to just declare Indigenous rights. Okay….

Some of the more astute observers have pointed out that doing this may make it easier for further land grabs in the future. Is invoking UNDRIP really the best idea? This may help Espersen, Bilinski and Pasitney in the short term, but overall, could backfire on them.

But here’s more the interesting part: it’s not their land to give away.

2014 Farm Foreclosure To RBC => Sold To Quigleys

.

This was covered in Part 4 of the series. Karen Espersen and David Bilinski don’t actually own the land in question. Nor does Katie Pasitney.

Back in 2012, RBC filed a Petition in B.C. Supreme Court over unpaid debts. The property was eventually sold to Catherine and Thomas (Owen) Quigley, who are the owners today.

Fast forward to 2021, Esperson filed a Notice of Civil Claim against the Quigleys. There had apparently been an agreement to subdivide the land (and get her a portion of it back) that had followed through. There have been endless delays, with Trial scheduled for 2026. The Counterclaim is also worth reading.

It’s anyone’s guess that the Judge will do at the end. But in the meantime, the Quigleys are still the legal owners of the property. There’s no indication — at least from what’s readily available — that they endorsed any of this.

In short, Espersen and Pasitney have told the police that an Indian tribe has rights to the land that belongs to someone else. While it’s an innovative and amusing technique to use against the RCMP, it’s not their property.

Imagine this scenario: you live in an apartment and pay rent. For various reasons, you are unable to meet those obligations, and the landlord tries to evict you. Is it then okay to declare that the property is on unceded land, and that the owners have no rights? That’s more or less what’s happening here.

There’s all kinds of sympathy for the farmers, and their animals. But what about the rights of the owners?

Courts Unwilling To Delve Into Issue

As for the Federal Court rulings themselves, this pretty accurately sums up the frustration that many have with the process.

[6] In this regard, it is not the role of this Court to set, vary, or grant exemptions from governmental policy. Rather, our sole role is to determine whether the decisions at issue in this appeal were reasonable in accordance with the deferential standard of review set out in the case law of the Supreme Court of Canada, this Court, and other Canadian courts. Because the Stamping-Out Policy, which underlies the two decisions, the Notice to Dispose, and the Exemption Denial, are all reasonable in accordance with that case law, we have unanimously concluded that this appeal cannot succeed.

The Federal Court of Appeal has echoed the Federal Court in ruling that it’s not their job to vary Government policy, or to make exceptions. As long as the underlying decisions are “reasonable”, they won’t intervene. Of course, reasonable doesn’t necessarily mean “correct”.

Will the Supreme Court get involved, or will they refuse to hear it? Looking at the low success rate of Applications for Leave, it seems unlikely. Then again, it’s a fairly novel case, with potential to impact many lives down the road. The S.C.C. just might.

While it’s understandable that many have sympathy for UOF, keep in mind that they’re not the only ones impacted by all of this.

For the time being, the CFIA, despite having custody of the birds, is prevented from killing them. How well will they be looked after?

COURT OF APPEAL (CHALLENGING JUSTICE ZINN’S ORDER)
(1) Ostrich APPEAL Notice Of Appeal (May, 2025)
(2) UOF APPEAL Notice Of Appearance (May, 2025)
(3) UOF FCA Appeal Denied (August, 2025)
(4) UOF FCA Motion To Stay Dismissed (September, 2025)

COURT OF APPEAL (MOTION TO STAY CULL ORDER)
(1) UOF APPEAL Motion Record To Stay Culling (June, 2025)
(2) UOF APPEAL Notice Of Motion To Stay Culling (June, 2025)
(3) UOF APPEAL Bilinski Affidavit To Stay Culling (June, 2025)
(4) UOF APPEAL Bilinski Affidavit Exhibit E June, 2025)
(5) UOF APPEAL Espersen Affidavit To Stay Culling (June, 2025)
(6) UOF APPEAL Moving Party Submissions To Stay Culling (June, 2025)
(7) UOF APPEAL Responding Motion Record Volume 1
(8) UOF APPEAL Responding Motion Record Volume 2 (June, 2025)
(9) UOF APPEAL Responding Submissions To Stay Culling (June, 2025)
(10) UOF APPEAL Order Staying Cullings Pending Appeal (June, 2025)

COURT OF APPEAL (JUSTICE BATTISTA STAYING CULL ORDER):
(1) UOF Order To Stay Culling (January, 2025)
(2) UOF Notice Of Appeal (February, 2025)
(3) UOF Notice Of Appearance (February, 2025)
(4) UOF Agreement Appeal Book Contents (March, 2025)
(5) UOF Joint Appeal Book (April, 2025)
(6) UOF Consent To Extend Time (May, 2025)
(7) UOF Notice Of Discontinuance (May, 2025)

FEDERAL COURT DOCUMENTS (CFIA):
(1) Ostrich Notice Of Application Certified (January, 2025)
(2) Ostrich Notice Of Application (January, 2025)
(3) Ostrich Notice Of Motion (January, 2025)
(4) Ostrich Bilinski Affidavit (January, 2025)
(5) Ostrich Espersen Affidavit (January, 2025)
(6) Ostrich Pelech Affidavit (January, 2025)
(7) Ostrich Jones Affidavit (January, 2025)
(8) Ostrich Responding Motion Record (January, 2025)
(9) Ostrich Responding Motion Record Expedited (February, 2025)
(10) Ostrich Motion Record Ex-Parte (February, 2025)
(11) Ostrich Exemption Notice Of Application (February, 2025)
(12) Ostrich Exemption Motion Record (February, 2025)
(13) Ostrich Ruling Of Justice Zinn (May, 2025)

MONEY:
(1) https://bcrising.ca/save-our-ostriches/
(2) https://www.gofundme.com/f/help-ostrich-farmers-fight-to-save-herd-from-avian-flu?attribution_id=sl%3A80e09934-7413-429b-acfb-2f7015cc19d3&lang=en_CA
(3) https://www.givesendgo.com/save-our-ostriches
(4) https://www.kinexus.ca/

Posted on

“Lucy” Blackplume: Declared A Dangerous Offender By ABCA In 2021

In early 2021, the Court of Appeal for Alberta overturned a Provincial Court ruling which spared a man an indeterminate sentence. Although this case is a few years old, it’s worth reminding people what some men are capable of, all while masquerading as women.

The perpetrator is Josiah Jerome Blackplume, who now goes by the name Lucy Blackplume.

It’s implied that the Gladue-Ipeelee principles are what kept Blackplume (at least in part) from initially being declared a dangerous offender. However, the Court of Appeal seems to disagree on the extent.

[15] The sentencing judge reviewed Gladue-Ipeelee sentencing principles for Indigenous offenders, and noted the link between residential schools and the over-representation of Indigenous peoples in corrections. Correctional institutions, in the sentencing judge’s view, have failed to develop humane secure housing and treatment for Indigenous and mentally ill offenders. Citing the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal decision in R v CPS, 2006 SKCA 78 for its factual similarities, the sentencing judge endorsed the perspective that offenders such as Ms Blackplume are more appropriately treated from a mental health rather than correctional perspective. Referring to the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Ewert v Canada, 2018 SCC 30, she observed that psychological risk assessment tools may be culturally biased when evaluating Indigenous offenders. In Ewert (at paras 59-60), the Court stated that correctional institutions must provide programs that are culturally responsive to the needs and circumstances of Indigenous offenders.

Here’s the short version: following his latest convictions, the Crown sought to have Blackplume declared a dangerous offender. The Provincial Court Judge refused, despite meeting the criteria, and his extensive history of violence. He was instead given a 10 year sentence. That was overturned by the Court of Appeal, issuing an indeterminate one instead.

His criminal record includes the following:

  • October 24th, 2008 (conviction date): Aggravated Sexual Assault on a Minor
  • May 10th, 2012: Attempted Sexual Assault with a Weapon
  • May 23th, 2012: Sexual Assault
  • October 6, 2014 (conviction date): Fraud over $5,000, receiving benefits while incarcerated
  • February 12th, 2015: Sexual Assault with a Weapon
  • February 12th, 2015: Assault Causing Bodily Harm
  • August 14th, 2015: Assault Causing Bodily Harm

Keep in mind, both the Provincial Court of Alberta and the Alberta Court of Appeal will continuously refer to this person as a “woman”. This is beyond insulting.

[26] Ms. Blackplumes’s first conviction was recorded in Youth Court on October 24, 2008. As a 17-year old, she (Josiah) committed an aggravated sexual assault on a three-year-old girl. Intoxicated and walking to her girlfriend’s home in Standoff, Josiah noticed an open door in the victim’s home. Josiah entered and saw the victim on a living room couch. She approached and penetrated the child’s vagina with an index finger and the penis, also striking the child three times on the face with the back of the hand. The child’s aunt returned and Josiah fled out the front door. The young girl was naked, crying and bleeding from the vaginal area. Ms. Blackplume pled guilty to the offence and was sentenced to 18 months’ Intensive Rehabilitative Custody and 18 months’ conditional supervision.

[30] Ms. Blackplume has almost a 12-year history of life in these institutions: Calgary Young Offender Centre (CYOC), Alberta Hospital, Edmonton, Calgary Remand Centre (CRC), Edmonton Remand Centre (ERC), Saskatoon Corrections Centre (SCC), Saskatchewan Penitentiary, Bowden Institution, Southern Alberta Forensic Psychiatry Centre (SAFPC) and Regional Psychiatric Centre. Her time in these institutions is notable for many periods of segregation, isolation or observation, most often in response to Ms. Blackplume’s anxiety, depressed mood or suicidal ideation, gestures, threats or attempts, but also when she has been assaultive or sexually inappropriate with other inmates, or found trafficking, sometimes with her own stockpiled medications.

[31] On her Youth Court IRCS sentence, she (Josiah) was discharged early from Alberta Hospital, Edmonton, due to repeated inappropriate contact with female patients, in what was seen to be grooming behaviour.

The ruling itself is extremely graphic, and states in considerable detail the crimes Blackplume has both been convicted of, and otherwise suspected of.

At 17 years old, Blackplume beat and raped his girlfriend’s toddler child.

He has committed other sexual assaults, and has used weapons in doing so.

There are also references to drug trafficking, in the form of selling his medications.

While in prison, Blackplume was psychologically evaluated. The reports make it pretty clear that he will never be an asset to society, and will always be a danger.

  • Static encephalopathy, Ms. Blackplume’s brain damage, never changes, is a lifelong condition.
  • For her safety and the safety of others, Ms. Blackplume requires an external adult brain supervising her 24 hours a day for the rest of her life.
  • She does not have the ability to rely on past experience to guide future choices.
  • Ms. Blackplume appears to be much higher functioning than she is.
  • Cognitive Behavioural Therapy will not benefit Ms. Blackplume (despite all indications that she may have understood the programming).
  • Play therapy, pet therapy and music therapy can be used to fill her days and therefore manage her behaviour.
  • She is incapable of developing insight or empathy.
  • She is not able to understand that the act of forced sex on an unwilling or uncooperative person is wrong.
  • She is not able to understand that sex with minors is wrong.
  • With careful social scripting to participate in structured social outings, such as going fishing, working on fence posts on a farm, or playing the guitar with another person, she would be very successful.
  • The Wellspring program, although designed for lower functioning participants, is cognitive behavioural therapy and, therefore, will not work for Ms. Blackplume.
  • Pet, play and music therapy are not available in a secure hospital setting due to a lack of funding.

While the evaluations (accurately) point out the many defects and dysfunctions that Blackplume has, there is the elephant in the room: he’s a man, but thinks he’s a woman. It would be interesting to know to what degree these synthetic “hormones” have messed with his cognitive function.

Much of the Court submissions hinged on whether it could be considered cruel and unusual punishment (a Section 12 Charter violation) to indefinitely lock someone up with such limited intellect. Ultimately though, the Court of Appeal did just that.

In an odd twist, the court decisions don’t state that Blackplume has expressed any desire to go to a women’s prison. And all for the best, anyway.

If he really is mentally deficient to the point that he doesn’t understand that forcing sex on unwilling people (especially children) is wrong, then euthanasia probably is the best option for everyone.

(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abpc/doc/2019/2019abpc273/2019abpc273.html
(2) https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abca/doc/2021/2021abca2/2021abca2.html

*Disclaimers, Ethics* Proudly powered by WordPress