Calgary Fed Court Decision on UN Global Migration Compact


Check toolbar on right for globalism links (under counter).

Please sign this: PETITION E-1906 CLICK HERE

All personal court appearances are under “BLOG
Challenge to UN Global Migration Compact dismissed in Calgary, however
Court rules that it is non intended as legally binding contract


Court Case
A v. Her Majesty, the Queen
Court File No: T-2089-18
Calgary Branch, Federal Court
300-635 8th Ave SW, Calgary
Filed: November 6, 2018
Ruled: February 12, 2019

The Claim was filed in Calgary Federal Court on December 6, 2018. It asked (among other things), for an injunction against signing the UN Global Migration Compact.

The Defense filed a motion to strike, claiming that under Federal Courts Act, it should have been an “Application for Judicial Review”, not a claim. However, that doesn’t seem to be the only problem.

After some back and forth, the Statement of Claim was struck out (without permission to amend), and a $500 cost award was issued against me.

Here are some quotes from the ruling. The most interesting is possibly the one where the Judge confirms that the UN Global Migration Compact is not intended as a legally-binding agreement.

So, who won? The goal of the claim was to prevent Canada from joining the UN Compact, and the Judge says that it has no legal weight anyway.

[2] (Plaintiff) pleads, in the alternative, that if Canada has already signed the UN Compact when the Court rules on her claim, the Court should void the signature and any legal consequences

In this case, the issue of whether it should have been a 1/ Statement of Claim, or 2/ Application for Judicial Review, is sort of mute, since this alternative “does” fall within the scope of a Claim.

Court is also correct that seeking to nullify any legal consequences “is” primary function of this action. However, the Judge will go on to say that the UN Global Migration Compact “doesn’t” carry legal weight.

[8] However, this does not exempt a plaintiff from pleading material facts supporting the claim. Rule 174 states that a Statement of Claim “shall contain a concise statement of the material facts on which the party relies.

Court finds that the facts plead were not specific enough to be suitable for an action.

[15] The Supreme Court has substantive content of each Charter right in the case law, and a Plaintiff who relies on the Charter must plead material facts to satisfy the criteria applicable to the provision in question. Charter cases can not be decided in a factual vacuum.

Interesting to know. General pleading are not enough in this case, and more definitive and substantive arguments must be made.

[26] As it is plain and obvious that (her) claims based on the Charter and other statutory provisions cannot succeed, the thrust of her claim is simply that Canada should be enjoined from joining the UN Compact, a non-legally binding, cooperative framework agreement because she is of the opinion that it attempts to normalise mass migration to any country, and that the public should have been consulted on this agreement.

Again, the Judge re-iterates that it is “non-legally binding”. Having rejected the specific constitutional arguments earlier, apparently the only argument left is that the public should have been consulted.

[27] It is well-established that the conduct of foreign affairs, and international relations, including the decision to conclude or withdraw from a treaty, is part of the Crown’s prerogative powers and falls exclusively under the executive branch of government. In the absence of a Charter challenge, a decision pertaining to such matters is not justifiable.

There “were” several Charter challenges listed, but the Calgary Court found them too broad to be acceptable.

[25] Based on my review of the Statement of Claim, it is plain and obvious that the Contract Claim discloses no cause of action and must be struck out. The Statement of Claim quotes lengthy exerps from the UN Compact, including the following statement at Paragraph 54 of the claim, which indicates the UN Compact is not intended as a legally binding contract:

44(7) “This Global Compact presents a non-legally binding, co-operate framework that builds on the commitments agreed upon by Member States in the New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants. It fosters cooperation among all the relevant actors on migration, acknowledging that no one State can address migration alone, and upholds the sovereignty of States and their obligations under international law.”

This is possibly the most interesting part of the entire ruling. The Judge states that the UN Global Migration Compact is not intended as a legally binding contract.

We now have a Federal Court Judge ruling that the UN Compact is “not intended as a legally-binding contract”. This is huge, as this may thwart any attempt by open-borders advocates to use the UN Compact as a “reference point” at a later date.

Even though the Court threw the case out, the reasons given may be what we need to prevent it from becoming “soft law”.

You’re welcome, Canada
$700 — costs of travel, court fees, other fees
$500 — costs award issued by Calgary Court
PRICELESS — protecting Canada’s sovereignty

Loophole in Canada/US Safe 3rd Country: Motion to Extend Time for Judicial Review Application

(Screenshots from the Federal Court website)

****************************************************************************
(1) The full text for UN Global Migration Compact is HERE.
(2) The full text for Canada/US Safe 3rd Country is HERE, and see HERE.
(3) The proposed UN Parliament/World Government is HERE.
(4) The full text of the Paris Accord is HERE.
(5) The Multiculturalism Act is HERE.
(6) The Canadian Citizenship Act (birth tourism) is HERE.
(7) Bill C-6 (citizenship for terrorists) is HERE.
(8) M-103 (Iqra Khalid’s Blasphemy Motion) is HERE.
(9) Fed’s $595M bribery of journalists is outlined HERE.
(10) Agenda 21 (signed in June 1992) is HERE
(11) Agenda 2030 (signed in September 2015) is HERE.
Items in the above list are addressed HERE

Please sign this: PETITION E-1906 CLICK HERE

All personal court appearances are under “BLOG
****************************************************************************

CLICK HERE, for general information on application for judicial review.
CLICK HERE, for the Federal Court forms
CLICK HERE, for the Federal Court Rules, (see Part V, sections 300-319)
CLICK HERE, for the Federal Courts Act (see Section 18)

IMPORTANT NOTE:
(A) If it has been “less than” 30 days since the order/decision you want reviewed, you simply file an application for a judicial review.
(B) If it has been “more than” 30 days since the decision being reviewed, you first need to file a motion for an extension of time. If granted, then you file an application as in (A).

This article will focus on (B) and assume that more than 30 days has lapsed since the decision you are trying to have reviewed.

Jurisdiction of Federal Court (continued)
Marginal note:
Extraordinary remedies, federal tribunals
18 (1) Subject to section 28, the Federal Court has exclusive original jurisdiction
(a) to issue an injunction, writ of certiorari, writ of prohibition, writ of mandamus or writ of quo warranto, or grant declaratory relief, against any federal board, commission or other tribunal; and
(b) to hear and determine any application or other proceeding for relief in the nature of relief contemplated by paragraph (a), including any proceeding brought against the Attorney General of Canada, to obtain relief against a federal board, commission or other tribunal.

Application for judicial review
18.1 (1) An application for judicial review may be made by the Attorney General of Canada or by anyone directly affected by the matter in respect of which relief is sought.

Powers of Federal Court
(3) On an application for judicial review, the Federal Court may
(a) order a federal board, commission or other tribunal to do any act or thing it has unlawfully failed or refused to do or has unreasonably delayed in doing; or
(b) declare invalid or unlawful, or quash, set aside or set aside and refer back for determination in accordance with such directions as it considers to be appropriate, prohibit or restrain, a decision, order, act or proceeding of a federal board, commission or other tribunal.

Grounds of review
(4) The Federal Court may grant relief under subsection (3) if it is satisfied that the federal board, commission or other tribunal
(a) acted without jurisdiction, acted beyond its jurisdiction or refused to exercise its jurisdiction;
(b) failed to observe a principle of natural justice, procedural fairness or other procedure that it was required by law to observe;
(c) erred in law in making a decision or an order, whether or not the error appears on the face of the record;
(d) based its decision or order on an erroneous finding of fact that it made in a perverse or capricious manner or without regard for the material before it;
(e) acted, or failed to act, by reason of fraud or perjured evidence; or
(f) acted in any other way that was contrary to law.

Interim orders
18.2 On an application for judicial review, the Federal Court may make any interim orders that it considers appropriate pending the final disposition of the application.

Hearings in summary way
18.4 (1) Subject to subsection (2), an application or reference to the Federal Court under any of sections 18.1 to 18.3 shall be heard and determined without delay and in a summary way.

Exception
(2) The Federal Court may, if it considers it appropriate, direct that an application for judicial review be treated and proceeded with as an action.

Content of the Motion Record
A/ Cover Page (Use form 66 for general heading)
B/ Table of Contents
C/ Notion of Motion (Form 359)
D/ Affidavit if swearing evidence (Form 80A)
E/ Any evidence attached to affidavit (a, b, c….)
F/ Written submissions/arguments

A Skeleton Motion Record
****************************************************************************

APPLICATION

(Court File No.)

FEDERAL COURT

BETWEEN:

Name
(Applicant)

and

Attorney General of Canada
(Respondent)

APPLICATION UNDER 18.1(2) of Federal Court Act (Extension of Time to File Application for Judicial Review)

_____________________________________________________________________________
(Motion Record)

_____________________________________________________________________________
(Your Information)

****************************************************************************

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1/ Table of Contents (Page A)

2/ Notion of Motion (Form 359) (Page 1-3)

3/ Affidavit swearing evidence (Form 80A) (Page 4-5)
-Exhibit A: Canada/US Safe 3rd country agreement (Page 5-9)
-Exhibit B: Exerps From Gov’t site on agreement (Page 10-12)
-Exhibit C: Article on Roxham Rd. Crossings (Page 13-14)
-Exhibit D: Gov’t announcing funding (Page 15-16)

E/ Written submissions/arguments (Pages 17-22)

****************************************************************************
(General Heading — Use Form 66)

NOTICE OF MOTION

(Motion in writing)

TAKE NOTICE THAT (my name) will make a motion to the Court in writing under Rule 369 of the Federal Courts Rules.

THE MOTION IS FOR:
-To gain an extension of time to file an application for judicial review (Rule 18.1(2) Federal Courts Act.

-The issue is to amend the Canada/US Safe Third Country Agreement to make the entire Canada/US border classified as a “port of entry”. This would effectively close the “loophole” in the existing agreement.

THE GROUNDS FOR THE MOTION ARE:

-Section 24 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states that in the event of a Charter breach, a litigant may seek relief in a court of competent jurisdiction

-Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states that people have the right to be secure in their persons. Allowing large numbers of unscreened illegal immigrants in jeopardises that protection.

-Section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states that equality is a right. However, this loophole allows illegal border jumpers to “go to the front of the line”

-Section 91/92 of the Constitution separate Federal/Provincial Powers. These illegal border crossers are now being given housing, health care, education, etc…. paid for by the Provinces, except these issues are PROVINCIAL jurisdiction.

-Section 18(1) of Federal Courts Act states that the Federal Court has exclusive jurisdiction to handle such matters. This is consistent with Rule 300 of the Federal Court Rules.

-Section 18.1(2) of Federal Courts Act allows for the Federal Court to grant such an extension of time as sought.

-Section 18.1(3) and 18.1(4) of Federal Courts Act lists both powers and grounds for review which the Court has, and will ultimately be referenced, should the application to extend time be granted.

-Rule 303(2) in Federal Court Rules states that in an application for judicial review (which an extension of time is sought here), where no person can be named, the Attorney General of Canada shall be named as a Respondent.

THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE will be used at the hearing of the motion:
Affidavit swearing evidence (Form 80A)
-Exhibit A: Canada/US Safe 3rd country agreement
-Exhibit B: Exerps From Gov’t site on agreement
-Exhibit C: Article on Roxham Rd. Crossings
-Exhibit D: Gov’t announcing funding

(February 2, 2019)
______________________________
(Signature of solicitor or party)
(Name, address, telephone and fax number of solicitor or party)

TO: (Name and address of responding party’s solicitor or responding party)

SOR/2004-283, s. 35

****************************************************************************

FORM 80A – Rule 80

AFFIDAVIT

(General Heading — Use Form 66)

AFFIDAVIT OF (Name)

I, (full name and occupation of deponent), of the (City, Town, etc.) of (name) in the (County, Regional Municipality, etc.) of (name), SWEAR (or AFFIRM) THAT:

1. (Set out the statements of fact in consecutively numbered paragraphs, with each paragraph being confined as far as possible to a particular statement of fact.)

Sworn (or Affirmed) before me at the (City, Town, etc.) of (name) in the (County, Regional Municipality, etc.) of (name) on (date).

______________________________________
Commissioner for Taking Affidavits
(or as the case may be)

_____________________________
(Signature of Deponent)

****************************************************************************

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS OF APPLICANT

Part I: Jurisdiction
Part II: Issues
Part III: Facts
Part IV: Law
Part V: Cases Cited
Part VI: Order Sought

Part I: Jurisdiction
-Under Section 18 of the Federal Courts Act, and Section 300/301 of Federal Court Rules, the Federal Court of Canada has jurisdiction to hear such an application.
-Federal Court also has jurisdiction to grant a time extension to file application

Part II: Issues
-Can the Federal Court grant an extension of time (18.1(2) FCR) to file an application?
-Does the Court see the matter of public interest to see through?

Part III: Facts
-The Safe Third Country Agreement is between Canada and the United States.
-The S3CA was signed on December 5, 2002, and took effect December 29, 2004
-The obvious intent of the agreement is to recognize that both nations are safe, and to prevent abuse of refugee claims by people travelling between the 2 nations.
-Since 2015, however, more than 40,000 illegal immigrants have entered Canada illegally, primarily through Roxham Road in Quebec.
-Many illegals travelled to New York State on tourist visas, then travelled north.
-These illegals are now languishing in hotels at great public expense.
-Had these 40,000+ illegals gone to official border crossings, they would have been immediately sent back. However, going “around” ports of entry effectively allows illegal entry, and circumvents the agreement.

Part IV: Law
-The Canada/US Safe Third Country Agreement is an international agreement signed in good faith. However, it was not drafted with this loophole in mind.

Part V: Cases Cited

Part VI: Order Sought
-A time extension to file an application for judicial review
****************************************************************************

How I.C.B.C. Discriminates Against Drivers Born Out-Of-Province

(I.C.B.C., which holds a monopoly on car insurance in BC)

***********************************************************************
The full text for UN Global Migration Compact is RIGHT HERE.

Please sign this: PETITION E-1906 CLICK HERE

UN GMC Challenged In Calgary Fed Court, 300-635 8th Ave SW.
Case File: T-2089-18. Filed December 6, 2018.
CLICK HERE for more information.
***********************************************************************

(1) Some Background Information About the Issue
(2) Written Response From I.C.B.C. Staff
(3) Written Response From I.C.B.C. Lawyer Alandra Harlengton
(4) What The Constitution Says On The Matter
(5) About The Case: Canada Egg Market Agency v. Richardson, (1998) 3 S.C.R.
(6) The Limitations Act
(7) Would This Work In Court?

(1) Some Background Information About the Issue

The Insurance Corporation of British Columbia (I.C.B.C.), is a government crown corporate that holds a legal monopoly on automobile insurance in the province. Although additional coverage is available privately, those wishing to legally drive must buy the $200,000 3rd party liability insurance through I.C.B.C.

Needless to say, since this is a government monopoly, there is no incentive to operate efficiently, or to provide good service. Even so, they routine post huge losses. No worries, just jack up rates on the drivers. It’s a captive market. They can complain, but there is no avenue of recourse.

But this article is about a specific grievance: that I.C.B.C. has different rules for drivers when it comes to calculating the base rate, SEE HERE. In short, new drivers start at a CRS of zero ”0”, and it is adjusted up or down depending on whether you have accidents, or drive claims free.

But here is the difference:

(a) A BC-born driver immediately begins accruing years of ”claims free driving” as soon as he/she gets a license. No experience or skill is required. If you got a license at age 16, but don’t get insured until age 30, you would begin at -14, or the maximum 43% discount.

(b) A driver born in another province who moves to BC is subjected to different rules. Here, you don’t get ”claims free driving” for mere possession of a license. You can get up to 8 years from another jurisdiction, but only for time which you actually held insurance. If you came from Ontario, Alberta, Saskatchewan, etc… you may have had a license since age 16, but will still start at 0 when you finally get insurance.

Note: should you move to BC a a year or more prior to getting insurance, that time will be considered ”claims free driving”.

Since simple possession of a BC license means ”experience” and of ”claims free driving” then actual experience is irrelevant. It is this double standard that is illegal.

(2) Written Responses From I.C.B.C. Staff
From Customer Service Rep Catherine Dixon:

”…Under the CRS system the maximum discount on compulsory basic insurance is 43 per cent, and that discount percentage applies to policies that reflect nine or more claim-free years. If you, as a new resident with a 40 per cent discount, stay claims-free for one more year, you will have the best discount on Basic, which is three percent more than the out of province entry point.

“New residents” are defined as customers whose auto insurance history with insurers is outside British Columbia or when they return to British Columbia after an absence of more than eight years. Since January 1, 2001, new certificates of ICBC insurance issued to new residents are subject to the following:
Each full year of being claim-free represents a five per cent discount on the base premium up to a maximum of 40 per cent.
The maximum discount allowed is level -8 (40 per cent) effective the ICBC history start date.

When a customer has been outside of British Columbia for more than eight years, ICBC follows the Basic Insurance Tariff, which has the force of a Regulation in the province of British Columbia. The Tariff outlines that ICBC will start from the date of the application for insurance and count backwards the number of “full chargeable claim payment free years” to a maximum of 8 years. The Tariff states that a new resident applying for a discount must provide verification letters from each previous insurer documenting a continuous record of the applicant’s coverage history. This history is a maximum of eight years and must immediately precede the date of the application for insurance in British Columbia. The Basic Insurance Tariff can be found on ICBC’s website: http://www.icbc.com/about-icbc/company-info/Documents/bcuc/basic-tariff.pdf#search=Tariff.

Information on moving to British Columbia can be found on the ICBC website, at: http://www.icbc.com/autoplan/moving-insurance/Pages/Default.aspx.

Ms. Dixon confirms in writing that out of province drivers are subjected to different rules.

While she is careful to avoid expressing saying ”double standard”, she goes on at length to explain how I.C.B.C. treats non-BC born drivers differently. She is also careful to avoid answering the question of Sections 6 (Mobility) and 15(1) (Equality) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Those will be addressed later.

CLICK HERE, for Basic Insurance Tariff

(3) Written Response From I.C.B.C. Lawyer Alandra Harlengton
From I.C.B.C. Lawyer Alandra Harlengton

“….The distinct roles of ICBC and the British Columbia Utilities Commission
1.
Section 2 of the Insurance (Vehicle) Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 231, provides that, if the Insurance Corporation Act authorizes ICBC to operate a plan of universal compulsory vehicle insurance, ICBC must operate the plan of universal compulsory vehicle insurance in accordance with the Insurance (Vehicle) Act and regulations.
2.
The Insurance (Vehicle) Act provides ICBC the authority to establish classes and subclasses of vehicles and drivers of vehicles, and basic premiums that apply to those classes as well as premium discounts and additional premiums based on, among other things, the accident record of the owner or driver: Insurance (Vehicle) Act, ss. 34(1) and 35.

3.
The Utilities Commission Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 473, applies to and in respect of ICBC’s rates for basic insurance as if it were a public utility, except where expressly precluded under the Insurance Corporation Act.

4.
The British Columbia Utilities Commission (the “Commission”) is a statutory body continued under s. 2 of the Utilities Commission Act.

ICBC and the Commission have distinct but interrelated roles. The Commission may determine and set adequate, efficient, just and reasonable standards, practices or procedures to be used by ICBC in providing universal compulsory vehicle insurance and may order ICBC to comply with those standards, practices or procedures: Insurance Corporation Act, s. 45(2).

ICBC must make available universal compulsory vehicle insurance in a manner, and in accordance with practice and procedures, that the Commission considers are in all respects adequate, efficient, just and reasonable: Insurance Corporation Act, s. 45(1).

The Commission may exercise its powers and duties under the Insurance Corporation Act in relation to ICBC’s provision of universal compulsory vehicle insurance, but not in relation to the provision of insurance to any one customer: Insurance Corporation Act, s. 45(5).

The rates to be applied to applications for basic insurance premiums are approved by the Commission pursuant to s. 46.2 of the Insurance (Vehicle) Act, ss. 44 and 45 of the Insurance Corporation Act, ss. 58 to 60 of the Utilities Commission Act, and the Special Direction IC2 to the British Columbia Utilities Commission, B.C. Reg. 307/2004, which provides direction to the Commission regarding ICBC.

9.
The Insurance (Vehicle) Act specifically confers jurisdiction on the Commission to approve, require replacement of, or to override and replace, classes and subclasses of vehicles and drivers, basic premiums, additional premiums, and discounts for universal compulsory vehicle insurance: Insurance (Vehicle) Act, s. 46.2.

10.
The Special Direction IC2 to the British Columbia Utilities Commission, as amended, provides that, subject to certain exceptions, the Commission may not determine rates based on age, gender, or marital status (s. 3(1)(i)). Under the Insurance Corporation Act and Utilities Commission Act, an insured’s driving history is not a protected ground.

As part of its mandate, the Commission is empowered to inquire into, hear and determine any application by or on behalf of any interested party or on its own motion regarding whether ICBC is administering the universal compulsory vehicle insurance in a manner that is adequate, efficient, just and reasonable. Upon doing so, the Commission may make an order granting the whole or part of the relief applied for or may grant further or other relief, as the Commission considers advisable: Insurance Corporation Act, s. 45(2); see also, Utilities Commission Act, ss. 2.1, 58, 72, 99 to 105.

The rates for basic insurance premiums contained in the Basic Insurance Tariff
and applied to the plaintiff were approved by the Commission, after ICBC received a direction from the Province of British Columbia to prepare and implement a basic insurance rate design plan that required ICBC to, among other things, retain the CRS until at least the 2011 rate year.

13
ICBC cannot charge a rate for universal compulsory vehicle insurance other than the rates approved by the Commission. The Utilities Commission Act stipulates that rates approved by the Commission are the only lawful enforceable, and collectable rates of ICBC for universal compulsory insurance, and no other rate may be collected, charged, or enforced: Utilities Commission Act, s. 61(3)…”

It is interesting that Ms. Harlengton goes on to ”deny” that there is any double standard of how non-BC born drivers are treated. She very explicitly denies this.

She then spends a lot of time ”justifiying” why this double standard exists, citing the: 1/ Basic Insurance Tariff; 2/ Insurance Corporation Act; and 3/ Utilities Commission Act.

Here’s the thing: when you start explaining why a double standard exists, you are no longer denying the double standard. Rather you are justifying it.

Logically, once you start justifying an action, you are in fact admitting that action.

As an example: Suppose a robber breaks into my home, and I shoot him to protect my family. I then call the police. I am not denying that I did the shooting, but rather, am justifying or explaining why it happened.

Justifying involves admitting the underlying facts.

And again, if all one needs for claims-free driving is a BC driver’s license, then actual experience is not needed. So a license from any province should be suitable.

(4) What The Constitution Says On The Matter

Enforcement of guaranteed rights and freedoms

24. (1) Anyone whose rights or freedoms, as guaranteed by this Charter, have been infringed or denied may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction to obtain such remedy as the court considers appropriate and just in the circumstances.

So, if you believe that other constitutional rights are being violated, under Section 24, you may seek a remedy in the courts. In this case, BC Supreme Court is the place

Note #1: Even though the Civil Resolution Tribunal covers very small amounts, they will not get involved in any case that involves a government body.

Note #2: Although Small Claims Court would be suitable for small amounts, they will not get involved in cases that involve questions of law.


Mobility of citizens
6. (1) Every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada.

Marginal note:Rights to move and gain livelihood
(2) Every citizen of Canada and every person who has the status of a permanent resident of Canada has the right

(a) to move to and take up residence in any province; and

(b) to pursue the gaining of a livelihood in any province.

Marginal note:Limitation
(3) The rights specified in subsection (2) are subject to

(a) any laws or practices of general application in force in a province other than those that discriminate among persons primarily on the basis of province of present or previous residence; and

(b) any laws providing for reasonable residency requirements as a qualification for the receipt of publicly provided social services

Note, there is a specific case Canada Egg Market Agency v. Richardson, (1998) 3 S.C.R., that addresses this issue, but in an unrelated case. That will be covered in the next part.

I.C.B.C also violates Section 15(1), Equality.

Equality Rights

Marginal note:Equality before and under law and equal protection and benefit of law
15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

Before anyone gets fussy, the wording means this list is not exclusive, and may include other grounds.

Furthermore, the Canadian Constitution is supreme over these provincial acts I.C.B.C. relies on. Here are 2 more sections, 32 and 52:


Application of Charter
32. (1) This Charter applies

(a) to the Parliament and government of Canada in respect of all matters within the authority of Parliament including all matters relating to the Yukon Territory and Northwest Territories; and

(b) to the legislature and government of each province in respect of all matters within the authority of the legislature of each province.

*******************************

Primacy of Constitution of Canada
52. (1) The Constitution of Canada is the supreme law of Canada, and any law that is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution is, to the extent of the inconsistency, of no force or effect.

Marginal note:Constitution of Canada
(2) The Constitution of Canada includes

(a) the Canada Act 1982, including this Act;

(b) the Acts and orders referred to in the schedule; and

(c) any amendment to any Act or order referred to in paragraph (a) or (b).

Marginal note:Amendments to Constitution of Canada
(3) Amendments to the Constitution of Canada shall be made only in accordance with the authority contained in the Constitution of Canada.

(6) About The Case: Canada Egg Market Agency v. Richardson, (1998) 3 S.C.R.
CLICK HERE,

for the case of: Canada Egg Market Agency v. Richardson, (1998)

49 Section 6 of the Charter states:

Mobility Rights

6. (1) Every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada.

(2) Every citizen of Canada and every person who has the status of a permanent resident of Canada has the right

(a) to move to and take up residence in any province; and

(b) to pursue the gaining of a livelihood in any province.

(3) The rights specified in subsection (2) are subject to

(a) any laws or practices of general application in force in a province other than those that discriminate among persons primarily on the basis of province of present or previous residence; an

(b) any laws providing for reasonable residency requirements as a qualification for the receipt of publicly provided social services.

(4) Subsections (2) and (3) do not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration in a province of conditions of individuals in that province who are socially or economically disadvantaged if the rate of employment in that province is below the rate of employment in Canada.

The scope given to these words has significant implications for the exercise of the federal and provincial powers enumerated in ss. 91 and 92 of the Constitution Act, 1867, respectively. This context makes it necessary to consider carefully the purpose and role of the mobility section, and of the Charter itself in our constitutional order. The necessity of returning to first principles is heightened by the scarcity of both jurisprudence and academic commentary on s. 6.

(a) The Nature of the Right

50 The specific sections of the Charter raised in this case are s. 6(2)(b) and s. 6(3)(a). A preliminary problem is whether the two paragraphs should be read together as establishing a single right which is internally qualified, or whether, alternatively, the first paragraph establishes a self-contained right which is externally qualified by the second paragraph. Section 6(2)(b) guarantees the right to “pursue the gaining of a livelihood in any province”. Section 6(3)(a) then dramatically narrows the ambit of that right, making it subject to laws of general application in the province, except those which discriminate against individuals “primarily on the basis of province of present or previous residence”. In our view, it is impossible to ascertain the purpose of the extremely broad statement in s. 6(2)(b) without importing the limitation contained in s. 6(3)(a).

51 In Malartic Hygrade Gold Mines Ltd. v. The Queen in Right of Quebec (1982), 1982 CanLII 2870 (QC CS), 142 D.L.R. (3d) 512 (Que. Sup. Ct.), the relationship between the two paragraphs is explained according to the following dialectic, at p. 521:

[TRANSLATION]

(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.

On close examination, it will be observed that (b) almost entirely undermines the guarantee set out in (a); meaning, scope and purpose can only be attributed to (a) by reading it in conjunction with (c). The correctness of this general approach was recognized in both of the major Supreme Court decisions on s. 6, Law Society of Upper Canada v. Skapinker, 1984 CanLII 3 (SCC), [1984] 1 S.C.R. 357, and Black v. Law Society of Alberta, 1989 CanLII 132 (SCC), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 591.

Although the circumstances of the case are quite different than I.C.B.C. and auto insurance, the principle outlined here still applies.

(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.

Here, the principle would be the right of any Canadian citizen to move to any province, including that of British Columbia.

The exception would be that all those wishing to drive must go through I.C.B.C., regardless of what their previous insurance rules were.

The exception to the exception is that drivers new to BC would not be subjected to the ”moving to BC” guidelines that I.C.B.C. lays out, since they financially punish drivers for the crime of not being born in BC.

Once more, since simply having a BC driver’s license counts as ”claims free driving”, then actual experience becomes irrelevant.

(6) The Limitations Act

What about illegal overpayments from a long time ago?

Division 1 — Establishment of Basic Limitation Period

Basic limitation period
6 (1) Subject to this Act, a court proceeding in respect of a claim must not be commenced more than 2 years after the day on which the claim is discovered.

(2) The 2 year limitation period established under subsection (1) of this section does not apply to a court proceeding referred to in section 7.

Admittedly, this is trickier. However, there are other things to consider (Note: a Court may not agree)

General discovery rules
8 Except for those special situations referred to in sections 9 to 11, a claim is discovered by a person on the first day on which the person knew or reasonably ought to have known all of the following:

(a) that injury, loss or damage had occurred;

(b) that the injury, loss or damage was caused by or contributed to by an act or omission;

(c) that the act or omission was that of the person against whom the claim is or may be made;

(d) that, having regard to the nature of the injury, loss or damage, a court proceeding would be an appropriate means to seek to remedy the injury, loss or damage.

Limitation periods extended if liability acknowledged
24 (1) If, before the expiry of either of the limitation periods that, under this Act, apply to a claim, a person acknowledges liability in respect of the claim,

(a) the claim must not be considered to have been discovered on any day earlier than the day on which the acknowledgement is made, and

(b) the act or omission on which the claim is based is deemed to have taken place on the day on which the acknowledgement is made.

(2) An acknowledgement of liability in respect of a claim for interest is also an acknowledgement of liability in respect of a claim for

(a) the outstanding principal, if any, and

(b) interest falling due after the acknowledgement is made.

Other possible arguments would involve that I.C.B.C. commits fraud (section 380 of criminal code) with their policies, or that it is a corrupt enterprise.

Note: These arguments, even if they fail, does not mean the claim would not be valid, just that a person couldn’t go further back to make a claim for over payment.

(7) Would This Work In Court?
Difficult to say, as Judges don’t always behave in consistent or logical ways. However, consider this:

THE FACTS are on the side of the non-BC born driver. I.C.B.C. admits they have different sets of rules. They justify them at great length, but then deny there is actually a double standard.

THE LAWS are on the side of the non-BC born driver. Sections 6 (mobility) and 15 (equality) are spelled out quite clearly in the Charter. Sections 32 (applicability) and 52 (supremacy) show that the constitution is supreme to other laws. Other laws that conflict have no effect and are unenforceable. To be fair, the Limitations Act may make older overpayments hard to collect on.

I.C.B.C. is proposing changing this rule anyway. SEE HERE. Among the new proposals would change the rules so that all you need is a driver’s license, regardless of province.Pretty hard to argue their current policies are justified.

Very interesting to see how this will play out in such a case.

Progress In Legal Challenge To UN Global Migration Compact

(Liberal business sense, much like Liberal immigration policy)

(Calgary, on a beautiful, but chilly Friday evening)

***********************************************************************
The full text for UN Global Migration Compact is RIGHT HERE.

Please sign this: PETITION E-1906 CLICK HERE

UN GMC Challenged In Calgary Fed Court, 300-635 8th Ave SW.
Case File: T-2089-18. Filed December 6, 2018.
CLICK HERE for more information.
***********************************************************************

Update To Original Story
It appears that the wrong paper work has been filled out to initiate the proceedings in Calgary. It should have been written up as an ”application for judicial review”, as opposed to starting a claim. More to be posted as it develops.

***********************************************************************

Section 18 of Federal Courts Act

Jurisdiction of Federal Court (continued)
Marginal note:
Extraordinary remedies, federal tribunals
18 (1) Subject to section 28, the Federal Court has exclusive original jurisdiction
(a) to issue an injunction, writ of certiorari, writ of prohibition, writ of mandamus or writ of quo warranto, or grant declaratory relief, against any federal board, commission or other tribunal; and
(b) to hear and determine any application or other proceeding for relief in the nature of relief contemplated by paragraph (a), including any proceeding brought against the Attorney General of Canada, to obtain relief against a federal board, commission or other tribunal.
Marginal note:

Extraordinary remedies, members of Canadian Forces
(2) The Federal Court has exclusive original jurisdiction to hear and determine every application for a writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum, writ of certiorari, writ of prohibition or writ of mandamus in relation to any member of the Canadian Forces serving outside Canada.
Marginal note:

Remedies to be obtained on application
(3) The remedies provided for in subsections (1) and (2) may be obtained only on an application for judicial review made under section 18.1.
R.S., 1985, c. F-7, s. 18; 1990, c. 8, s. 4; 2002, c. 8, s. 26.
Previous Version
Marginal note:

Application for judicial review
18.1 (1) An application for judicial review may be made by the Attorney General of Canada or by anyone directly affected by the matter in respect of which relief is sought.
Marginal note:

Time limitation
(2) An application for judicial review in respect of a decision or an order of a federal board, commission or other tribunal shall be made within 30 days after the time the decision or order was first communicated by the federal board, commission or other tribunal to the office of the Deputy Attorney General of Canada or to the party directly affected by it, or within any further time that a judge of the Federal Court may fix or allow before or after the end of those 30 days.
Marginal note:

Powers of Federal Court
(3) On an application for judicial review, the Federal Court may
(a) order a federal board, commission or other tribunal to do any act or thing it has unlawfully failed or refused to do or has unreasonably delayed in doing; or
(b) declare invalid or unlawful, or quash, set aside or set aside and refer back for determination in accordance with such directions as it considers to be appropriate, prohibit or restrain, a decision, order, act or proceeding of a federal board, commission or other tribunal.
Marginal note:

Grounds of review
(4) The Federal Court may grant relief under subsection (3) if it is satisfied that the federal board, commission or other tribunal
(a) acted without jurisdiction, acted beyond its jurisdiction or refused to exercise its jurisdiction;
(b) failed to observe a principle of natural justice, procedural fairness or other procedure that it was required by law to observe;
(c) erred in law in making a decision or an order, whether or not the error appears on the face of the record;
(d) based its decision or order on an erroneous finding of fact that it made in a perverse or capricious manner or without regard for the material before it;
(e) acted, or failed to act, by reason of fraud or perjured evidence; or
(f) acted in any other way that was contrary to law.
Marginal note:

Defect in form or technical irregularity
(5) If the sole ground for relief established on an application for judicial review is a defect in form or a technical irregularity, the Federal Court may
(a) refuse the relief if it finds that no substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has occurred; and
(b) in the case of a defect in form or a technical irregularity in a decision or an order, make an order validating the decision or order, to have effect from any time and on any terms that it considers appropriate.

***********************************************************************

Text Of Original Article
A formal legal challenge (via Statement of Claim), has been initiated against Canada’s participation in the UN Global Migration Compact. Here is where things currently stand.

(1) Statement of Claim: Filed and already served
(2) Motion Record: Finished and being served
(3) Notice of Constitutional Questions: Finished and being served

For more information, see the sections below.

(1) Statement of Claim

This was filed on Thursday, December 6. Cheeky piece done here, but nearly all of the details still apply.

(a) Relief sought: permanent injunction UN Global Migration Compact

(b) Parties: Plaintiff (you) v. Defendant (Her Majesty, the Queen)

(c) Facts alleged: Trudeau going to sign the deal, and promote globalism. Note, you can cite specifics of the UN Global Compact here, or later.

(d) Law being relied on
-Section 2(b) of Charter: Free speech
-Section 3 of Charter: Right to participate in democracy
-Section 7 of Charter: Security of the person
-Section 15 of the Charter: Equality
-Section 24 of the Charter: Remedies available in Court
-Section 32 of the Charter: Applicability of the Charter
-Section 38 of the Constitution: How to amend the Constitution
-Section 52 of the Constitution: Supremacy of the Constitution
-Sections 91 & 92 of the Constitution: Federal v. Provincial domain
-Criminal Code 380: Fraud
-Essentials of a valid contract lacking
-Doctrine of unconscionability

One correction from the last article: if you are ”only” filing against Her Majesty, the Queen, use form 48, instead of 171A. $2 filing fee instead of $150.

(2) Motion Record Compiled

This was prepared and filled out Friday, December 7, with the Court Clerk stamping the necessary forms. Service going out soon. Motion record contains:

-Notice of motion (Form 359)
-Affidavit (Form 80)
-Evidence:
(Exhibit A) Email from Liberal M.P. Stephen Fuhr
Click here for more detail
(Exhibit B) Maclean’s article from Immigration Minister Hussen
Click here, for the article
(Exhibit C) UN Global Migration Compact
Click here, for the 23 objectives.
-Written submissions (a.k.a. Arguments)

The Motion Record is to attempt a temporary injunction against the ”non-binding” UN Global Migration Compact. Given I was only visiting Calgary, a hearing by teleconference is preferable.

(3) Notice of Constitutional Questions

This is being served on all Provincial Attorney Generals/Deputy Attorney Generals. (Form 69)

See above section: 2(b); 3; 7; 15; 24; 32; 38; 52; 91/92 all being subjected to challenge.

Note: Each AG has the opportunity to: (a) support; (b) oppose; (c) be neutral

(4) Where Things Stand Now

Other than finishing with the mailings, there isn’t much to do at this point.

Currently waiting on responses from the Feds and the Provinces.

The story will be updated as progress is made

***********************************************************************

Update To Original Story
It appears that the wrong paper work has been filled out to initiate the proceedings in Calgary. It should have been written up as an ”application for judicial review”, as opposed to starting a claim. More to be posted as it develops.

***********************************************************************

My Walkaway Story

(Also referred to as my journey to the dark side….)

A Much Simplified Version

Without going into the specifics, I am part of a group that (at least politically) identifies with the political left. Growing up in a very small town, it seemed suffocating to be limited in the people I can know and the different world out there.

Even as a youngster, I had a lot of curiosity about how things worked (such as law and governance), and spent a lot of time reading.

First, there was a brief ”fling” with the NDP/Socialist Party on the left.  They claimed to be for helping people, and who could be against that?  However, it quickly became obvious that they really did support a welfare state, and that it was not going to work for anybody with a true work ethic. Other than my identity, I could think of no reason to support these people. We have nothing in common

Next was a short interest in the Liberals, starting in 2003.  They identified themselves as ”centrists” or ”moderates”.  It seemed they were a more sensible alternative to the NDP.  But after a while I realized that these were just buzzwords for ”standing for nothing”.  Furthermore, they would frequently shut down critics by fear mongering, calling their opponents ”hateful” or ”divisive”.  See this. Jean Cretien and Paul Martin did this sort of thing repeatedly.  It was revolting to see them embrace divisive identity politics and outright smear jobs.

It struck me how deceitful the Liberals were: claiming ”fear and division” while robbing taxpayers to pay off Quebec. They stroke separatist sentiments while claiming to want to save Canada.

The interest in reading and law had an interesting side effect: it helped me recognise straw-man arguments when people were talking, and to pick up on when they were changing subjects. I would years later stumble across this website.

In 2007, there came a move to Toronto for school and work. This was Canada’s largest, and most ”diverse” city. However, it was a very crude awakening. Despite all the claims of being open and tolerant, Toronto is not. Rather, it is largely divided (Balkanized) along ethnic and cultural lines. Toronto is not a warm city. The downside to ”multiculturalism” is that there is no cohesion between people, and nothing that holds the society together.

While our leaders crow about a diverse society, it is socially forbidden to point it out this fragmentation. People get called a racist or bigot for stating truthful facts.

Toronto is not a ”tolerant” city, but rather an ”indifferent” one. To ask a simple question: would i want to raise a family here? No.

While moving further to the right, the Conservative Party (merged under Stephen Harper in 2003), seemed to be about the only mainstream alternative left.  However, in practice, the Conservatives acted just like Liberals: (a) massive debts; (b) no clear foreign policy; (c) corporate welfare; (d) payoffs from special interests; (e) bloated government; (f) squashing transparency rather than promoting it; (g) mass immigration; (h) payoffs to UN and climate change groups; etc…   Harper’s populism turned out to be completely fake. It seemed that there was no home for me.

While the Conservatives weren’t gung ho with leftist identity politics, they seemed to go out of their way to avoid addressing difficult issues. Spineless wimps.

Because of a variety of events while in Toronto, (and having little money), it was useful to read up more on law, and certain government procedures. A few class electives in law helped, and they were much cheaper than paying for a lawyer. The interest didn’t wane.

I left Toronto permanently in 2013, and headed west. Since then, I have lived in a few much smaller towns. In each of them, it felt warmer and friendlier than the Toronto days. While at least in principle a conservative, the actual parties seemed morally corrupt, and not to have any core beliefs.

Heading to Toronto was supposed to be an escape from the seemingly small and fairly monolithic societies that were suffocating. Now, more monolithic and cohesive societies offered a nice change from the emptiness of major cities. In short, those 6 years in Toronto resulted in a major backlash from getting what I thought I wanted.

We can have differences within our societies, but unless there is something holding them together, then it will just fragment. Multiculturalism just doesn’t work. From there, a sense of nationalism grew within me. This is not at all a call to racial supremacy, but an acknowledgement that unity is what brings us together. It can be language, culture, religion, traditions, many things….

Tolerance has to have a limit. Here is just one example.

Toronto is just a distant memory now, having been gone over 5 years now.

Over the last year, I have spent much more time online. Much of the nonsense in the news (such as the Lindsay Shepherd case), has driven me to learn more about other people’s points of views and perspectives. There are so many different voices out there.

The website here culminates 2 interests: (a) an interest in law; and (b) an interest in national unity and strength. Knowing our laws is one thing, comparing and contrasting to others is something else.

Perhaps the final wakeup was when Maxime Bernier, in August 2018, tweeted some fairly innocuous comments seen here,
seen here, seen here, and seen here, about where should the limits be towards diversity and multiculturalism. Shouldn’t be we focusing on what we have in common rather than embracing more and more division? Seems reasonable.

Conservative leader Andrew Scheer, rather than embracing an opening of discussion, actually condemned the remarks and threw Bernier under the bus. Most of the caucus then followed suit. It was no surprise to see the NDP and Liberals condemn nuanced discussion, but Scheer is supposed to be a conservative. What a cuck.

Max Bernier soon left the Conservatives, and started his own party. Interestingly, Bernier cited policy differences in leaving, while Scheer claimed it was personal. Further, Bernier posted a full agenda within days on the website. The CPC/Liberals/NDP don’t have any.

Bernier struck a chord with many of his tweets and public appearances in 2018. At least someone seemed willing to address and speak to difficult issues.

Disclaimer: I did join the PPC a few weeks ago, and am interested in seeing this through. Bernier’s new party is an experiment I can support.

That is my walkaway story.

Honourable mentions: In writing this, a few names stick out for me: (i) Steve Turley; (ii) Candace Malcolm; (iii) Tucker Carlson.

Other Legal Posts on TJMK

Some earlier work worth sharing:

Before starting this site up, I had been contributing to truejustice.org, CLICK HERE, for a few years. The site is well worth reading through, and contains dozens and dozens of English translations of Italian court documents and transcripts.

This is a site, edited by Peter Quennell, devoted to showing the truth to the world of murder victim, Meredith Kercher, who was stabbed to death on November 1, 2007. Rudy Guede is still serving time for her murder, while his accomplices, Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito, got off due to “judge shopping” by defence counsel.

The site attracts readers and contributors from all areas of the world, and many professionals, such as doctors and lawyers.

Here are some of the more relevant links on comparative law, between Italian law and English Common Law:

(1) CLICK HERE, for a comparison to Canadian criminal law

(2) CLICK HERE, information on perjury, and making false accusations.

(3) CLICK HERE, for bail, extradition, and other crimes.

(4) CLICK HERE, for the U.S and Canada v. Italy.

(5) CLICK HERE, for differences in criminal appeals between Canada/U.S. and Italy.

(6) CLICK HERE, differences in double jeopardy between Canada and the U.S.

(7) CLICK HERE, for a landmark ruling on rights of self represented persons in Canada.

While the ongoing murder case was of course the main focus of the truejustice.org website, there was much discussion on how different Italian law was from the British Common Law countries. As such, it was interesting to do a compare and contrast series with these different systems.

Again, the TJMK website is definitely worth a serious read, for anyone interested in knowing the full truth of the murder case.

Why This Website Was Created

Hello to everyone.

http://www.canucklaw.ca is a new site, still in its infancy.

The purpose of this website is to create a larger discussion on laws and policies that go on throughout the world. While Canadian law is a personal interest, there is so much more to be looked at and contrasted.

**This site is different from most because comparing and contrasting laws and legal systems from different regions is the main point of it.**

Certainly, no one jurisdiction has the best answers to everything, but I believe there is something in virtually every one of them that is worth adopting, or at least worth discussing.

The site does not focus on any one area of the globe, nor any one area of law, such as (a) criminal; (b) civil; (c) family; (d) human rights; (e) international law; or (f) any others. It is meant to be very broad and to cover different areas. However, certain topics will undoubtedly grow and draw more interest than others.

While the exact nature and direction of the site is unclear, it is the hope that discussions here will influence larger discussions. With any luck, these discussions will ultimately play a role in advancing public/legal policy.

This is not to say that I want to have one set of rules or laws for everyone. I support nationalism, and reject globalism. Nations should set their own laws, and those laws should reflect the will of those people, not some world body. Still, the hope is that ideas shared will lead to broader discussion, and that people can benefit from these differences being discussed publicly.

Ideally, discussion and ideas from here will one day lead to bigger changes being implemented. Hopefully, there will be an intellectual difference made.

The site is available to anyone who wishes. All that is asked is to approach it with an open mind.