Author: Ronnie

Posted on

Statement Of Defence Filed In High Profile Bridle Lawsuit

Just before Christmas last year, a 73 page Statement of Claim was filed in Toronto, involving Byram Bridle and the University of Guelph. News of this development lit up the alternative media in Canada. It alleged a grand conspiracy to harass the Plaintiff and destroy his career. While an interesting read, it came across as being very difficult to prove.

It seemed very odd that Bridle was presented both as an expert developing Covid vaccines, and a conscientious objector fighting against Covid vaccine mandates. There’s also no virus, but that’s a discussion for another time.

And since then?

The Defendants responded with an 8 page Statement of Defence. It doesn’t really address the specific allegations, other than to issue a blanket denial. As an aside, it doesn’t appear that David Fisman is covered by this Statement.

To sum up the document in as few words as possible: “Oh yeah? Prove it.”

Several other defences are also raised:

  • The University of Guelph claims that the issues between Bridle, the school, and the various staff members are to be considered an employment dispute. As such, the Court would lack jurisdiction to hear the case, as it would likely be subjected to the collective bargaining rules, which mandate arbitration.
  • On a procedural note, the Defence points out that: (a) there isn’t a concise set of material facts provided; and (b) the Claim attempts to plead evidence.
  • It’s claimed that portions of the lawsuit would be barred by the Limitations Act. This sets time limits as to how long potential litigants have to file.
  • Section 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act (anti-SLAPP), is raised concerning the online postings. While this would only apply to a portion of the case, everything would be put on hold until that’s resolved. That will take a year or 2.

Even if the Claim were struck because it’s poorly written — which is possible — that’s not a permanent solution. It can likely be redone.

The other defences, such as the Statute of Limitations and collective bargaining, can pose a much bigger problem. Those have the potential to get large portions of the Claim gutted.

Guelph and the other Defendants seem content to dig in, and force Bridle to actually prove his claims at Trial.

Now for the $3 million question: will anything happen to this case? Or will it remain in limbo for years, like so many dead-end lawsuits? We’ll have to see.

(1) https://www.ontario.ca/page/search-court-cases-online
(2) https://canucklaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/Byram-Bridle-Statement-Of-Claim.pdf
(3) https://canucklaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/Byram-Bridle-Statement-Of-Defence.pdf
(4) https://canucklaw.ca/byram-bridle-lawsuit-unlikely-to-ever-get-anywhere/

Posted on

UNAIDS Releases Paper On “Human Rights-Based Approach” To Sexuality

The Joint UN Programme on HIV/AIDS, UNAIDS, recently caused a stir. This policy paper came out: “The International Committee of Jurists (ICJ) along with UNAIDS and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) officially launched a new set of expert jurist legal principles to guide the application of international human rights law to criminal law.”

Sounds great, doesn’t it? Topics include:

  • sexual and reproductive health and rights, including termination of pregnancy;
  • consensual sexual activities, including in contexts such as sex outside marriage, same-sex sexual relations, adolescent sexual activity and sex work;
  • gender identity and gender expression;
  • HIV non-disclosure, exposure or transmission;
  • drug use and the possession of drugs for personal use; and
  • homelessness and poverty.

As with most things, the devil’s in the details.

To address the obvious: this is not legally binding on anyone. It’s just a paper. Still, that doesn’t mean the contents won’t work their way into Federal or Provincial legislation at some point.

As part of the Who We Are section, UNAIDS describes itself as “leading the global effort to end AIDS as a public health threat by 2030 as part of the Sustainable Development Goals.”

Apparently, UNAIDS timed this document to coincide with International Women’s Day. That’s interesting, to say the least.

Anyhow, this UNAIDS document is called the: “8 March Principles for a Human Rights-Based Approach to Criminal Law Proscribing Conduct Associated with Sex, Reproduction, Drug Use, HIV, Homelessness and Poverty”. (See archive).

In fairness, there could be a lot of poor and imprecise wording throughout the document. But assuming that there’s not, it’s quite disturbing what’s been put out.

Parts I and II cover more general areas and ideas in law, and often seem quite reasonable. Having laws applied equally and fairly to all is something most people can easily get behind. But Part III is where things change.

Part III (page 20) of the document is where things really get weird. The following comments are an accurate reflection of what’s actually being written.

(Principle 14, page 21) addresses “sexual and reproductive health and rights”. Apparently no one should be held accountable for a mother drinking or doing drugs while pregnant. Non-disclosure of HIV (or presumably any disease) isn’t to be considered illegal.

Moreover, where a person’s criminal actions might result in criminal consequences, there’s to be no extra punishments based on the existence of the pregnancy. An example of this would be the homicide of a pregnant woman leading to multiple murder charges.

Are the unborn babies expected to have any rights here?

(Page 22) there’s a provision where “parents, guardians, carers, or other persons” who enable or assist children in exercising their sexual and/or reproductive rights may not be held criminally liable. Is this sort of thing to justify pedophilia and grooming?

(Principle 15, page 22) suggests that there should be laws against abortion in any capacity whatsoever. This applies both to the mother, and any third party.

(Principle 16, page 22) covers “consensual” sexual activity. While this is premised on the idea that all participants are in agreement, the wording suggests that it could be applied to adults and children.

Consensual sexual conduct, irrespective of the type of sexual activity, the sex/gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression of the people involved or their marital status, may not be criminalized in any circumstances. Consensual same-sex, as well as consensual different-sex sexual relations, or consensual sexual relations with or between trans, non-binary and other gender-diverse people, or outside marriage – whether pre-marital or extramarital – may, therefore, never be criminalized.

With respect to the enforcement of criminal law, any prescribed minimum age of consent to sex must be applied in a non-discriminatory manner. Enforcement may not be linked to the sex/gender of participants or age of consent to marriage.

Moreover, sexual conduct involving persons below the domestically prescribed minimum age of consent to sex may be consensual in fact, if not in law. In this context, the enforcement of criminal law should reflect the rights and capacity of persons under 18 years of age to make decisions about engaging in consensual sexual conduct and their right to be heard in matters concerning them. Pursuant to their evolving capacities and progressive autonomy, persons under 18 years of age should participate in decisions affecting them, with due regard to their age, maturity

The prescribed minimum age of consent to sex must be applied in a non-discriminatory manner? What does that even mean? Is it discrimination if an adult is not allowed to be with a child?

The paper also states that minors should be participating in decisions that impact them, taking their age and maturity into account. Is this an attempt to turn a prohibited practice into more of a “grey area”?

As for “age of consent to marriage”, is that a reference to child brides?

There’s the issue of not criminalizing activity involving members of the alphabet soup. Just a thought, but since it’s okay to not disclose HIV status, would it also be okay to deceive a partner about their true identity?

(Principle 17, page 23) calls for the complete decriminalization of sex work — such as prostitution, or pornography — as long as it’s done without coercion or fraud. To their credit, it’s specified to be limited to adults.

(Principle 18, page 23) says that sexual orientation or gender identity should not be criminalized, but doesn’t define either term in a meaningful way.

Beyond that, there’s to be no penalty for “exploration, free development and/or affirmation of sexual orientation or gender identity”, unless coercion is involved. This leaves open the possibility of people just larping as the opposite sex, and who don’t have gender dysphoria.

It also doesn’t address the growing issue of using gender identity as a means to attack single-sex spaces, such as prisons, changerooms and most sports.

The document further criticizes any efforts or attempts to engage in conversion therapy.

(Principle 19, page 24) implies that it’s fine to not disclose HIV positive status to a partner, as long as there’s no deliberate attempt to spread it. Presumably, this wouldn’t just apply to HIV.

(Principle 20, page 24) effectively calls for the decriminalization of all drugs for personal use, including by minors and pregnant women. Part (b) could be interpreted to mean the possession or distribution or drug paraphernalia shouldn’t be criminalized either.

The document also promotes what could be considered safe injection sites.

(Principle 21, page 24) would end vagrancy and squatting laws, if done for life-sustaining reasons. While this is all understandable, it’s unclear what will happen with property owners. All said, this section is probably the most reasonable one, as it’s not an issue of immorality.

Now, just because the United Nations releases a document, that doesn’t mean it will become law. However, content from “non-binding” papers often do trickle into domestic politics.

(1) https://www.unaids.org/en/resources/presscentre/featurestories/2023/march/20230308_new-legal-principles-decriminalization
(2) https://www.unaids.org/en/whoweare/about
(3) https://icj2.wpenginepowered.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/8-MARCH-Principles-FINAL-printer-version-1-MARCH-2023.pdf
(4) UNAIDS March Principles On Criminal Law Sexual Behaviours

Posted on

Were Recent Gun Control Measures In Canada Initiated By The United Nations?

The title isn’t clickbait. The UNODA, or United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs, keeps records of the various actions taken by Member States. Canada is one of them.

One of the specific initiatives is the UN Programme of Action (PoA) and its International Tracing Instrument (ITI), which essentially amounts to global gun control efforts.

Interestingly, the Federal Government is reporting some of the restrictions they’ve made on gun owners in the 2022 report as the progress being made towards the implementation of PoA and the ITI. (See archive).

This raises the obvious question of who is really in charge here.

Let’s start with O.I.C. 2020-0298.

[Page 3]
National targets
1.4. Has your country set national targets relating to the implementation of the PoA and ITI?
1.4.1. If so, describe
In May 2020, the Government of Canada prohibited over 1,500 models of assault-style firearms and their variants. These prohibited firearms cannot be legally sold, or imported, and can only be used or transported under limited circumstances. An Amnesty Order is in effect until October 30, 2023 to allow firearms owners and businesses to come into compliance with the law, and to allow time to implement a mandatory buyback program.
.
As part of the Government of Canada’s comprehensive strategy to keep communities safe from gun violence, the Government intends to continue the implementation of regulations for firearms licence verification and business record-keeping; require the permanent alteration of long-gun magazines so that they can never hold more than five rounds; ban the sale or transfer of magazines capable of holding more than the legal number of bullets; implement the gang prevention and intervention program to provide direct funding to municipalities and Indigenous communities; introduce red flag laws to allow the immediate removal of firearms if that person is a threat to themselves or others, particularly to their spouse or partner, and increase maximum penalties for firearms trafficking and smuggling.
Target year:
2024

If this is to be taken at face value, then the May 1, 2020 Order In Council was aimed at complying with the PoA and the (ITI).

The “Red-Flag Laws” are a reference to Bill C-21, which was introduced in the last session of Parliament, and reintroduced in this one.

Altering firearms so they can never hold more than 5 bullets is also something that Bill C-21 addresses, although the details are sparse.

Then there’s O.I.C. 2022-0447.

[Page 6]
ITI 12a 2.3.2. How long must manufacturing records be kept?
[if other, please explain]
For businesses only (NOT for manufacturers): As of May 18, 2022, firearms businesses are required to keep records which describe each firearm in their possession, and record activities related to each firearm, the date on which these activities are performed, and their disposal, as follows, in order to facilitate the tracing of firearms by law enforcement in the event that a firearm is diverted to the illicit market:
.
i) Manufacturer, make, model, type of firearm, classification, action, gauge or caliber, barrel length, magazine capacity (in the case of a fixed magazine), and all serial numbers found on the frame and receiver.
.
ii) Manufacture, importation, exportation, purchase, alteration, repair, storage, exhibition, deactivation,
destruction, sale, barter, donation, consignment, pawn, or any other category related to the possession or disposal of the firearm, and the date on which the change occurred;
.
iii) The name of the shipper, their permit number or carrier licence number, and the reference number, if the shipper is different from the business keeping the records. Businesses would be required to retain the possession and disposal records for 20 years from the record’s creation. Once a business ceases to be a business they must transfer their records to the Registrar of Firearms who will hold them for no less than 20 years.

By another Order In Council, it’s now the law that businesses must keep records of all gun sales for a minimum of 20 years, regardless of whether they are non-restricted. Again, this is the “progress” that’s being reported to the UNODA.

Keep in mind, Target 16.4 of the U.N. Sustainable Development Goals states that: “By 2030, significantly reduce illicit financial and arms flows, strengthen the recovery and return of stolen assets and combat all forms of organized crime”. The full text is available online.

Were these changes made because politicians believed they were the right things to do? Or, were they done in order to comply with international agreements?

(1) https://disarmament.unoda.org/conventional-arms
(2) https://smallarms.un-arm.org/sustainable-development-goals
(3) https://smallarms.un-arm.org/country-profiles/CAN
(4) https://unoda-poa.s3.amazonaws.com/reports/CAN-English-1186-SUBMITTED.pdf
(5) UNODA 2022 Report On Gun Control Measures
(6) https://orders-in-council.canada.ca/attachment.php?attach=39208&lang=en
(7) https://orders-in-council.canada.ca/attachment.php?attach=41953&lang=en
(8) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/43-2/c-21
(9) https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/21252030%20Agenda%20for%20Sustainable%20Development%20web.pdf

Posted on

Parliament Revisiting Amendments For Sweeping Bans On Rifles And Shotguns

Hearings are ongoing in Parliament over another gun grab, but first, some backstory:

Bill C-21 was reintroduced in November 2021. To a large extent, it was a rehash of its predecessor (also called Bill C-21), which died when the 2021 Federal election was called.

The new iteration of Bill C-21 would still create red-flag and yellow-flag laws, among other restrictions. It would go further, and ban transfers and sales of handguns outright.

Apparently, the Federal Government didn’t want to wait for Bill C-21 to pass, or take the chance it wouldn’t, so handgun transfers were banned by regulatory change back in October 2022. This was O.I.C. 2022-1144.

Keep in mind, this wasn’t the first gun grab in recent history. O.I.C. 2020-0298 banned over 1,500 models of firearms on May 1, 2020. That was done without any debate, nor regard to logic or consistency as to which types would qualify. It’s currently being challenged in Federal Court.

But this Bill didn’t go far enough. In late 2022, amendments to Bill C-21 were added on, without any real debate as they were done at the conclusion of Parliament’s hearings. From the Manitoba Lodges & Outfitters Association:

Amendment G-4 would change physical requirements of non-prohibited guns so that many more would qualify, including:

  • Projectiles (bullets) discharged with 10,000 Joules of energy or more
  • Bores with a diameter of 20 mm or greater
  • Rifles/shotguns capable of accepting magazines greater than 5 bullets, regardless of what the firearms were actually designed for

Amendment G-46 would have converted many more specific models of rifles and shotguns into “prohibited weapons”, meaning that they could never be sold or transferred again.

This didn’t sit well with the public. Both the wide range of models, and underhanded nature of doing this last minute seemed to circumvent the legislative process.

The amendments were dropped — at least for the time being — but the story doesn’t end there.

A group of 7 members of that Committee requested wanted to rehear witnesses over the G-4 amendments. The Committee sat on December 13, 2022.

Now we get to the current state of affairs.

Hearings continued in February and March of 2023. If the Government had wanted these changes, then they should have been debated in the Fall of 2022.

As of the time of writing this, no decision has been made about the fate of the G-4 and G-46 amendments.

Even if the amendments were to be reinstated, there is no guarantee that Bill C-21 would pass Third Reading in the House of Commons. This is especially true given recent election speculation. Beyond that, no one knows for sure what would happen in the Senate.

To restate the obvious: none of this does anything to prevent gun crime, which politicians constantly rail against. It just makes it harder for people to legally own firearms, and maybe disarmament is the goal.

(1) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/44-1/c-21
(2) https://canucklaw.ca/bill-c-21-reintroduced-legislation-to-whittle-away-gun-rights/
(3) https://orders-in-council.canada.ca/index.php?lang=en
(4) https://orders-in-council.canada.ca/attachment.php?attach=42706&lang=en
(5) https://orders-in-council.canada.ca/attachment.php?attach=39208&lang=en
(6) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Committees/en/SECU/StudyActivity?studyActivityId=11814165
(7) https://mloa.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/G-46-e.pdf
(8) https://mloa.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/20221122-C-21-Amendment-G4.pdf
(9) https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/SECU/meeting-54/notice
(10) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Committees/en/SECU/StudyActivity?studyActivityId=11988263
(11) https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/SECU/meeting-54/evidence
(12) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Committees/en/SECU/StudyActivity?studyActivityId=12045393

Posted on

2023 Report To Parliament: Extend Euthanasia To Children, Disabled; Booking “Advance” Dates

Back in February, the House of Commons released a report on the state of medical assistance in dying, or MAiD. This is also known as assisted suicide or euthanasia. (See archive).

To be clear, there’s no intention of stopping, or even slowing this down. Instead, the report recommends expanding and accelerating the accessibility of death.

Specifically, new recommendations include:
(a) Letting “mature minors” apply for MAiD
(b) Letting people “book in advance” a date to die
(c) Ensuring people with disabilities have options to get MAiD
(d) Consulting with First Nations on MAiD options and availabilities

There are also reports from 2019 and 2020 that are available to read.

Remember when MAiD was supposed to be limited to adults with fatal conditions, with no hope of recovery? Back in 2016 this was presented as a limited scope option. We’ve gone way past that now.

Recommendation 1
That the Government of Canada, in partnership with provinces and territories, continue to facilitate the collaboration of regulatory authorities, medical practitioners and nurse practitioners to establish standards for medical practitioners and nurse practitioners for the purpose of assessing MAID requests, with a view to harmonizing access to MAID across Canada.

Recommendation 2
That the Government of Canada, through relevant federal departments and in collaboration with relevant regulatory authorities, medical practitioners, and nurse practitioners, continue to address the quality and standardization of MAID assessment and delivery.

Recommendation 3
That, every six months, Health Canada provide updates to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs and the Standing Senate Committee on Indigenous Peoples on its engagement with First Nations, Inuit and Métis on the subject of MAID.

Recommendation 4
That the Government of Canada work with First Nations, Inuit and Métis partners, relevant organizations, such as the Canadian Association of MAID Assessors and Providers, regulatory authorities, and health professional associations to increase awareness of the importance of engaging with First Nations, Inuit and Métis on the subject of MAID.

Recommendation 5
That the Government of Canada, through Correctional Service Canada, support approved track one MAID recipients being able to die outside a prison setting only for the event itself and any immediate preparatory palliative care that is required.

Recommendation 6
That the Government of Canada, through relevant federal departments and respecting the jurisdiction of provinces and territories, consider increasing funding for the implementation of the Action Plan on Palliative Care: Building on the Framework on Palliative Care in Canada, and make targeted and sustained investments in innovative approaches and early-stage research aimed at improving health system performance and quality of care for people living with life-limiting illness and their caregivers.

Recommendation 8
That the Government of Canada, in collaboration with the provinces and territories, work to develop data systems to collect disaggregated data for Black, Indigenous, racialized, disabled, and 2SLGBTQ+ communities beyond the regulations that went into force January 1, 2023.

Recommendation 11
That the Government of Canada, through the Department of Justice, and in consultation with organizations representing persons with disabilities, explore potential amendments to the Criminal Code that would avoid stigmatizing persons with disabilities without restricting their access to MAID. Options considered should include replacing references to “disability” in section 241.2(2) of the Criminal Code, with attention to the potential legal ramifications of such an amendment across Canada.

Recommendation 12
That the Government of Canada convene an expert panel to study and report on the needs of persons with disabilities as they relate to MAID, similar to the Expert Panel on MAID and Mental Illness.

Recommendation 13
That, five months prior to the coming into force of eligibility for MAID where a mental disorder is the sole underlying medical condition, a Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying be re-established by the House of Commons and the Senate in order to verify the degree of preparedness attained for a safe and adequate application of MAID (in MD-SUMC situations). Following this assessment, the Special Joint Committee will make its final recommendation to the House of Commons and the Senate

Recommendation 14
That the Government of Canada undertake consultations with minors on the topic of MAID, including minors with terminal illnesses, minors with disabilities, minors in the child welfare system and Indigenous minors, within five years of the tabling of this report.

Recommendation 15
That the Government of Canada provide funding through Health Canada and other relevant departments for research into the views and experiences of minors with respect to MAID, including minors with terminal illnesses, minors with disabilities, minors in the child welfare system and Indigenous minors, to be completed within five years of the tabling of this report.

Recommendation 16
That the Government of Canada amend the eligibility criteria for MAID set out in the Criminal Code to include minors deemed to have the requisite decision-making capacity upon assessment

Recommendation 17
That the Government of Canada restrict MAID for mature minors to those whose natural death is reasonably foreseeable.

Recommendation 18
That the Government of Canada work with provinces, territories and First Nations, Inuit and Métis communities and organizations to establish standards for assessing the capacity of mature minors seeking MAID.

Recommendation 19
That the Government of Canada establish a requirement that, where appropriate, the parents or guardians of a mature minor be consulted in the course of the assessment process for MAID, but that the will of a minor who is found to have the requisite decision-making capacity ultimately take priority.

Recommendation 20
That the Government of Canada appoint an independent expert panel to evaluate the Criminal Code provisions relating to MAID for mature minors within five years of the day on which those provisions receive Royal Assent, and that the panel report their findings to Parliament.

Recommendation 21
That the Government of Canada amend the Criminal Code to allow for advance requests following a diagnosis of a serious and incurable medical condition disease, or disorder leading to incapacity.

Recommendation 22
That the Government of Canada work with provinces and territories, regulatory authorities, provincial and territorial law societies and stakeholders to adopt the necessary safeguards for advance requests.

Recommendation 23
That the Government of Canada work with the provinces and territories and regulatory authorities to develop a framework for interprovincial recognition of advance requests.

Tough to add much to the report, as it’s pretty shocking to read.

Regarding #4, sure, the Federal Government can’t even provide clean drinking water or real health care. But Ottawa will make sure that people are aware they have the option to kill themselves. Or, to be more precise, they will be killed by government authorized medical representatives … a.k.a. medical doctors.

While lip service is paid to the idea of expanded health care access, the real goal is clear. The Government wants more people getting access to euthanasia. They are officially recommending it to “mature minors” (or children), and to people with disabilities.

Although parents should be consulted about their child possibly being euthanized, the report suggests that the final decision goes to the minor.

Even more creepy is the idea that it can be “booked ahead” upon finding out that a person has a serious condition.

It’s true that assisted suicide for people whose only issue being a mental illness was delayed. It was supposed to be implemented in March 2023, and has now been pushed back to March 2024.

On page 105 of the report, the Conservative Party “dissent” begins, and it’s mainly just partisan argument. Most of this revolves around details of study and implementation. In other words, the CPC doesn’t seem to have ideological issues with any of this. Our “Official Opposition” at work again.

At page 107, there is the line: “Conservatives do not support MAID for mature minors at this time.” This of course leaves open the possibility that they would be okay with euthanizing children at some point in the future.

The whole report is so disturbing that it’s difficult to believe it’s real.

(1) https://parl.ca/Content/Committee/441/AMAD/Reports/RP12234766/amadrp02/amadrp02-e.pdf
(2) MAiD Report To Parliament February 2023
(3) https://parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/43-2/bill/C-7/royal-assent
(4) https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/medical-assistance-dying-annual-report-2019.html
(5) https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/medical-assistance-dying/annual-report-2020.html
(6) https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/corporate/about-health-canada/public-engagement/external-advisory-bodies/expert-panel-maid-mental-illness/final-report-expert-panel-maid-mental-illness.html

Posted on

Federal Court Streaming Challenges To 2020 Order In Council And Gun Grab

The Federal Court of Canada is hearing 6 challenges to the May 1, 2020 Order In Council, which instantly converted some 1,500 types of firearms to “prohibited”.

People wanting to attend virtually can. The registration link is available to all, but the usual broadcasting prohibitions apply.

(1) Cassandra Parker et al. v. Attorney General of Canada et al.
Case Number: T-569-20
Filed May 26, 2020

(2) Canadian Coalition for Firearms Rights et al. v. Attorney General of Canada et al.
Case Number: T-577-20
Filed May 26, 2020

(3) John Hipwell v. Attorney General of Canada et al.
Case Number: T-581-20
Filed May 27, 2020

(4) Michael John Doherty et al. v. Attorney General of Canada et al.
Case Number: T-677-20
Filed: June 29, 2020

(5) Christine Generoux et al. v. His Majesty The King et al.
Case Number:T-735-20
Filed: July 10, 2020

(6) Jennifer Eichenberg, David Bot, Leonard Walker et al. v. Attorney General of Canada et al.
Case Number: T-905-20
Filed: August 11, 2020

The hearings started on Tuesday, April 11th, and are expected to finish up next week. Given that these cases cover essentially the same material, they’ll all be decided together.

So far, the Applicants have been focusing on a few concepts: (a) definitions of words are vague or missing; and (b) the choices of which firearms to prohibit are not consistent or logical.

For anyone interesting in searching the case histories, or to order more documents, the information is available for Federal cases.

Expect and update soon with attached documents.

(1) https://orders-in-council.canada.ca/attachment.php?attach=39208&lang=en
(2) https://www.fct-cf.gc.ca/en/court-files-and-decisions/hearing-lists
(3) https://www.fct-cf.gc.ca/en/court-files-and-decisions/court-files#cont
(4) https://www.fct-cf.gc.ca/en/court-files-and-decisions/hearings-calendar