Ronnie, Author at Canuck Law

April 28, 2024April 28, 2024

Senate Bill S-275: Adding “Sustainable And Equitable Prosperity” To Bank Of Canada Act

Have you heard of Senate Bill S-275? It is called the “Act to amend the Bank of Canada Act (mandate, monetary policy governance and accountability)”. It was introduced back in September 2023, and is currently at Second Reading.

It was brought in by Quebec Senator Diane Bellemare, who was appointed by Harper back in 2012. Keep in mind that she was appointed by a “conservative” Prime Minister. Now, what is this all about?

From the preamble of Bill S-275:

Whereas monetary policy has measurable redistributive effects on Canadians’ incomes;
.
Whereas underlying economic trends over the coming decades will be shaped by demographic shifts, the climate crisis, technological change and global political uncertainty and are conducive to generating supply shocks to prices—shocks that are minimally affected in the short term by traditional monetary policy;
.
Whereas a gap currently exists between the Bank of Canada Act and the Bank’s practices respecting monetary policy;

There will now be a section added to the Bank of Canada Act, and it reads as follows:

Bank mandate
4.‍1 The mandate of the Bank is to ensure the financial stability of Canada and of Canadian financial institutions and to promote sustainable and equitable prosperity and the well-being of all Canadians.

What exactly is “sustainable and equitable prosperity”? It’s not defined, so we’ll have to guess with this. “Sustainable” is probably being used in reference to playing along with the climate change scam. And “equitable prosperity” sounds like a fancy word for massive wealth redistribution.

One can certainly debate the value of the Bank of Canada, or the Bank for International Settlements. But why is crypto-Communist language being put into this Act?

There will also be a Permanent Committee added to the Bank of Canada. It will involve 9 people, 6 of them to be appointed in a vaguely described process.

the Governor of the Bank of Canada
the Deputy Governor
a Deputy Governor responsible for economic analysis
6 external members appointed under this section

Some of the duties this Permanent Committee will have include:

(a) participate in discussions about setting the policy rate;
(b) set the policy rate by vote;
(c) adopt the annual cost-benefit analysis framework that supports policy rate decision-making;
(d) supervise the assessment of the effectiveness of monetary policy — that is to say, whether the targets are met, what economic effects monetary policy has on prices, employment, growth, investment and productivity, and what financial and redistributive effects it has on households and businesses;
(e) ensure that the use of non-traditional tools is consistent with the Bank’s mandate and the objectives of monetary policy; and
(f) represent the Bank in negotiating and drafting the agreement with the Government of Canada provided by section 14.‍4 and include monetary policy targets in the agreement.

To summarize: there will be a group of 9 people, 6 of whom selected in a yet to be defined process, determining major financial and economic decisions for the Bank of Canada. It’s to act in a manner consistent with its mandate. Keep in mind that the new mandate is:

to ensure the financial stability of Canada and of Canadian financial institutions and to promote sustainable and equitable prosperity and the well-being of all Canadians.

At the risk of being alarmist, this new mandate is a real concern. Given the proliferation of Carbon taxes, and various iterations of UBI, or universal basic income, where exactly are things going? The language is also vague enough that it’s hard to pin down specific details.

Bellemare spoke about the legislation on September 26th, 2023. However, it didn’t really add any specifics about what was going to happen. Nor did the questions she was asked.

Add this to the list of things to keep an eye on.

(1) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/44-1/
(2) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/44-1/s-275
(3) https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/S-275/first-reading
(4) https://sencanada.ca/en/senators/bellemare-diane/
(5) https://sencanada.ca/en/content/sen/chamber/441/debates/142db_2023-09-26-e#41
(6) https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/b-2/

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) Bill C-293: Domestic Implementation Of Int’l Pandemic Treaty
(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 S-215: Protecting Financial Stability Of Post-Secondary Institutions
(16) Bill S-243: Climate Related Finance Act, Banking Acts
(17) Bill S-248: Removing Final Consent For Euthanasia
(18) Bill S-257: Protecting Political Belief Or Activity As Human Rights

April 27, 2024April 27, 2024

The Nadon Reference Case: What Really Happened (Gonzo Logic)

It’s time to put a decade long myth to rest: the Nadon Reference Case.

This was a 2013 challenge in Federal Court to the appointment of Marc Nadon to the Supreme Court. The specific issue was not his abilities, but where he had worked. Under Canadian law, Quebec is entitled — rightly or wrongly — to 3 out of the 9 spots on the Supreme Court of Canada. Judges from the Federal Court or Federal Court of Appeal can sit on the SCC, but not take those 3 positions.

Yes, there was an Application filed by “Mr. Bad Beyond Argument” in October 2013. However, that’s not what decided Nadon’s fate. The Attorney General brought a Motion to stay (defer) the case, and an Order In Council (OIC) forward the matter to the Supreme Court. This was decided as a Constitutional Question. The case was deferred on consent, meaning all sides agreed to hand it over.

The original Application was eventually dismissed in 2014. However, it seems that costs were just as important — if not more so — than the principle of how SCC Justices are selected. This leads to the absurd idea that there is a “Constitutional right” to costs, even for lawyers who don’t actually win their cases. Gonzo logic!

The case was never “won on the merits”.

It was more a case of “thank you for bringing it to our attention”.

Ever wonder why no ruling is ever help up as a trophy? That’s because there isn’t one.

(A) Consent Order staying the 2013 Application
(B) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2014/2014scc21/2014scc21.html
(C) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2014/2014fc1088/2014fc1088.html
(D) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fca/doc/2016/2016fca39/2016fca39.html
(E) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc-l/doc/2016/2016canlii47514/2016canlii47514.html

The above are a: consent to stay; SCC Reference, involving many Intervenors; and then three (3) subsequent dismissals. The earth shattering victory we are told about isn’t there.

Timeline Of Major Events

Now, the above is a lot to take in, so hopefully, this will clarify the details how events unfolded.

October 7th, 2013: A Notice of Application is filed in Federal Court, challenging the appointment of Justice Marc Nadon to the Supreme Court of Canada.

October 22nd, 2013: Order-In-Council (OIC) 2013-1105 is signed, referring the issue of the appointment of Justice Nadon to the Supreme Court for a Reference.

October 28th, 2013: The Attorney General’s Office brings a Motion to stay (defer) the case, since it has already been sent off for reference anyway.

November 12th, 2013: Justice Zinn signs a Consent Order staying the Application, pending the outcome of the SCC Reference.

March 21st, 2014: The Supreme Court of Canada rules that Justice Nadon isn’t eligible to use any of Quebec’s 3 seats on the Court. However, that doesn’t mean he couldn’t sit on the bench in any of the other 6 spots.

September 26th, 2014: “Mr. Bad Beyond Argument” files a Motion for costs, and for Leave (permission) to dismiss the case. He didn’t win, and wants it dismissed, but claims he’s entitled to costs anyway.

October 31st, 2014: The Attorney General’s Office files a Cross-Motion (a Motion of their own), asking that the original Application be dismissed, since the issue of Justice Nadon’s appointment if now moot. They also ridicule the demand for costs, since the Applicants didn’t actually win.

November 7th, 2014: Reply submissions (rebuttal arguments) are filed in the Motion for costs.

November 20th, 2014: Justice Zinn hands down a ruling dismissing the original Application, and awarding a lump sum of $5,000 in costs to the Applicants. This is in spite of them not actually winning their case. The Motion was “in writing”, and as the name implies, done without an oral hearing.

January 11th, 2016: The Federal Court of Appeal hears the Appeal on costs. This is not about Justice Nadon’s appointment, but whether there’s a “Constitutional right” to costs.

February 8th, 2016: Federal Court of Appeal hands down scathing rebuke, along with $1,000 Order for bringing baseless Appeal in the first place.

July 28th, 2016: Supreme Court of Canada denies Leave (permission) to file Appeal over the demand for costs. This was the second attempt at appealing.

Now, to expand more on these….

Application Was Stayed (Deferred) On Consent

Almost immediately after the Application was filed, the Attorney General’s office brought a Motion to stay the proceedings (or defer) the case.

The Motion references Order In Council 2013-1105, an “Order referring to the Supreme of Canada for hearing and consideration the questions related to the Appointment of Supreme Court Justices From Quebec”.

Justice Russel Zinn signed a Consent Order, which stayed the Application while the subject was brought before the Supreme Court of Canada in the form of a Reference Question. By consenting, it was known to all — or should have been known — that it was surrendering control to the SCC.

This wasn’t a “win on the merits” by any means. However, it was an indication that the Federal Government took the issue seriously enough to forward it onward.

Many “Intervenors” For SCC Reference Question

Although the Supreme Court Reference is very lengthy, this is the main point. Should Justice Nadon be allowed to take a “Quebec spot” on the SCC if he’s sitting on the bench for the Federal Court of Appeal?

[109] This reference stems from the appointment of the Honourable Justice Marc Nadon to fill one of the three seats on this Court allocated to the Province of Quebec. Justice Nadon is a former member of the Quebec bar of almost 20 years standing. At the time of his appointment to this Court, he was a judge of the Federal Court of Appeal.

René LeBlanc and Christine Mohr, for the Attorney General of Canada
Patrick J. Monahan and Josh Hunter, for the intervener the Attorney General of Ontario
André Fauteux and Jean‑François Beaupré, for the intervener the Attorney General of Quebec
Sébastien Grammond, Jeffrey Haylock and Nicolas M. Rouleau, for the interveners Robert Décary, Alice Desjardins and Gilles Létourneau
Rocco Galati, on his own behalf
Sébastien Grammond, for the intervener the Canadian Association of Provincial Court Judges
Paul Slansky, for the intervener the Constitutional Rights Centre Inc

But what frequently gets overlooked is that there were many Intervenors — 3rd party participants — at the Supreme Court review over the Nadon appointment. It wasn’t just one person against the Government.

[8] After carefully considering the Attorney General’s motion for a stay (for a period of 7.6 hours, in Mr. Galati’s case), the Joint Applicants eventually consented to a stay of the Joint Application in exchange for the Attorney General’s undertaking not to oppose their application for intervener status in the Reference.

Some comments from the Federal Court of Appeal are pretty funny. If their 2016 ruling is to be taken at face value, it seems that the Attorney General didn’t even want him at the SCC Reference. It comes across as him only agreeing to the Consent Order if there was no objection to him being an Intervenor. That’s got to hurt.

What if the AG had opposed Intervenor status? Would he have held up the Motion to stay the case?

Now, if this Reference result really was a “win on the merits”, then it looks as though every Intervenor could make that same claim. All of them submitted papers, and all were allowed to speak.

The most charitable interpretation of this would be a “shared win”.

Now, the real fun begins.

Federal Court Dismisses Motion For Costs, Dismisses Application

After the Supreme Court decision, the original Application became moot. After all, Justice Nadon was gone from the bench, so there wasn’t a real issue to resolve.

However, a Motion was filed demanding costs. The “claim” was that lawyers who bring constitutional challenges are entitled to costs. Apparently, this wasn’t just about principle. There was money to be made on this.

There were obviously problems with this. The most prominent is that fact that there was no “win or success”, which is typically required to receive costs. From the Attorney General of Canada:

The Federal Government filed a Cross-Motion, asking that the original Application be dismissed, and that the Court refuse costs.

The reason for dismissing the Application is obvious: mootness. Justice Nadon is gone, so there’s nothing left to deal with. It’s unclear why “Mr. Bad Beyond Argument” would seek leave (permission) to dismiss, instead of just discontinuing on his own. A cynic may think that it would be harder to claim “success” if he simply dropped the case.

Federal Court Takes Note Of Overbilling In Costs Motion

In their Cross Motion, the Attorney General argued that even if costs should be awarded (for an unsuccessful case), the amounts sought were unreasonable. They point out that for Ontario lawyers, even the most experienced ones litigation the most complex matters were only entitled to $350/hour. This Motion demanded $800/hour, more than double that.

In the 2014 reasons (dismissing the Application and the Motion for costs) the Court notes at paragraphs 5-7 that the amounts sought are “excessive and unwarranted”. They want nearly $70,000 for litigation was stayed at the very beginning stages. It’s even more absurd given the self-representation that was going on.

Almost as an aside, Justice Zinn remarks that if not for the original challenge, the SCC Reference would likely not have happened. From a certain perspective, it could be viewed as public service.

He ultimately awarded a lump sum of $5,000. This is still a fair amount of money, but less than 10% of what the Applicants had originally demanded.

Federal Court Of Appeal Dismisses Appeal For Costs

[12] Mr. Galati argued for an award of costs in his favour calculated on the basis of 56.4 hours of service at an hourly rate of $800, plus disbursements in the amount of $638, for a total award (including tax) of $51,706. The CRC claimed costs of $16,769 based on 14.55 hours of service by its counsel, Mr. Slansky, at an hourly rate of $800. In argument, Mr. Galati acknowledged that his regular hourly rate is not $800 as his clientele do not have the means to pay such an exalted rate. He advised that $800 per hour is the rate for substantial indemnity pursuant to Part 1 of Tariff A of the Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990 Reg. 194, for lawyers of his year of call and experience.

[13] The Attorney General opposed Mr. Galati’s and the CRC’s motions and filed a cross motion seeking the dismissal of the Joint Application. On the question of costs, the Attorney General argued that since, as of the date of the argument, no judgement had been rendered in the Joint Application, there was no successful party and therefore no basis for an order for costs. In any event, the Attorney General argued that there was no constitutional right to costs. If an order of costs were to be made, having regard to the factors mentioned in Rule 400(3) of the Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98-106, it should be a single award assessed on Column III of Tariff B.

[28] The difficulty confronting the Joint Applicants is that they were not successful in their application. The Federal Court found that the Joint Application “was derailed and supplanted by the Reference”: see Reasons at paragraph 12. It was therefore dismissed for mootness. Mr. Galati and the CRC take the position that because the Reference produced the result which they sought in the Joint Application, they were successful and entitled therefore to their solicitor client costs. It doesn’t work that way. The fact that their application apparently set in motion a series of events which led to the conclusion which they hoped to achieve in their application does not make them successful litigants. It may make them successful politically or in the popular press, but that is a different matter. They can only claim costs in relation to the judicial treatment of the Joint Application which, as noted, was dismissed. To hold otherwise would be to create something in the nature of a finder’s fee for constitutional litigation.

[35] To be “in bed” with someone is to collude with that person. I do not understand how one could hope to protect the right to a fair and independent judiciary by accusing courts of colluding with the government if they don’t give the applicant its solicitor client costs. The entire Court system, it seems, must be alleged to be actually or potentially acting in bad faith in order to instill public confidence in the fairness and independence of the judiciary. This is reminiscent of the gonzo logic of the Vietnam War era in which entire villages had to be destroyed in order to save them from the enemy. The fact that this argument is made in support of an unjustified monetary claim leads to the question “Whose interest is being served here?” Certainly not the administration of justice’s. This argument deserves to be condemned without reservation.

[47] Like my colleague, I agree that there are no grounds for setting aside the costs order of the Federal Court and I would dismiss the appeal with costs in the amount of $1,000. Had the respondents asked for more, I would have granted more.

The Federal Court of Appeal was pretty scathing in their review. Yes, the $5,000 award was appealed on the grounds that it wasn’t nearly enough, and the Applicants had a “right” to costs.

The FCA reiterated that there was no “win on the merits”. The parties had agreed to stay the Application in favour of letting the SCC Reference go ahead. True, it produced the outcome that was sought, but that’s not the same as actually winning.

The FCA took serious issue the implication that the Courts were “in bed with” the Government for not giving him his costs. Keep in mind, he was self represented. In the public sphere, this would have led to a defamation lawsuit.

The FCA rejected the notion that the Nadon appointment “went to the architecture of the Constitution”. Yes, it was an important question, but outside of a small amount of people, it had no impact.

The FCA also pointed out how absurd it was to use the Ontario guidelines for costs submissions when in Federal Court. Was this simply oversight? Incompetence? Or a way to justify inflated billing?

Supreme Court Denies Application For Leave (For Costs)

The applications for leave to appeal from the judgement of the Federal Court of Appeal, Number A-541-14, 2016 FCA 39, dated February 8, 2016, are dismissed with costs.

Not content with losing at the Federal Court of Appeal, “Mr. Bad Beyond Argument” sought Leave (permission) to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. This wasn’t about Justice Nadon, but another attempt at having someone recognize “his Constitutional right to costs”. This is nonsense, and it appears that he spent more time and effort trying to get costs than in the original Application.

Serious question: Is it considered fraud to misrepresent the results of Court cases, if done for the purposes of self-promotion, and generating business? The Nadon case has been held up as a “major win on the merits”, even though that’s not the truth. This was from 2013 to 2016.

Again, a better description would be, “thank you for bringing it to our attention”.

Fast forward to 2024, and groups like Action4Canada and Vaccine Choice Canada lie about their cases in order to keep the donation money rolling in. They pretend that losses and endless delays are somehow “wins”. At what point does puffery and self-promotion cross into outright deception?

COURT DECISIONS:
(1) Supreme Court Reference ss. 5 and 6 2014 SCC 21 (CanLII), [2014] 1 SCR 433
(2) Federal Court On Motion For Costs 2014 FC 1088 (CanLII)
(3) Federal Court Of Appeal On Costs 2016 FCA 39 (CanLII)
(4) Supreme Court Of Canada On Costs 2016 CanLII 47514 (SCC)

COURT DOCUMENTS:
(1) Nadon Reference Case Notice Of Application
(2) Nadon Reference Case AG Motion To Stay
(3) Nadon Reference Case Order Staying Application
(4) Nadon Reference Case RG Motion For Costs
(5) Nadon Reference Case AG Cross Motion Record
(6) Nadon Reference Case AG Reply Submissions On Costs

ORDER IN COUNCIL SEARCH:
(1) https://orders-in-council.canada.ca/

April 24, 2024April 25, 2024

B.C. Bill 12 (Online Harms) Deferred: Another Case Of Problem, Reaction, Solution

The C.B.C. recently reported that British Columbia Bill 12 (the Online Harms Act) is being paused for now. This is titled the Public Health Accountability and Cost Recovery Act. The stated reason is that social media companies like Facebook and X/Twitter have come to the table to implement their own protections.

But B.C. Premier David Eby made it clear that this may go ahead anyway, if an agreement cannot be worked out.

Other recent B.C. specific legislation includes:
Bill 23, the (Anti-White) Anti-Racism Act, and
Bill 31, domestic implementation of U.N. Sendai Framework

The stated purpose is to hold companies — such as social media outlets — accountable for medical and health care costs that arise from content they put out. An example cited is Carson Cleland, the 12 year old from Prince George, who committed suicide last October after online sextortion. It’s claimed that if platformed were properly regulated, this wouldn’t have happened.

However, it appears more likely that this is a pretext to be able to swiftly remove content the Government deems “harmful”, for whatever reason. And this is being achieved in the standard way.

Problem
Reaction
Solution

The PROBLEM is that Bill 12 is crafted in such a way as to impose financially crippling penalties. No Government wants to be seen as being overtly anti-free speech. So this must be framed in a manner that appeals to public safety.

The REACTION is that companies get nervous about the fines and other costs they could be on the hook for, even if they weren’t complicit in generating the material.

The SOLUTION is that social media firms agree to “voluntarily” implement their own measures, which means complying with what the Government wanted anyway.

Now, what’s in this Bill?

Direct action by government
2 (1) The government has a direct and distinct action against a person to recover the cost of health care benefits caused or contributed to by a health-related wrong.
.
(2) For certainty,
(a) subsection (1) does not establish a right of action for any other person, and
(b) the cost of health care benefits recoverable under subsection (1) includes the cost of health care benefits in relation to the risk of disease, injury or illness.

Direct action by the government of Canada
3 (1) The government of Canada has a direct and distinct action against a person to recover the cost of health care benefits caused or contributed to by a health-related wrong.
.
(2) For certainty,
(a) subsection (1) does not establish a right of action for any other person, and
(b) the cost of health care benefits recoverable under subsection (1) includes the cost of health care benefits in relation to the risk of disease, injury or illness.

Sections 2 and 3 of the Bill specify that the B.C. (and oddly, Canadian) Governments are able to take legal action against people for health care costs in relation to “disease, injury or illness”.

Interestingly, both Sections 2 and 3 specify that the right of action — or ability to sue — is for Governments only. Private people apparently don’t have that right. Then there’s 2(6) and 3(6)

(6) If the government [of Canada seeks] in an action under subsection (1) to recover the cost of health care benefits on an aggregate basis,

(a) it is not necessary
(i) to identify particular individual benefit recipients,
(ii) to prove the cause of disease, injury or illness in any particular individual benefit recipient, or
(iii) to prove the cost of health care benefits for any particular individual benefit recipient

What this means is that while both the B.C. and Federal Governments have the right to sue to recoup health care costs, private citizens don’t. It’s also not required that they identify: (a) beneficiaries; (b) causation; or (c) analysis of health care benefits.

Apparently, companies aren’t limited to being sued once, either.

Private parties and proceedings
6 (1) It is not a defence to an action commenced by the government under section 2 (1), or by the government of Canada under section 3 (1), that a claim for a benefit recipient’s damages, alleged to have been caused or contributed to by a health-related wrong, has been adjudicated or settled.

6 (2) It is not a defence to an action commenced in respect of a benefit recipient’s claim for damages, alleged to have been caused or contributed to by a health-related wrong, that an action commenced by the government under section 2 (1), or by the government of Canada under section 3 (1), has been adjudicated or settled.

It’s a commonly accepted principle that once a dispute is resolved, that it not be rehashed in a different forum. This applies to things like union grievances and human rights complaints. But here, it’s explicitly stated that “adjudicated or settled” won’t protect from future litigation.

Section 8 gets into what evidence will be allowed. This will include “statistical information and information derived from epidemiological, sociological and other relevant studies, including information derived from sampling”. In other words, modelling will be allowed as evidence. Remember how that was used back in 2020/2021?

Section 10 states that the Statute of Limitations both for the B.C. and Federal Governments will be 15 years. This goes well above the 2 year limit that typically applies.

In any event, it’s not hard to see what social media companies are nervous about Bill 12 going ahead. It exposes them to all kinds of risks, but without really defining their responsibilities. It’s no surprise that they’re now willing to work something out to prevent this legislation from going ahead.

Another area the CBC article omitted was any explanation of who was responsible for social media companies capitulating. For that, we turn to the B.C. Lobbying Registry.

Jean-Marc Prevost is one of the people lobbying on behalf of Facebook. He’s a former staffer for BCPHO Bonnie Henry, and helped her push the injections back in 2021. To give context, he was a part of this same NDP Government, leaves, and then promptly lobbies that same Government. See Archive.

And the conflict of interest doesn’t end there. Prevost lobbied for the company Emergent BioSolutions Inc., a few years back. This is the actual manufacturer of the AstraZeneca vaccines. He had the ear of the right people at the time.

Bradley Lavigne works at Counsel Public Affairs, same as Prevost. In March, he also lobbied on behalf of Facebook. And similar to Prevost. Lavigne pushed for vaccines on behalf of Emergent BioSolutions back in 2021. He has been a CBC commentator for about 20 years, meaning he pitches his clients’ goals directly to the public. See archive. He has also been in the inside of the Federal NDP party structure going back to the days of Jack Layton.

As should be obvious: a lot of these “commentators” and “pundits” are really just paid actors, playing the role of experts. And although these actors are supposedly from different political parties, their respective firms have people on staff across the spectrum.

For more on Emergent BioSolutions, or pharma lobbying more broadly, there are many rabbit holes to go down. These examples are hardly exhaustive.

Rachel Curran also lobbied on behalf of Meta. This is important since she spent over 3 years as part of the B.C. Government, and more than 6 more working for Harper Federally. See archive. Additionally, she lists herself as a CBC commentator from 2016 to 2020. This isn’t simply a left or right issue, but one where all parties do much the same things.

Francis LeBlanc – Chair, Former Executive Director, Canadian Association of Former Parliamentarians
Chris Wilkins – Past Chair, CEO, Edge Interactive
Robert Asselin, Senior Director, Public Policy, Blackberry
Megan Beretta, Policy Analyst, Canadian Digital Service
Rachel Curran, Public Policy Manager, Canada, Facebook
Peter Donolo, Vice-Chairman, Hill+Knowlton Strategies Canada
Dr. Elizabeth Dubois, Assistant Professor of Communication, University of Ottawa
Kathleen Monk, Principal, Earnscliffe Strategies

Curren is also involved in CIVIX, which is an online “disinformation prevention” group funded by taxpayers. In fact, there are several such organizations in Canada. Some are registered as charities, receiving large tax benefits.

The name Peter Donolo should also ring a bell. He was Jean Chretien’s Chieff of Staff in the 1990s, and helped get him elected. He also worked with Michael Ignatieff and Justin Trudeau.

It’s interesting that groups that are supposed to stop disinformation also are filled with operatives from the same Governments who are impacted.

The B.C. Government was lobbied on behalf of X (formerly Twitter) with regards to Bill 12. Fernando Minna works for Capital Hill Group, and has for the past 3 years. See archive.

Capitol Hill Group is run by David Angus, who worked for former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, and former Ontario Premier Bill Davis.

Sabrina Geremia of Google lobbied the B.C. Government as well. While she doesn’t list political involvement in her profile, at least 3 colleagues do: Lindsay Doyle, Jeanette Patell, and Semhar Tekeste.

Erin O’Toole, former CPC Leader, gets an honourable mention. Before getting into politics, he lobbied on behalf of Facebook. He worked for Heenan Blaikie, same law firm as Jean Chretien and Pierre Trudeau.

Why cover all of this?

Bill 12 seems designed to force social media companies into compliance or face crippling financial penalties. Virtually anything can “cause public health harm”, depending on how it’s worded. This legislation is written in such a way that either Victoria or Ottawa can inflict damage. But these groups are very willing to negotiate, and the lobbyists have connections to those same Governments.

If the goal all along was to compel these outlets into being willing to censor, it’s more effective to get them to do it themselves. And remember, it’s all voluntary here. Technically, no one has been forced.

Problem. Reaction. Solution.

(1) https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/bc-online-harms-bill-paused-1.7182392
(2) https://www.leg.bc.ca/
(3) https://www.leg.bc.ca/parliamentary-business/legislation-debates-proceedings/42nd-parliament/5th-session/bills/progress-of-bills
(4) https://www.lobbyistsregistrar.bc.ca/
(5) https://www.lobbyistsregistrar.bc.ca/app/secure/orl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=5501&regId=56572920
(6) https://www.lobbyistsregistrar.bc.ca/app/secure/orl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=4186&regId=56566730
(7) https://www.linkedin.com/in/jean-marc-prevost-04830598/
(8) Jean-Marc Prevost LinkedIn Profile
(9) https://www.lobbyistsregistrar.bc.ca/app/secure/orl/lrs/do/cmmLgPblcVw?comlogId=34073
(10) https://www.lobbyistsregistrar.bc.ca/app/secure/orl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=1334&regId=56559236&blnk=1
(11) https://www.linkedin.com/in/brad-lavigne-a0927a39/
(12) Brad Lavigne LinkedIn Profile
(13) https://www.lobbyistsregistrar.bc.ca/app/secure/orl/lrs/do/cmmLgPblcVw?comlogId=34055
(14) https://www.linkedin.com/in/rachel-curran-a99258109/details/experience/
(15) Rachel Curran LinkedIn Profile
(16) https://www.lobbyistsregistrar.bc.ca/app/secure/orl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=5460&regId=56572569&blnk=1
(17) https://www.linkedin.com/in/fernandominna/
(18) Fernando Minna LinkedIn Profile
(19) https://www.lobbyistsregistrar.bc.ca/app/secure/orl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=3536&regId=56568880
(20) https://www.linkedin.com/in/sabrina-geremia-028644/
(21) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=16607&regId=948142
(22) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=288445&regId=668908

April 21, 2024April 21, 2024

Private Member’s Bill C-373: (Again) Removing Religious Protections For Antisemitic Expression

On February 5th, 2024, Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Member of Parliament for the Bloc Québécois in Lac-Saint-Jean, introduced Private Member’s Bill C-373. The goal is to remove religious exemptions for the hate crime of antisemitism.

If this sounds familiar, it should. It’s identical to Bill C-367, which was introduced by Yves-François Blanchet, the leader of the Bloc Québécois on November 28th, 2023.

Both Bills C-367 and C-373 would repeal Sections 319(3)‍(b) and 319(3.‍1)‍(b) of the Criminal Code. These would provide defences in Court if the expression were based on religious beliefs. Interestingly, neither Bill lists what faith(s) this would apply to, although Christianity is an obvious suspect.

Defences
.
(3) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2)
(a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true;
(b) if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text;
(c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true; or
(d) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada.

Defences — subsection (2.1)
.
(3.1) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2.1)
(a) if they establish that the statements communicated were true;
(b) if, in good faith, they expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text;
(c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds they believed them to be true; or
(d) if, in good faith, they intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of antisemitism toward Jews.

Some clarity would be nice. These Bills (C-367 and C-373) didn’t just happen. There are obviously some written texts which are apparently offensive.

Brunel-Duceppe is also involved in foreign affairs. He and Blanchet are both part of CAIL, the Canada-Israel Interparliamentary Group.

(CAAF) Canada-Africa Parliamentary Association
(CACN Canada-China Legislative Association
(CADE) Canada-Germany Interparliamentary Group
(CAEU) Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association
(CAFR) Canada-France Inter-Parliamentary Association
(CAIE) Canada-Ireland Interparliamentary Group
(CAIL) Canada-Israel Interparliamentary Group
(CAIT) Canada-Italy Interparliamentary Group
(CAJP) Canada-Japan Inter-Parliamentary Group
(CANA) Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association
(CAPF) Canadian Branch of the Assemblée parlementaire de la Francophonie
(CCOM)Canadian Branch of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association
(CEUS) Canada-United States Inter-Parliamentary Group
(CPAM) Canadian Section of ParlAmericas
(RUUK) Canada-United Kingdom Inter-Parliamentary Association
(SECOC) anadian Delegation to the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe Parliamentary Assembly
(UIPU) Canadian Group of the Inter-Parliamentary Union

Here’s where the story take a turn, as it usually does. Brunelle-Duceppe didn’t come up with this on his own. It looks as if he has been meeting with CIJA, the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs.

Brunelle-Duceppe appears to have been contacted by the Israeli Lobby about this. There’s a meeting which took place on January 19th, 2024. Just 2 weeks later, he’s introducing this Bill. That seems unlikely to be a coincidence.

CIJA is very involved in Canadian politics, and has regularly lobbied politicians for decades. A large part of their agenda focuses on amending the Criminal Code and Human Rights Codes to combat what they call hate speech and antisemitism.

Bills C-367 and C-373 are hardly the only ones introduced in recent times to limit Canadians’ expression and speech. Here are some others.

Bill C-63 (the Online Harms Act) was recently introduced. This would impose strict criminal penalties for people suspected — not even charged or convicted — of causing harms. Like so many pieces of legislation, it’s both vague, and has real consequences.

Bill C-229 sought to ban “symbols of hate”, but without defining what the criteria would be. It can be difficult to distinguish between hate, history, and simple expression.

Bill C-250 would have put Holocaust deniers in prison for up to 2 years. This came from a “Conservative” MP named Kevin Waugh. The Bill is moot at this point, since the equivalent provisions were slipped into Bill C-19, a budget that passed.

Bill C-261 would create “red flag laws” for hate speech, but without defining what it is. Without a person even being charged or convicted, a Judge could order them to be subjected to the kinds of restrictions that felons on probation or parole would face. This is virtually identical to Bill C-36, which was introduced, but didn’t pass in the previous session.

Who can forget Iqra Khalid’s M-103 (Islamophobia Motion), or Bills C-6 and later C-4 (to criminalize anything that would be considered conversion therapy?

British Columbia Bill 23 gets an honourable mention. This would establish a Provincial Committee to establish and advance an “anti-racism” agenda, and embed it in everything. Whites are specifically excluded from being on having any leadership role.

Not only do these Bills erode freedom, and particularly freedom of speech, the details are always worked out behind closed doors. It’s typically an NGO, often a foreign one, who has elected officials try to implement them. This shouldn’t be allowed, regardless of who’s behind it.

But you won’t hear either the mainstream or alternative media talk about this.

One other point of interest is this: Blanchet’s Bill C-367 was introduced at the end of November, 2023. Brunelle-Duceppe’s Bill C-373 was in early February, 2024. This was just a few months later. Why was this introduced twice?

(1) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/overview
(2) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/44-1/c-373
(3) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Members/en/alexis-brunelle-duceppe(104786)
(4) https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/C-373/first-reading
(5) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/cmmLgPblcVw?comlogId=592585

Private Member Bills In Current Session:
(A) Bill C-206: Decriminalizing Self Maiming To Avoid Military Service
(B) Bill C-207: Creating The “Right” To Affordable Housing
(C) Bill C-219: Creating Environmental Bill Of Rights
(D) Bill C-226: Creating A Strategy For Environmental Racism/Justice
(E) Bill C-229: Banning Symbols Of Hate, Without Defining Them
(F) Bill C-235: Building Of A Green Economy In The Prairies
(G) Bill C-245: Entrenching Climate Change Into Canada Infrastructure Bank
(H) Bill C-250: Imposing Prison Time For Holocaust Denial
(I) Bill C-261: Red Flag Laws For “Hate Speech”
(J) Bill C-293: Domestic Implementation Of Int’l Pandemic Treaty
(K) Bill C-312: Development Of National Renewable Energy Strategy
(L) Bill C-315: Amending CPPIB Act Over “Human, Labour, Environmental Rights”
(M) Bill C-367: Removing Religious Exemptions Protecting Against Antisemitism
(N) Bill S-215: Protecting Financial Stability Of Post-Secondary Institutions
(O) Bill S-243: Climate Related Finance Act, Banking Acts
(P) Bill S-248: Removing Final Consent For Euthanasia
(Q) Bill S-257: Protecting Political Belief Or Activity As Human Rights

April 20, 2024April 20, 2024

B.C. Bill 23: Whites Prohibited From Serving On “Anti-Racism” Committee

A few days ago, Bill 23 was introduced in the British Columbia Legislature. This is the so-called “Anti-Racism Act”, and it’s every bit as bad as can be expected.

It was introduced by Josie Osborne, who is the Minister of Energy, Mines and Low Carbon Innovation. It’s unclear why she would be doing this, as it appears to have nothing to do with her portfolio.

What are the goals of this Act?

2 This Act must be administered and interpreted in accordance with the following principles:
.
(a) systemic racism, systemic racism specific to Indigenous peoples and racial inequity are harming individuals and communities in British Columbia and require urgent action;
.
(b) actions to identify and eliminate systemic racism and systemic racism specific to Indigenous peoples, and advance racial equity, in programs, services, policies and laws should be informed by data;
.
(c) in taking action to identify and eliminate systemic racism and advance racial equity, consideration must be given to the ways in which an individual’s intersecting identities, including, without limitation, gender identity or expression, sexual orientation, sex or religion, or an individual’s physical or mental disability, result in unique experiences of, or an increased risk of experiencing, systemic racism and racial inequity;
.
(d) consultation and cooperation with Indigenous peoples, acknowledging the rights, interests, priorities and concerns that are specific to First Nations peoples, Métis peoples and Inuit peoples, based on distinctions among them, is essential to the identification and elimination of systemic racism specific to Indigenous peoples and the advancement of racial equity and the implementation of this Act;
.
(e) engagement with racialized communities in British Columbia is essential to the identification and elimination of systemic racism and the advancement of racial equity and the implementation of this Act;
.
(f) investment in programs and services is needed to support healing for individuals and communities harmed by systemic racism, systemic racism specific to Indigenous peoples and racial inequity.

Even though “racial equity” is listed throughout the Bill’s principles, it isn’t actually defined. Best guess, it’s a push for some sort of affirmative action or quota system.

This sort of practice has long existed in employment and post secondary education. In theory, it could easily extend to other areas.

Section 5 of the Bill gets into the makeup of the Committee that will be reporting back to the Legislature. And it immediately becomes clear who isn’t welcome here.

Provincial Committee on Anti-Racism
5 (1) The minister must establish a Provincial Committee on Anti-Racism.
(2) The minister must appoint at least 7 and not more than 11 members to the committee.

(3) All members must be individuals who
(a) are racialized, and
(b) have expertise in working to eliminate systemic racism and advance racial equity.

(4) The committee must include the following as members:
(a) at least 2 individuals who represent organizations that support racialized individuals or communities;
(b) at least 2 individuals who have expertise in systems thinking theory and practice;
(c) at least 2 individuals who have expertise in the development and delivery of anti-racism training curricula.

Clause 5(3)(a) is very telling. In a Bill that claims to be fighting racism, the official policy is “whites need not apply”. Have to say, that sounds rather…. racist.

Clause 5(4)(b) is another one to wonder about. What are the “systems” that need to be implemented or changed? Will we be heading towards South Africa style apartheid?

It’s hard to tell at this point whether this will largely just result in slush funds being handed out to certain groups, or if it will be much worse.

Like many (or most) pieces of legislation in Canada, the B.C. Anti-Racism Act is backdoored with “regulations”. In practice, it means that major changes can be made without having to go back to the Legislature.

Regulations
31 (1) The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations referred to in section 41 [powers to make regulations] of the Interpretation Act.

(2) Without limiting subsection (1), the Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations as follows:
(a) respecting accessible formats for documents published under this Act;
(b) respecting anti-racism assessments and the anti-racism assessment framework developed under section 9 (1) (a) [duties of government] or 15 (1) (a) [duties of committee], including, without limitation, respecting
(i) the form and content of anti-racism assessments, and
(ii) the frequency with which anti-racism assessments must be carried out;
(c) respecting anti-racism training curricula and anti-racism training and the standards, targets and indicators set by the government under section 9 (1) (b) and (c) or by the committee under section 15 (1) (b) and (c);
(d) for the purposes of section 11 (4) (b) [actions against Indigenous-specific systemic racism], establishing requirements in relation to the receipt and use of information referred to in section 11 (3) (e);
(e) for the purposes of section 17 (4) (b) [actions against systemic racism], establishing requirements in relation to the receipt and use of information referred to in section 17 (3) (f);
(f) respecting grants under section 29 [minister may provide grant], including, without limitation,
(i) restricting the purposes, amounts or recipients of those grants, and
(ii) respecting the terms and conditions on which the grants may or must be given.

(3) A regulation under this Act may do one or more of the following:
(a) delegate a matter to a person;
(b) confer a discretion on a person;
(c) establish or define groups or categories of public bodies, persons, things, circumstances or other matters;
(d) make different regulations in relation to different public bodies, persons, things, circumstances or other matters, or for different groups or categories of public bodies, persons, things, circumstances or other matters.

Not only are the terms vague and undefined, but the details will be worked out in secret. Assuming this Bill is passed, then only afterwards will it all come out.

The obvious questions include: What sort of regulations will be coming in the near future? Who will be deciding what regulatory changes happen? Will there be any mechanism to challenge such measures? What kind of “discretion” will be handed out to other people or groups?

Affiliation of Multicultural Societies and Service Agencies of BC
The Immigrant Services Society of BC

In the B.C. Lobbying Registry, a few names get flagged when searching anti-racism. Unsurprisingly, both groups receive large amounts of money from taxpayers.

Considering the NDP has a majority in the Province, the legislation will likely pass. Then again, it’s not like the Liberals are much of an opposition party anyway.

(1) https://bcndpcaucus.ca/mla/josie-osborne/
(2) https://www.leg.bc.ca/
(3) https://www.leg.bc.ca/parliamentary-business/legislation-debates-proceedings/42nd-parliament/5th-session/bills
(4) https://www.leg.bc.ca/parliamentary-business/legislation-debates-proceedings/42nd-parliament/5th-session/bills/progress-of-bills
(5) https://www.lobbyistsregistrar.bc.ca/
(6) https://www.lobbyistsregistrar.bc.ca/app/secure/orl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=3739&regId=56571325
(7) https://www.lobbyistsregistrar.bc.ca/app/secure/orl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=4629&regId=56572243

April 19, 2024April 20, 2024

Adam Skelly, Part 3: R.O.A. Challenge Finally To Be Heard?

Starting on October 1st, 2024, the Ontario Superior Court will finally hear a long delayed challenge to the Reopening Ontario Act, or R.O.A. Of course, this assumes that there are no more setbacks. Given how things have played out so far, there are no guarantees.

This Application is from William Adamson Skelly (a.k.a. Adam Skelly), and stems from his refusal to bend the knee to Doug Ford back in 2020.

Part 1: The Akbarali Decisions
Part 2: Swinwood Malpractice Claim

Due to Michael Swinwood — the former lawyer — screwing up the case in 2021, and then walking away, the matter has been unnecessarily delayed for years. This is in spite of getting several expert witnesses ready to appear.

Byram Bridle
Douglas Allen
Gilbert Berdine
Harvey Risch
Joel Kettner
William Briggs

There are, of course, differences in the reports that have been submitted. However, what they all argue is that this “global pandemic” is vastly overblown. Lockdown measures weren’t needed, nor was there any benefit to society from implementing them.

Now, in the year 2024, why does this still matter? While the so-called “pandemic” may be over, the Reopening Ontario Act is still in effect, even if there aren’t any shutdowns going on.

Here are the provisions being challenged:

Orders continued
2 (1) The orders made under section 7.0.2 or 7.1 of the Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act that have not been revoked as of the day this subsection comes into force are continued as valid and effective orders under this Act and cease to be orders under the Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act.
.
Exception
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to the order filed as Ontario Regulation 106/20 (Order Made Under the Act — Extensions and Renewals of Orders).
.
Clarification
(3) For greater certainty, an order that is in force is continued under subsection (1) even if, on the day that subsection comes into force, the order does not apply to any area of the Province.

Power to amend orders
4 (1) The Lieutenant Governor in Council may, by order,
.
(a) subject to subsections (2) and (5), amend a continued section 7.0.2 order in a way that would have been authorized under section 7.0.2 of the Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act if the COVID-19 declared emergency were still in effect and references in that section to the emergency were references to the COVID-19 pandemic and its effects;
.
(b) amend an order continued under section 2 to address transitional matters relating to the termination of the COVID-19 declared emergency, the enactment of this Act or the continuation of orders under section 2.

Provisions applying with respect to orders
7 (1) Subsections 7.2 (3) to (8) of the Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act continue to apply, with necessary modifications, with respect to orders continued under section 2, including any amendments to such orders made under this Act.
.
Same
(2) Subsections 7.0.2 (6) to (9) of the Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act continue to apply, with necessary modifications and the modifications specified in subsection (3), with respect to continued section 7.0.2 orders, including any amendments to such orders made under this Act.
.
Modifications
(3) The modifications referred to in subsection (2) are the following:
.
1. The reference, in paragraph 1 of subsection 7.0.2 (7) of the Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act, to the emergency is deemed to be a reference to the COVID-19 pandemic and its effects.
.
2. The reference, in paragraph 2 of subsection 7.0.2 (7) of the Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act, to when the declared emergency is terminated is deemed to be a reference to when the order in relation to which that paragraph applies is revoked or ceases to apply.

Temporary closure by police, etc.
9.1 (1) A police officer, special constable or First Nations Constable may order that premises be temporarily closed if the police officer, special constable or First Nations Constable has reasonable grounds to believe that an organized public event or other gathering is occurring at the premises and that the number of people in attendance exceeds the number permitted under a continued section 7.0.2 order.

Offences
10 (1) Every person who fails to comply with subsection 9.1 (2) or (3) or with a continued section 7.0.2 order or who interferes with or obstructs any person in the exercise of a power or the performance of a duty conferred by such an order is guilty of an offence and is liable on conviction,
.
(a) in the case of an individual, subject to clause (b), to a fine of not more than $100,000 and for a term of imprisonment of not more than one year;
.
(b) in the case of an individual who is a director or officer of a corporation, to a fine of not more than $500,000 and for a term of imprisonment of not more than one year; and
.
(c) in the case of a corporation, to a fine of not more than $10,000,000.
.
Separate offence
(2) A person is guilty of a separate offence on each day that an offence under subsection (1) occurs or continues.
.
Increased penalty
(3) Despite the maximum fines set out in subsection (1), the court that convicts a person of an offence may increase a fine imposed on the person by an amount equal to the financial benefit that was acquired by or that accrued to the person as a result of the commission of the offence.

The Reopening Ontario Act may be seen as “sleeper” legislation. While there may be no obvious harm now, it can be used at any time, and under almost any pretense. We have seen this elsewhere, and the public is lulled into a false sense of security, believing the threat to be over.

But that’s not all. The Health Protection and Promotion Act is also facing a challenge given the heavy handed and unconstitutional manner which it was employed.

Interpretation
Directions by M.O.H.
24 (1) A medical officer of health, in the circumstances specified in subsection (2), may give directions in accordance with subsection (3) to the persons whose services are engaged by or to agents of the board of health of the health unit served by the medical officer of health. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.7, s. 24 (1).
.
When M.O.H. may give directions
(2) A medical officer of health may give directions in accordance with subsection (3) where the medical officer of health is of the opinion, upon reasonable and probable grounds, that a communicable disease exists in the health unit and the person to whom an order is or would be directed under section 22,
(a) has refused to or is not complying with the order;
(b) is not likely to comply with the order promptly;
(c) cannot be readily identified or located and as a result the order would not be carried out promptly; or
(d) requests the assistance of the medical officer of health in eliminating or decreasing the risk to health presented by the communicable disease.

This is a bit of rabbit hole, but the Ontario Health Protection and Promotion Act is part of a much larger picture. The source material is extensive, but an informative read. To sum it all up:

Canada signed on to the WHO’s legally binding Constitution in 1946
The International Sanitation Regulations came into effect in 1951
The International Health Regulations (1st Ed.) came into effect in 1969
The International Health Regulations (2nd Ed.) came into effect in 1995
The International Health Regulations (3rd Ed.) came into effect in 2005
Bill C-12, the Quarantine Act, is Canada’s domestic implementation of WHO-IHR 3rd Ed.
The Provinces implemented their own version of the Quarantine Act, such as HPPA
The HPPA (really) came from the WHO

See parts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 from the Canuck Law site.

Now, with all of this in mind, it seems pretty obvious that the Reopening Ontario Act didn’t just happen. It was brought in to compliment and help enforce existing public health measures. Our politicians are actors, reading scripts. They weren’t responsible for drafting any of this, but they did pass it.

The Concerned Constituents of Canada, or CCOC, is putting this case together, and the documents are readily available. Given that the hearing isn’t for several months, there will certainly be updates.

COURT DECISIONS:
(1) Skelly – Restraining Order Deferred Matter
(2) Skelly – Restraining Order Decision, December 2020
(3) Skelly – Criminal Court Limits What He Can Post Online
(4) Skelly – Judge Lacks Jurisdiction To Hear Case, June 2021
(5) Skelly – Costs Of $15,000 Ordered For Failed Motion
(6) Skelly – Costs From 2020 Kimmel Decision, Previously Deferred
(7) Skelly – Motion For Security For Costs Decision, September 2023

2020/2021 COURT DOCUMENTS:
(1) Skelly – Application Record Restraining Order (Michael Swinwood)
(2) Skelly – Notice of Constitutional Question (February)
(3) Skelly – Amended Notice Of Constitutional Question (June)
(4) Skelly – Book of Transcripts – Respondents (Applicants)
(5) Skelly – Book of Transcripts – Respondent on Motion – HMTQ
(6) Skelly – 2021 Motion Factum
(7) Skelly – 2021 Motion Amended Factum – Respondents (Applicants)
(8) Skelly – 2021 Motion Responding Factum
(9) Skelly – 2021 Motion Reply Factum