S3CA: Response To Motion To Strike


TABLE OF CONTENTS

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

ISSUES

FACTS

APPLICABLE LAW
-Right to self-representation
-Federal Court jurisdiction
-Private & Public standing
-Charter Provisions Engaged

  • 91 (POGG)
  • 15 (Equality)
  • 35 (Indigenous Rights)
  • 38 (Amending process)

-Unjust enrichment
-Unconscionability
-High burden to strike out
-Amending as an option
-Defense misrepresentation

ORDER SOUGHT


1. Written Submissions

2. Issues


-Does the Plaintiff have the right to self represent in this case?
-Does the Federal Court have jurisdiction to hear the case?
-Is there private or public interest standing in this case?
-Are the following Constitutional provisions engaged: 91 (POGG), 15 (equality rights), 35 (Indigenous rights), 38 (amending the constitution)?
-Does allowing fake refugees into Canada violate the doctrine of unjust enrichment?
-Does allowing fake refugees into Canada violate the doctrine of unconscionability?
-Does this motion meet the “very” high burden to strike out?
-Is amending the Claim a better option?
-Does the Government lawyer misrepresent the facts?

3. Facts

  1. Canada the US signed the S3CA in 2002. It came into effect in 2004.

  2. Canada is recognized as a safe country, which provides protection to people seeking genuine asylum

  3. The United States is also recognized as a safe country, and offers protection to people seeking protection from persecution based on: race, religion , political beliefs, and identity

  4. Both Canada and the US receive hundreds of thousands of refugee applications annually.

  5. Although there is a loophole in the agreement (which omits crossings “between” official ports), it was never meant to be a path for illegal immigration, or fraudulent refugee claims.

  6. Crossings from the US into Canada mainly fall into 2 categories:
    (a) Those coming to the US on tourist visas, with the intent of using the US as a stopover country,
    (b) Those living in the US illegally, who have decided to “asylum shop”

  7. There are AT LEAST 40,000 illegals who have snuck into Canada, likely many more.

  8. The Plaintiff is a self-representing, Canadian citizen, concerned about the impacts of illegal immigration. She is interested both as a private citizen, a taxpayer, and as a Canadian.

  9. Preventing illegal immigration (and bogus refugee claims), is both a private interest, and a public interest.

  10. Self represented people have every right to have their cases heard in court.

  11. Illegal immigration (such as via this loophole) undermines the integrity of the immigration system, costs cities and provinces money they don’t have, and undermines the security of the country

  12. For example, the Mayor of Toronto, John Tory, has reported that illegals have taken up almost half of the available space in homeless shelters

  13. The Federal Government has had to reimburse the Provinces (mainly Quebec and Ontario), over $300 million so far due to costs these “refugee claimants” have racked up.

  14. The Federal Government has also been paying the homeowners near Roxham Road — using taxpayer money — for the damage caused to their properties.

  15. Recently, a group of illegal “refugee claimants” has announced plans to sue Quebec for subsidized daycare.

  16. The flood of fake refugees has caused a strain on the health care system, particularly in Ontario and Quebec.

  17. All of the above statements are not “mere assertions”. They are facts which can be proven in the course of the trial and via discovery.

  18. The Government makes at least 3 serious misrepresentations.

  19. First, the Government’s lawyer, Aman Owais, misrepresents the truth when claiming the loophole was “intentionally” written into the agreement. This is provably false, since even Trudeau has publicly spoken about the need to cut the illegal border crossings.

  20. Second, there is a strawman argument that this is about refugee protections. Wrong, it is about protecting the public from illegal immigration.

  21. Third, and furthermore, Aman Owais suggests that it would be better to have a refugee claimant make this claim. This is complete nonsense. A person using legal channels wouldn’t be impacted by this case. A person using illegal means to enter Canada would have no reason to pursue this, as it would be a big conflict of interest.

4. Applicable Law

22: Self representing litigants: From Pintea v. Johns, [2017] 1 SCR 470, 2017 SCC 23 (CanLII)

[3] As a result, the finding of contempt cannot stand.
[4] We would add that we endorse the Statement of Principles on Self-represented Litigants and Accused Persons (2006) (online) established by the Canadian Judicial Council.
https://www.cjc-ccm.gc.ca/cmslib/general/news_pub_other_PrinciplesStatement_2006_en.pdf
B. PROMOTING EQUAL JUSTICE
STATEMENT:
Judges, the courts and other participants in the justice system have a responsibility to promote access to the justice system for all persons on an equal basis, regardless of representation.
PRINCIPLES:
1. Judges and court administrators should do whatever is possible to provide a fair and impartial process and prevent an unfair disadvantage to self-represented persons.
2. Self-represented persons should not be denied relief on the basis of a minor or easily rectified deficiency in their case.
3. Where appropriate, a judge should consider engaging in such case management activities as are required to protect the rights and interests of self-represented persons. Such case management should begin as early in the court process as possible.
4. When one or both parties are proceeding without representation, non-prejudicial and engaged case and courtroom management may be needed to protect the litigants’ equal right to be heard. Depending on the circumstances and nature of the case, the presiding judge may:
(a) explain the process;
(b) inquire whether both parties understand the process and the procedure;
(c) make referrals to agencies able to assist the litigant in the preparation of the case;
(d) provide information about the law and evidentiary requirements;
(e) modify the traditional order of taking evidence; and
(f) question witnesses.

23: There is nothing in the Pintea v. Johns ruling that says self-represented people can “only” appear in certain courts or in certain types of cases

Federal Court has jurisdiction to hear the case

24: Consider that the test for determining if a matter is within the Federal Court’s jurisdiction is stipulated in ITO-International Terminal Operators LTD v Miida Electronics, 1986 CanLII 91 (SCC), [1986] 1 SCR 752 at 766 [ITO-International]:

1. There must be a statutory grant of jurisdiction by Parliament.
2. There must be an existing body of federal law which is essential to the disposition of the case and which nourishes the statutory grant of jurisdiction.
3. The law on which the case is based must be “a law of Canada” as the phrase is used in s. 101 of the Constitution Act.

Furthermore, the Federal Courts Act (under Rule 25) has original jurisdiction if no other court is designated as such.
Extraprovincial jurisdiction.

Rule 25: The Federal Court has original jurisdiction, between subject and subject as well as otherwise, in any case in which a claim for relief is made or a remedy is sought under or by virtue of the laws of Canada if no other court constituted, established or continued under any of the Constitution Acts, 1867 to 1982 has jurisdiction in respect of that claim or remedy.

25: Although designed for Judicial Review Applications, the Federal Court does have authority under Rule 18.1(5) of Federal Courts Act to correct errors in form or technical defects. The Federal Court has the powers (under 47(1) and 53(1) and (2) of Federal Courts Rules), to ask with a wide degree of discretion and to make orders it views as just.

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.

26: Immigration matters are within the jurisdiction of the Federal Court. And this case is essentially about illegal immigration and border security. Furthermore, if this case prevailed, it would certainly have an impact on how asylum claims were handled in the future.

27: The Canadian Border Services Agency enforces the border, and enforces approximately 90 different acts. So there is ample Federal law to be looked at here. They are given their authority under the Customs Act.

28: Furthermore, CBSA enforces such acts as

Access to Information Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. A-1]
Aeronautics Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. A-2]
Agriculture and Agri-Food Administrative Monetary Penalties Act [S.C. 1995, c. 40]
Appropriation Acts [R.S.C. 1985, c. Z-01 ]
Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. B-3]
Canada Agricultural Products Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. 20 (4th Supp.)]
Canada Grain Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. G-10]
Canada Post Corporation Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. C-10]
Canada Shipping Act, 2001 [S.C. 2001, c. 26]
Canada Transportation Act [S.C. 1996, c. 10]
Canada-Chile Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act [S.C. 1997, c. 14]
Canada-Costa Rica Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act [S.C. 2001, c. 28]
Canada-Israel Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act [S.C. 1996, c. 33]
Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act [S.C. 1988, c. 65]
Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 [S.C. 1999, c. 33]
Canadian Wheat Board Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. C-24]
Coasting Trade Act [S.C. 1992, c. 31]
Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. C-38]
Criminal Code [R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46]
Cultural Property Export and Import Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. C-51]
Customs and Excise Offshore Application Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. C-53]
Customs Tariff [S.C. 1997, c. 36]
Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. A-9]
Department of Citizenship and Immigration Act [S.C. 1994, c. 31]
Department of Industry Act [S.C. 1995, c. 1]
Energy Efficiency Act [S.C. 1992, c. 36]
Excise Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. E-14]
Excise Act, 2001 [S.C. 2002, c. 22]
Excise Tax Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. E-15]
Explosives Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. E-17]
Export Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. E-18]
Export and Import Permits Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. E-19]
Feeds Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. F-9]
Fertilizers Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. F-10]
Financial Administration Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. F-11]
Firearms Act [S.C. 1995, c. 39]
Fish Inspection Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. F-12]
Fisheries Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. F-14]
Food and Drugs Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. F-27]
Harbour Commissions Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. H-1]
Hazardous Products Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. H-3]
Health of Animals Act [S.C. 1990, c. 21]
Immigration and Refugee Protection Act [S.C. 2001, c. 27]
Importation of Intoxicating Liquors Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. I-3]
Industrial and Regional Development Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. I-8]
International Boundary Commission Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. I-16 ]
Meat Inspection Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. 25 (1st Supp.)]
Motor Vehicle Safety Act [S.C. 1993, c. 16]
National Defence Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. N-5]
National Energy Board Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. N-7]
Navigable Waters Protection Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. N-22]
Nuclear Safety and Control Act [S.C. 1997, c. 9]
Pest Control Products Act [S.C. 2002, c. 28]
Pilotage Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. P-14]
Plant Breeders’ Rights Act [S.C. 1990, c. 20]
Plant Protection Act [S.C. 1990, c. 22]
Precious Metals Marking Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. P-19]
Preclearance Act [S.C. 1999, c. 20]
Privacy Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. P-21]
Privileges and Immunities (North Atlantic Treaty Organisation) Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. P-24]
Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act [S.C. 2000, c. 17]
Radiation Emitting Devices Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. R-1]
Radiocommunication Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. R-2]
Seeds Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. S-8]
Special Economic Measures Act [S.C. 1992, c. 17]
Special Import Measures Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. S-15]
Statistics Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. S-19]
Textile Labelling Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. T-10]
Trade-marks Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. T-13]
Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, 1992 [S.C. 1992, c. 34]
Visiting Forces Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. V-2]
Wild Animal and Plant Protection and Regulation of International and Interprovincial Trade Act [S.C. 1992, c. 52]
Source: https://www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/agency-agence/actreg-loireg/legislation-eng.html

29: The border clearly is being protected in accordance with Federal laws, and Acts passed by Parliament. So loopholes which make it harder for them to do their job at least conflict with Federal laws.

30: It has also long been held that,

The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that the Constitution does not belong to the federal or provincial governments, but to Canadian citizens (Nova Scotia (AG)), and that it is a tool for dispute resolution, of which one of the most important goals is to serve well those who make use of it: Reference Re Residential Tenancies Act, 1996 CanLII 259 (SCC), [1996] 1 SCR 186 at 210.

There private & public interest standing in this case

31: Three cases which are used to determine public interest standing are:

(a) Thorson v. Attorney General of Canada, (b) Nova Scotia Board of Censors v. McNeil, and (c) Minister of
Justice v. Borowski. The trilogy was summarized as follows in Canadian Council of
Churches v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration):

It has been seen that when public interest standing is sought, consideration must be given to three aspects.
First, is there a serious issue raised as to the invalidity of legislation in question?
Second, has it been established that the plaintiff is directly affected by the legislation or if not does the plaintiff have a genuine interest in its validity?
Third, is there another reasonable and effective way to bring the issue before the court?

32: First: if this “interpretation” of the S3CA is as the Government claims, then effectively the Canada/US border disappears, except for a small number of official crossings. That is pretty serious. Illegal immigration cannot simply be shrugged off if it is not the government raising the issue.

33: Second: Yes, I am effected by illegal immigration. As a taxpayer, and as a citizen who wants secure borders. Clearly I have a genuine interest here. Why else go to court to do this? It is insulting and misrepresents reality to suggest that citizens are not concerned and interested in the external security of their nation.

34: Third, there doesn’t seem to be another reasonable or effective way to bring it to the Courts. It is the Government itself, with a majority mandate, which seems content to end-run the intent of the law.

35: Note: Public-interest standing is also available in non-constitutional cases, as the Court found
in Finlay v. Canada (Minister of Finance)

36: Plaintiff submits that there clearly is standing to bring forward these justiciable issues on the facts pleaded. This standing is personal, but it is also public interest-based and is in line with recent jurisprudence: Canada (Attorney General) v Downtown Eastside Sex Workers United Against Violence Society, 2012 SCC 45 (CanLII); Galati, above.

Following Constitutional provisions engaged:

  • 91(POGG),
  • 15 (equality rights),
  • 35 (Indigenous rights),
  • 38 (amending the constitution)

Peace, Order & Good Governance (Section 91)

37: Consider the case of R. v. Crown Zellerbach Canada Ltd., [1988] 1 SCR 401, 1988 CanLII 63 (SCC).

33. From this survey of the opinion expressed in this Court concerning the national concern doctrine of the federal peace, order and good government power I draw the following conclusions as to what now appears to be firmly established:

1. The national concern doctrine is separate and distinct from the national emergency doctrine of the peace, order and good government power, which is chiefly distinguishable by the fact that it provides a constitutional basis for what is necessarily legislation of a temporary nature;

2. The national concern doctrine applies to both new matters which did not exist at Confederation and to matters which, although originally matters of a local or private nature in a province, have since, in the absence of national emergency, become matters of national concern;

3. For a matter to qualify as a matter of national concern in either sense it must have a singleness, distinctiveness and indivisibility that clearly distinguishes it from matters of provincial concern and a scale of impact on provincial jurisdiction that is reconcilable with the fundamental distribution of legislative power under the Constitution;

38: In looking this through the Peace, Order and Good Government (POGG) doctrine, it is worth asking should we allow actions that our laws seem designed to prevent?

34(1)(b.1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act prohibits: engaging in an act of subversion against a democratic government, institution or process as they are understood in Canada.

39: Allowing fake refugees to slip in arounf official border ports in order to “jump the queue” seems hardly in keeping with the POGG principle, or Rule 34(1)(b.1). Again, it is submitted that poor wording, not intent is the cause of this loophole.

40: The Court must also consider the national security implications of protecting the border. This should be obvious, but a nation that cannot control its border ceases to be a nation.

41: Currently, illegal border jumpers (fleeing war zones in Minnesota and New York State), are able to illegally enter Canada. They are processed, then released into the public often within hours. There is no public interest in doing this.

42: Given the vast amount of unscreened and unvetted fake “refuges” entering, there is no way to keep the public safe. This is not consistent with POGG in any sense.

43: Again, the Government’s lawyer “claims” that this loophole was intentionally written into the S3CA. This is even while Justin Trudeau and other Government members profess their desire to cut illegal entries. Obviously, both statements can’t be true.

44: As cited above, there are literally dozens of Acts which members of the CBSA are charged with enforcing. Obviously, enforcing the border is a sign of POGG. Now, how does adding a loophole to bypass some of these Acts make any sense?

45: How does it now undermine our national security? Borders are meant to be the protected outer areas of a nation. No one, except the most disingenuous would argue that borders do not matter. However, the Government does an end run around that (violating POGG doctrine), by claiming the loophole in the S3CA was intentional.

46: Border security “doesn’t” matter, apparently, as long as you go around the official checkpoints.

Section 15; Equality Rights:

47: This seems like a strange one to bring up. However, the Government of Canada’s website on Charter cases brought up an interesting argument about equality under the law.

(a) Pre-existing disadvantage, stereotyping, prejudice, or vulnerability experienced by the individual or group at issue
Section 15 has a significant remedial component (Andrews, supra at 171). Therefore, one of the most compelling factors is the impact of the governmental action on individuals or groups who are vulnerable, the object of stereotypes, disadvantaged or members of “discrete and insular minorities” (Law, supra at paragraphs 63-68). A member of a group that historically has been more disadvantaged in Canadian society is less likely to have difficulty in demonstrating discrimination (Law, supra at paragraph 68). When considering intra-group distinctions within a larger disadvantaged group (for example, as between status and non-status Indians, as determined pursuant to the Indian Act), there is no requirement that the claimant group be the more disadvantaged; there is no “race to the bottom” (Lovelace, supra at paragraph 69). Where no such unique disadvantage is established, as distinct from the broader group which provides the basis for comparison, this factor does not play a significant role (Gosselin, supra; Martin; Laseur, supra at paragraph 88).

48: In this case, the disadvantaged people are those who immigrate legally into Canada, and go through proper channels.
True, Canada’s immigration system is slow, expensive, and very complex. But that is a debate for another day. Point is, hundreds of thousands of people follow proper due process every year.

49: They are the ones who suffer as “border jumpers” push ahead of them, and get preferential treatment, and access to benefits. Furthermore, they are the ones who suffer the public backlash as Canadian get fed up with mass, illegal immigration.

50: In short, legal applicants suffer because of the actions of criminals.

Section 35: Indigenous Rights

51: From the case: Haida Nation v. British Columbia (Minister of Forests), [2004] 3 SCR 511, 2004 SCC 73 (CanLII), the issue of duty to consult to brought up.

26 Honourable negotiation implies a duty to consult with Aboriginal claimants and conclude an honourable agreement reflecting the claimants’ inherent rights. But proving rights may take time, sometimes a very long time. In the meantime, how are the interests under discussion to be treated? Underlying this question is the need to reconcile prior Aboriginal occupation of the land with the reality of Crown sovereignty. Is the Crown, under the aegis of its asserted sovereignty, entitled to use the resources at issue as it chooses, pending proof and resolution of the Aboriginal claim? Or must it adjust its conduct to reflect the as yet unresolved rights claimed by the Aboriginal claimants?

27 The answer, once again, lies in the honour of the Crown. The Crown, acting honourably, cannot cavalierly run roughshod over Aboriginal interests where claims affecting these interests are being seriously pursued in the process of treaty negotiation and proof. It must respect these potential, but yet unproven, interests.

52: The case of Taku River Tlingit First Nation v. British Columbia (Project Assessment Director), [2004] 3 SCR 550, 2004 SCC 74 (CanLII), should also be considered, and for much the same principle.

25 As discussed in Haida, what the honour of the Crown requires varies with the circumstances. It may require the Crown to consult with and accommodate Aboriginal peoples prior to taking decisions: R. v. Sparrow, 1990 CanLII 104 (SCC), [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1075, at p. 1119; R. v. Nikal, 1996 CanLII 245 (SCC), [1996] 1 S.C.R. 1013; R. v. Gladstone, 1996 CanLII 160 (SCC), [1996] 2 S.C.R. 723; Delgamuukw v. British Columbia, 1997 CanLII 302 (SCC), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 1010, at para. 168. The obligation to consult does not arise only upon proof of an Aboriginal claim, in order to justify infringement. That understanding of consultation would deny the significance of the historical roots of the honour of the Crown, and deprive it of its role in the reconciliation process. Although determining the required extent of consultation and accommodation before a final settlement is challenging, it is essential to the process mandated by s. 35(1). The duty to consult arises when a Crown actor has knowledge, real or constructive, of the potential existence of Aboriginal rights or title and contemplates conduct that might adversely affect them. This in turn may lead to a duty to change government plans or policy to accommodate Aboriginal concerns. Responsiveness is a key requirement of both consultation and accommodation.

53: It is a serious question here: how much consultation (if any), was done before signing a document that — the Federal Government now claims — eliminates the security of the Canada/US border? Just because there isn’t a claim pending doesn’t mean there are not valid Indigenous interests to be considered

54: No consultation process took place — EVER — which would fulfill the obligations to negotiate in good faith with Indigenous groups. The Government claims that the S3CA was “designed” to allow for entrants from the United States to make refugee claims, as long as they bypass the official border ports.

It would be disingenuous for the Federal Government to claim that it wouldn’t be aware of any obligation to consult prior to “erasing” the US/Canada border.

55: The Government breached is S35 obligations if, by this defense, the S3CA was drawn up with the loophole “intentionally” left in.

Substantial Consent required (section 38)

56: If the Government truly believes that POGG, and other obligations can be circumvented by intentional poor wording, then we need to amend the constitution to change what POGG means.

57: This was decided regarding the issue of changing the Senate rules (Reference re Senate Reform, [2014] 1 SCR 704, 2014 SCC 32 (CanLII) (S38). The Court cited the amending procedure.

[34] The process set out in s. 38 is the general rule for amendments to the Constitution of Canada. It reflects the principle that substantial provincial consent must be obtained for constitutional change that engages provincial interests. Section 38 codifies what is colloquially referred to as the “7/50” procedure — amendments to the Constitution of Canada must be authorized by resolutions of the Senate, the House of Commons, and legislative assemblies of at least seven provinces whose population represents, in the aggregate, at least half of the current population of all the provinces. Additionally, it grants to the provinces the right to “opt out” of constitutional amendments that derogate from “the legislative powers, the proprietary rights or any other rights or privileges of the legislature or government of a province”.

58: If what the Government says is true, then the doctrine of Peace, Order and Good Government (POGG) has been distorted to such a degree that a Constitutional amendment should be required.

59: These constitutional arguments are not exhaustive, and will be expanded on more fully as the case progresses. The point here, is that the case at hand (the loophole in the Safe Third Country Agreement), engages the same Charter rights as what is cited here.

Doctrine of unjust enrichment

60: The Court must also consider how allowing illegal immigration and fake refugees to gain priority over legal immigrant violates the doctrine of unjust enrichment.

61: Citing from 3 cases:
Kerr v. Baranow, [2011] S.C.J.
Kerr v. Baranow, 2009 BCCA 111
Vanasse v. Seguin, 2009 ONCA 595

62: These cases set the standard for unjust enrichment. (a) the person received a benefit, (b) the claimant suffered a loss corresponding in some way to the benefit, and (c) there was no juristic reason for the benefit and the loss.

63: As stated in the facts, these so-called “refugees” have been accessing public services. This costs money, and takes away from actual citizens.

64: And forget the money factor for a moment. Isn’t Canadian residence or citizenship a thing of value itself? If we consider that being Canadian is something to be valued, then doesn’t obtaining it (or Permanent Residence, or Protected Status) under false pretenses count as illegally obtaining a benefit?

Doctrine of unconscionability

65: From the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, trying to circumvent proper immigration channels should not be rewarded.

34(1)(b.1) engaging in an act of subversion against a democratic government, institution or process as they are understood in Canada;

66: If the loophole in S3CA was written in such a way as to circumvent very legitimate national security and immigration concerns, then how valid and enforceable is it?

67: Remember, Aman Owais, (the Government’s lawyer) has pleaded the intent of the agreement was “not” to apply the proper screening rules as long as self-identified “refugees” bypass official border ports. This is claimed to be intentional, not accidental.

68: Notwithstanding that no reasonable person could view it that way, and notwithstanding the Canadian Government has made announcements to cut down on these crossings, how valid are these provisions?

Does this motion meet the “very” high burden to strike out

69: Even if there are deficiencies in the Statement of Claim, they can usually be cured by filing an “amended” Statement of Claim. That must always be considered when asked to strike out. This is settled by a great many cases.

In terms of the general principles that ought to be applied on a motion to strike, the Plaintiffs assert that the facts pleaded by the Plaintiffs must be taken as proven: Canada (Attorney General) v Inuit Tapirasat of Canada, 1980 CanLII 21 (SCC), [1980] 2 SCR 735; Nelles v Ontario (1989), DLR (4th) 609 (SCC) [Nelles]; Operation Dismantle, above; Hunt v Carey Canada Inc 1990 CanLII 90 (SCC), [1990] 2 SCR 959 [Hunt]; Dumont v Canada (Attorney General), 1990 CanLII 131 (SCC), [1990] 1 SCR 279 [Dumont]; Nash v Ontario (1995), 1995 CanLII 2934 (ON CA), 27 OR (3d) 1 (Ont CA) [Nash]; Canada v Arsenault, 2009 FCA 242 (CanLII) [Arsenault].

The Plaintiffs echo the test referenced by the Defendants, asserting that a claim can be struck only in plain and obvious cases where the pleading is bad beyond argument: Nelles, above, at para 3. The Court has provided further guidance in Dumont, above, that an outcome should be “plain and obvious” or “beyond doubt” before striking can be invoked (at para 2). Striking cannot be justified by a claim that raises an “arguable, difficult or important point of law”: Hunt,

The history of our law reveals that often new developments in the law first surface on motions to strike or similar preliminary motions, like the one at issue in Donoghue v. Stevenson. Therefore, on a motion to strike, it is not determinative that the law has not yet recognized the particular claim.

70: This case DOES raise an important point of law, one the Defendant pretends doesn’t exist. Can the Court close a plain and obvious loophole in the S3CA?

71: Can a clearly frivilious, fraudulent, abusive and vexxing defense filed by the Crown be overcome?

72: Note: this does not amount to a rejection of the agreement as a whole. For the most part, it is a fine document.

Amending the Claim a better option

73: The Federal Court has the powers (under 47(1) and 53(1) and (2) of Federal Courts Rules), to ask with a wide degree of discretion and to make orders it views as just.

The novelty of the Amended Claim is not reason in and of itself to strike it: Nash, above, at para 11; Hanson v Bank of Nova Scotia (1994), 1994 CanLII 573 (ON CA), 19 OR (3d) 142 (CA); Adams-Smith v Christian Horizons (1997), 3 OR (3d) 640 (Ont Gen Div). Additionally, matters that are not fully settled by the jurisprudence should not be disposed of on a motion to strike: RD Belanger & Associates Ltd v Stadium Corp of Ontario Ltd (1991), 1991 CanLII 2731 (ON CA), 5 OR (3d) 778 (CA). In order for the Defendants to succeed, the Plaintiffs state that a case from the same jurisdiction that squarely deals with, and rejects, the very same issue must be presented: Dalex Co v Schwartz Levitsky Feldman (1994), 19 OR (3d) 215 (CA). The Court should be generous when interpreting the drafting of the pleadings, and allow for amendments prior to striking: Grant v Cormier – Grant et al (2001), 2001 CanLII 3041 (ON CA), 56 OR (3d) 215 (CA).

74: The facts as laid out in the above section are not bare assertions. They can be proven in court, going through the discovery and document production phases. It is not at all plain and obvious that the Claim is baseless.

75: Any flaws in the Plaintiff’s Statement of Claim could be cured by amending.

Government lawyer misrepresents the facts

76: The Government claims, without any basis, that the S3CA was negotiated with the “loophole” deliberately written in. In essence, they are arguing that although the Canada/US border stretches for thousands of miles, only the few dozen “legal” entry ports should be considered. Anywhere else, people are free to walk across and claim asylum. If this were actually true, it would effectively erase the Canadian border.

77: Bald assertions, without supporting facts, are not sufficient to satisfy the rules of pleading. See Rule 174 and accompanying jurisprudence. This should also applies to motions to strike.

78: Bald assertions, without facts, are baseless. If any part of the claim is “plainly and obviously” without merit, it is the defense raised by the Government.

79: The claim that the S3CA was “intended” to allow illegal border crossings is fraudulent, and an attempt to mislead and deceive the court by Aman Owais. This is plain and obvious given that members of the Government, including Justin Trudeau himself, have publicly stated the need to stop illegal border crossings. The false defense violates Rule 221, as a frivilous, vexous, and abusive misuse of Court procedure.

80: This can and will be proven in a trial.

81: Also worth noting: according to Rule 221, “inconsistent pleadings” can be struck out. So if the Government ever tries to put another spin on this, it will automatically qualify for striking.

82: And to reiterate: the “remedy” suggested makes no sense. A person entering Canada legally would have no interest in the case, since it only covers illegal entry. A person entering Canada illegally would have no reason to pursue the case, as it would be a conflict of interest. This absurd solution wastes court resources.

83: The government also appears to distort the purpose of the case. It is about protecting the Canadian public from illegal immigration, not making things easier for people to cross the border.

84: To add insult, Aman Owais also implies that I have no business attempting this case since I am not a lawyer. Arrogance. Pintea v Johns (2017, SCC) enshrines protections for “all” self-representing litigants. It doesn’t limit it to certain types of cases, or certain Courts.

85: Will closing this loophole have an impact on current and future cases? Hopefully. Otherwise, what would be the point of going to Court?

4. Summary

86: Plaintiff has a right to self represent

87: Federal Court has jurisdiction

88: Plaintiff has both a private interest, and qualifies for public interest standing

89: Constitutional provisions engaged: 91(POGG), 15 (equality rights), 35 (Indigenous rights), 38 (amending the constitution)

90: Allowing fake refugees into Canada violates the doctrine of unjust enrichment & unconscionability

91: Motion doesn’t meet the “very” high burden to strike out

92: Amending the Claim a better option than striking without leave.

93: Note: This is not an attempt to get to court to make a final ruling on the case. Rather, it is to show that there is merit to the case

94: The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that the Constitution does not belong to the federal or provincial governments, but to Canadian citizens (Nova Scotia (AG))

95: The history of our law reveals that often new developments in the law first surface on motions to strike or similar preliminary motions, like the one at issue in Donoghue v. Stevenson

96: The Court should be generous when interpreting the drafting of the pleadings, and allow for amendments prior to striking: Grant v Cormier – Grant et al (2001), 2001 CanLII 3041 (ON CA), 56 OR (3d) 215 (CA).

5. Order Sought

(a) Dismiss the motion; or
(b) Allow the Plaintiff an opportunity to amend the statement of claim.

Defense Motion To Stike: Safe 3rd Country Agreement Loophole

On Thursday, the Federal Government filed a motion to strike out (throw out) challenge to closing the loophole in the Canada/US Safe 3rd Country Agreement.

Here are the main points:

(1) I’m not a lawyer, so it is a waste of the court’s time to hear from someone who isn’t professionally trained.

That is irrelevant. Self-reps are allowed to do their own work, and the Court must give them fair consideration as per the Supreme Court ruling (Pintea v. Johns, 2017)

(2) I have no standing, either privately or publicly, to challenge this matter.

Sure, protecting the integrity of your borders and immigration systems are not at all a public or private interest.

(3) I have no genuine interest in the matter.

Obviously not, I just filed the case for fun (sarcasm).

(4) Challenge would be better off coming from someone directly effected by the S3CA loophole, such as an actual refugee claimant.

Even if this were true, it would be a huge conflict of interest. Why would a refugee claimant file a challenge to make rules harder for him/herself?

(5) Hearing this case is a waste of court resources

No, letting tens of thousands of illegals in at taxpayer expense is a waste of resources. This is just to stop it.

(6) Federal Court not the place to bring challenges to immigration law

Immigration is a Federal jurisdiction. The Federal Court has jurisdiction to hear applications for judicial review (when immigration and refugee claims are denied). They should also have the ability to decide what is proper procedure.

(7) This would involve making a ruling that would impact other “refugee claimants'” hearings and claims.

That is the point.

(8) Orginal document not worded clearly or specificly enough.

Thank you for the head’s up.

Of course, this is an overly simplified response. The real one will be coming soon enough.

Opinion: Why Pride is Obsolete

(We’re tolerant, except to police officers)

(Pride: lesbians v.s. transgenders)

(Brown and black added for “racial inclusion”)

Serious question: What is the ultimate goal of the LGBT movement?

  1. Achieving equality and acceptance in mainstream life
  2. Constantly viewing itself as a victim in need of protection
  3. Both (1) and (2)

We live in a country where gays and trans have full equality under the law, and have for many years.

So called “marriage equality” was settled in Canada back in 2005. That’s right, 14 years ago. There are also provisions in every Provincial human rights code to protect sexual orientation. And hate crime provisions have existed for many years in the Criminal Code.

We also live in a country where being trans is protected, and employers and schools are required to make accommodations. Bill C-16 seems to be both poorly written and overkill.

You would think all is great, but not so. Despite the very limited scientific knowledge on gender dysphoria, we are prohibited from questioning it, even in young children. Even in our children. Questioning if changing gender is possible will now net a hefty fine. Bake-my-cake-or-I’ll-sue is no longer just a punchline, at least in Colorado. And SOGI has creeped into elementary schools.

Note: The issues and concerns with how gender dysphoria is treated will be a topic for another post. Likewise with having young children transition.

The problem with advocacy groups is that they eventually run out of grievances to protest. And the need to celebrate a movement becomes less and less important.

If misgendering people, or suing over wedding cakes is the worst we have going on, then what genuine causes are left?

Answer: No serious causes.

Since LGBT people enjoy full rights, and equality under the law, why does this need to be flaunted in public every Spring/Summer? Isn’t the ultimate goal to live freely and without stigmatization as your true self? This is what activists don’t seem to realize.

And while a small march or parade seems harmless enough, some larger Prides are downright raunchy (Toronto is a specific example). Nudity and lewd behaviour do often happen, at sites where children are present. For the sake of readers, I’ll spare the details. What this does to promote equality is beyond me.

If LGBT people want to just go about their lives, nothing stops them. Legally, nothing can stop them, and the vast majority of people don’t care. Prides (and other such events) detract from this by bringing the issue up again and again, throwing it in the public’s face.

Yes, people had their rights violated in the past, but that ended decades ago. It doesn’t help to bring it up with people who had absolutely no involvement. It also doesn’t help when municipalities fund (all or in part) of these movements.

As an aside, LGBT activists often get triggered at the idea (often trolling) of a “straight pride”. Well, identity cuts both ways, doesn’t it?

Having equality is an important part of this nation, but your orientation or identity isn’t. It doesn’t need to be forced on the public. Rather, Canada should focus more on what built the nation, and what holds it together.

The question at the start seemed rhetorical, but is not. Activists want option (3).

Guys, you won. Go live your lives.

A Nationalist’s Rejection of Conservatism and Libertarianism

This is going to be quite different from the usual article. This is simply an ideological standing: Nationalism v.s. Conservatism and Libertarianism.

1. Disclaimer

  1. This is an opinion. Don’t be triggered.
  2. Feedback or rebuttal always welcome.
  3. Most of the following is backed up in other articles.

2. Rejection Of Conservativism


As is now a common rebuttal point, so called “Conservatives” don’t actually conserve anything. This is true throughout the Western world. Most “Conservative” parties are really just corporatists, trying to serve a business class.

  • Culture isn’t conserved. Multiculturalism is forced upon us.
  • Language isn’t conserved, and learning it becomes less of a priority
  • Heritage isn’t conserved. Our history can be rewritten.
  • Founding of nation isn’t conserved. Everyone is replaceable.
  • Respect for life isn’t conserved.
  • Any meaning of family isn’t conserved
  • Any religion which helped found society isn’t conserved.
  • With the above points, the “majority” culture, language or heritage dwindles, however, “minority” ones are encouraged to thrive.
  • The environment isn’t conserved (the lefties are right on this one).
  • Education standards aren’t conserved. School is big business.
  • Pensions and social benefits aren’t conserved.
  • Health Care isn’t conserved.
  • National borders aren’t conserved.
  • National sovereignty isn’t conserved.
  • Military strength isn’t conserved, nor veterans cared for.
  • Actual free markets aren’t conserved. Cronyism is rampant.
  • “Small Government” ideals aren’t conserved.
  • Employment prospects aren’t conserved, if they can be outsourced.
  • True free speech isn’t conserved

Any semblance of “social conservatism” has long been abandoned by these “self-identified” conservative parties. As such, money, growth, and individualism seem to be the only things that matter.

And while “Conservatives” like to crow about how responsible they are with the public purse, successive governments have heaped debts onto the populations. But they don’t like that detail pointed out.

Consider too: so called neo-cons who have little to no hesitation about starting foreign wars abroad either for resources or power.

Most topics on the list have been addressed elsewhere on the site. There is much more to a nation than GDP, unemployment and stock prices.

3. Rejection Of Libertarianism


Most of the above points can also be directed towards Libertarians. They have no interest in conserving anything either.

To be fair, Libertarians do have a genuine interest in smaller government overall. They push for less regulation and government involvement in people’s lives. Valid points.

An interesting note: while pushing for “individual” rights and freedoms, Libertarians (many anyway), take no issue with mass migration from cultures which push for “collective” powers. It never seems to dawn on them that these freedoms can be eventually voted away by the people they welcome.

It also never occurs to Libertarians (or Conservatives) that in pushing for multiculturalism, they are forging alliances with groups which will wield power by numbers. Individual preference doesn’t matter when an entire group votes another way.

4. Protect Individual Rights


Looking out for group identity doesn’t mean we should have to — EVER — give up our individual freedoms, such as these:

  1. Freedom of speech
  2. Freedom of association
  3. Freedom of the press
  4. Freedom of peaceful assembly
  5. Freedom of religion (except violent movements “cloaked” as religion)
  6. Private property rights
  7. Presumption of innocence in criminal proceedings

Most (if not all) nationalists also support these rights.

While Libertarians go on about the “dangers of collectivism”, it never dawns on them that collectivism can also help preserve these rights. If your group believes in individual rights, then as a group it can act to protect them.

Much harder to do when “individuals” work against “collectives” who oppose these freedoms, or your way of life.

5. Look To Generations Ahead


This should be commonsense, but is worth repeating: we should be looking ahead generations to what kind of society we will leave our descendants. It is not worth sacrificing it for our short term gain.

Left v.s. Right is a myth to obscure the real distinction of Nationalist v.s. Globalist. Other labels differ, but are irrelevant. Doesn’t matter if these “right-wingers” self identify as:
-Classical Liberals
-Conservatives
-Real Conservatives
-Libertarians

Policies should be aimed at protecting the items cited above (Section #2). After all, our ancestors left them to us.

As such, nationalism is the way forward.
OUR PEOPLE COME FIRST.

Different Approach On Fixing S3CA Loophole


Check toolbar on right for globalism links (under counter). Also view the MASTERLIST.

PETITION E-1906 (UN Global Migration Compact): CLICK HERE
PETITION E-2012 (UN Global Parliament) CLICK HERE

All personal court appearances are under “BLOG
Fed Court cases are addressed on right under “Canadian Media”.


IMPORTANT LINKS


CLICK HERE, for trying to use Notice of Application.
CLICK HERE, for trying to get a motion to extend time for A.J.R.
CLICK HERE, for background on the loophole.
CLICK HERE, for abuse of loophole in S3CA.

CLICK HERE, for the Canada/US Safe 3rd Country Agreement.
CLICK HERE, for the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

BACKGROUND INFO


The Federal Court has shot down multiple attempts to use application for judicial review (Section 18 of Federal Courts Act) to correct this problem. So, now the next approach taken: ask for straight-up enforcement of how the agreement was “intended” to be.

Specifically, it was never meant that anyone could bypass the S3CA simply by going around official checkpoints.

NEW ATTEMPT: CLAIM FOR ENFORCEMENT

Facts Alleged

  1. The Safe Third Country Agreement (S3CA) was signed between Canada and the United States on December 5, 2002, under then Prime Minister Jean Chretien.

  2. The Safe Third Country Agreement (S3CA) came into effect on December 29, 2004, under then Prime Minister Paul Martin.

  3. The intention behind this agreement is to recognize that both countries are “safe” countries, and that “asylum seekers”, shouldn’t be “shopping around” for a better country to arrive at.

  4. The Safe Third Country Agreement (S3CA) remains in effect legally, the only issue is of enforcing it properly.

  5. Recently, however, more than 40,000 economic migrants (fake refugees) have come into Canada from the United States. This poses security and financial burdens.

  6. Instead of deporting these illegal, economic migrants (fake refugees), the Federal Government has decided instead to take them in, at great expense to taxpayers.

  7. By far the most common location is Roxham Road, in Quebec, which shares a border with New York State.

  8. A loophole in the S3CA means this only covers “official ports of entry”, or official land border crossings. This means the law can be circumvented merely by going AROUND any official border crossings.

  9. While the wording in the official agreement may be poor, the intent was to avoid “asylum shopping”.

  10. No reasonable person could interpret the agreement to mean that the agreement could be
    bypassed by ignoring official checkpoints. That would reward lawbreakers.

  11. This is even more outrageous when considered that the US gets tens of thousands of asylum applications annually. Hardly a dangerous place.

Law On The Subject

(12) As specified on the Canadian Government’s own website, the point of the Safe Third Country Agreement (S3CA) is to prevent abuse. Here is a quote:

The Safe Third Country Agreement between Canada and the United States (U.S.) is part of the U.S.–Canada Smart Border Action Plan. Under the Agreement, refugee claimants are required to request refugee protection in the first safe country they arrive in, unless they qualify for an exception to the Agreement.

The Agreement helps both governments better manage access to the refugee system in each country for people crossing the Canada–U.S. land border. The two countries signed the Agreement on December 5, 2002, and it came into effect on December 29, 2004.

To date, the U.S. is the only country that is designated as a safe third country by Canada under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. The Agreement does not apply to U.S. citizens or habitual residents of the U.S. who are not citizens of any country (“stateless persons”).

(13) There is nothing vague or arguable about the intent of the agreement. People seeking asylum are required to apply for asylum in the first safe country they arrive at.

(14) Canada recognises the United States as a safe country. Period.

(15) It is further codified later on the Government website

Section 102 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) permits the designation of safe third countries for the purpose of sharing the responsibility for refugee claims. Only countries that respect human rights and offer a high degree
of protection to asylum seekers may be designated as safe third countries. To date, the United States is the only designated safe third country.

(16) And from reading Section 102 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, we gain this information.

Regulations
102 (1) The regulations may govern matters relating to the application of sections
100 and 101, may, for the purposes of this Act, define the terms used in those sections and, for the purpose of sharing responsibility with governments of foreign states for the consideration of refugee claims, may include provisions
(a) designating countries that comply with Article 33 of the Refugee Convention and Article 3 of the Convention Against Torture;
(b) making a list of those countries and amending it as necessary; and
(c) respecting the circumstances and criteria for the application of paragraph
101(1)(e).

Marginal note:Factors
(2) The following factors are to be considered in designating a country under
paragraph (1)(a):
(a) whether the country is a party to the Refugee Convention and to the
Convention Against Torture;
(b) its policies and practices with respect to claims under the Refugee Convention
and with respect to obligations under the Convention Against Torture;
(c) its human rights record; and
(d) whether it is party to an agreement with the Government of Canada for the
purpose of sharing responsibility with respect to claims for refugee protection.
Source: https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/I-2.5/page-19.html#h-56

(17) The United States, being the only officially designated “safe country” certainly means that people are safe there.

(18) To reiterate, it is the complete flaunting of a legitimate international agreement that is the issue. The S3CA was NEVER meant to mean anyone can claim asylum in Canada if they merely bypass official checkpoints.

(19) Under 101(1)(e) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, so called “asylum seekers” who enter Canada illegally via the US would be inadmissible anyways, even without the S3CA.

101(1)(e) the claimant came directly or indirectly to Canada from a country designated by the regulations, other than a country of their nationality or their former habitual residence; or

(20) Again, clearly this would make these illegal economic migrants ineligible.

(21) And to beat a dead horse, these illegal, economic migrants (fake refugees) would be ineligible under 34(1)(1.b) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. This is on the grounds that it would be subversion against an institution or process.
34(1)(b.1) engaging in an act of subversion against a democratic government, institution or process as they are understood in Canada;

(22) Also, allowing these illegal economic migrants (fake refugees), into Canada from the United States arguably violates AMERICAN law. Consider Section 101(a)(42) of the Immigration and Naturalization Act.

(42) The term “refugee” means
(A) any person who is outside any country of such
person’s
 nationality or, in the case of a person having no nationality, is outside any country in which such person last habitually resided and who is unable or unwilling to return to, and is unable or unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of, that country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in
a particular social group,or political opinion, or
 (B) in such special circumstances as the President after appropriate
consultation (as defined in section 1157(e) of this title) may specify, any
person who is within the country of such person’s

Here is the source.

(23) Please note: the Canadian Federal Court is not being asked to rule on the validity of US refugee laws. This is added to acknowledge that the US does offer refugee status to approved asylum applicants. Again, this is not an attempt to amend or alter US law.

(24) Allowing this to happen is not saved by Perogative Powers. True, the Executive Branch of the Federal Government has the power to make treaties, and has legitimate purpose.

(25) However this is a treaty signed by a previous administration, that of Jean Chretien in December 2002. The treaty is valid, binding, and to this date, has never been rescinded. The current federal government must respect that.

(26) If the current administration has no interest in enforcing the S3CA as it was intended, then perhaps they should leave the agreement entirely.

Public Interest

(27) As should be obvious from the content of the Statement of Claim, this case is not about money, or getting rich from it. It is about enforcing the integrity of existing border security laws.

(28) The Federal Government has an obligation to the public to enforce agreements in good faith, and to not allow loopholes to undermine public policy.

Remedies Sought

(a) To declare the entire Canada/US border an “official port of entry” or an “official border crossing” to close the loophole in the S3CA.
(b) To deport automatically illegal economic migrants (fake refugees) attempting to cross in the future.
(c) To retroactively void/deny or invalidate any existing or previous claims (where these illegal crossings happen) on grounds that it takes advantage of the loophole

Loophole in Canada/US Safe 3rd Country Agreement: Notice of Application


Check toolbar on right for globalism links (under counter). Also view the MASTERLIST.

PETITION E-1906 (UN Global Migration Compact): CLICK HERE
PETITION E-2012 (UN Global Parliament) CLICK HERE

All personal court appearances are under “BLOG

Fed Court cases are addressed on right under “Canadian Media”.


CLICK HERE, for the final text of S3CA.
CLICK HERE, for article which explains what the loophole in the S3CA is.
CLICK HERE, for previous article, on closing the loophole.

Note: Service had been attempted a few weeks back via a “Notice of Motion” to extend time to file a challenge to the Canada/US Safe 3rd Country Agreement. However, the Department of Justice refused (yes refused) to accept it. So after some thought, this is how it will be done: Not seek to modify the agreement itself, but ask to get it enforced as it should have been. Different tactic, same end goal.

TO THE RESPONDENT:
A PROCEEDING HAS BEEN COMMENCED by the applicant. The relief claimed by the applicant appears on the following page.

THIS APPLICATION will be heard by the Court at a time and place to be fixed by the Judicial Administrator. Unless the Court orders otherwise, the place of hearing will be as requested by the applicant. The applicant requests that this application be heard at Calgary Federal Court.

IF YOU WISH TO OPPOSE THIS APPLICATION, to receive notice of any step in the application or to be served with any documents in the application, you or a solicitor acting for you must prepare a notice of appearance in Form 305 prescribed by the Federal Courts Rules and serve it on the applicant's solicitor, or where the applicant is self-represented, on the applicant, WITHIN 10 DAYS after being served with this notice of application.

Copies of the Federal Courts Rules information concerning the local offices of the Court and other necessary information may be obtained on request to the Administrator of this Court at Ottawa (telephone 613-992-4238) or at any local office.

IF YOU FAIL TO OPPOSE THIS APPLICATION, JUDGMENT MAY BE GIVEN IN YOUR ABSENCE AND WITHOUT FURTHER NOTICE TO YOU.

APPLICATION

This is an application for judicial review in respect of Approximately 40,000 economic migrants (fake refugees), have crossed the border into Canada claiming asylum. They are taking advantage of a loophole in the Canada/US Safe 3rd Country Agreement, which only covers official ports of entry. However, no one could REASONABLY believe that this is how the agreement was intended when it was drafted.

The applicant makes application for:

(a) To issue a permanent, binding injunction against the Federal Government letting economic migrants (fake refugees) who enter Canada from the United States (via Roxham Rd. and elsewhere), make asylum claims in Canada.

(b) To find that the S3CA “meant” that refugees couldn’t land in one country and hop to the other, that they have to file for asylum in the first country they arrive in. The agreement means Canada and the US view each other as “safe countries”.

(c) To find that the agreement should apply across the ENTIRE Canada/US border, and that “Official Port of Entry” limitation is just poor wording.

(d) To find that not honouring the spirit and principles of the Canada/US Safe 3rd Country violates the intent of that Agreement.

Alternatively an order that:

(e) If the Government of Canada chooses not to participate in good faith in the Safe 3rd Country Agreement, that an act of parliament is required to withdraw from it.

(f) If the Government of Canada chooses to alter the terms of the Safe 3rd Country Agreement, that it must renegotiate with the United States.

The grounds for the application are:

  1. First: Does allowing illegal economic migrants entering from the US to claim asylum violate the spirit and principle of the Canada/US Safe Third Country Agreement, provided they circumvent official border checkpoints? This treaty was signed in 2002 by bth parties. Should it be honoured as it was reasonably intended to be?

  2. Second: Does allowing illegal economic migrants (fake refugees), into Canada end up violating US immigration regulations? These migrants would be travelling to the US on tourist visas, with the intention of coming to Canada to claim asylum. Bear in mind, the Court is not being asked to make a ruling that would impact US laws.

  3. Third: Does allowing large numbers of unscreened, unvetted, illegal economic migrants (fake refugees), into Canada under false pretenses violate Section 7 of the Charter, which guarantees security of the person?

  4. Fourth: Does allowing illegal economic migrants (fake refugees) to come across the Canada/US border violate Sections 91 and 92 of the Constitution, considering that most social services are Provincial jurisdiction?

5. Fifth: Does allowing illegal economic migrants (fake refugees) to come across the Canada/US border violate Sections 5/6 of the Canadian Human Rights Code, since they get priority of social services over citizens and legal residents?

6. Sixth: Does allowing illegal economic migrants (fake refugees) to come across the Canada/US border violate Immigration and Refugee Protection Act: Sections 3(2)(a) since they aren’t refugees, and 3(2)(e), since doing so would not maintain the integrity of the system, and 10.1(4) since the application would be based on misrepresentation?

This application will be supported by the following material:

    Copy of Canada/US Safe 3rd Country Agreement
    Information from both Canada/US Immigration websites
    Documentation showing mass illegal migration across border
    Other documentation as needed

Calgary 3.0: Challenge To Proposed UN Parliament

(Canada’s Federal Courts Website)

(Topic Previously Covered by Canuck Law)


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

PETITION E-1906 (UN Global Migration Compact): CLICK HERE
PETITION E-2012 (UN Global Parliament) CLICK HERE

All personal court appearances are under “BLOG

(1) Challenge to UN Global Migration Compact dismissed in Calgary, however Court rules that it is not intended to be a legally binding contract.

(2) Challenge launched to close loophole in Canada/US Safe 3rd Country Agreement


CLICK HERE, for a very interesting page on free speech in Canada (links included).

Here is a portion of what is going to the Federal Court of Canada:

REMEDY SOUGHT
(a) To issue a permanent, binding injunction against the Federal Government ever participating in such a United Nations Parliament or other ”World Government” scheme on the grounds it violates the laws cited above

(b) To find that any such actions in furtherance of this scheme are unconstitutional.

Alternatively an order that:
(c) To rule that any such measure would require the following forms of consent:
I/ Vote from the Federal House of Commons
II/ Vote from the Senate
III/ Signature of the Prime Minister
IV/ Royal Assent from the Governor General
V/ A nationwide referendum on this issue with 75% majority
VI/ 7 of 10 Provinces (with 50%+ population) affirming

Note, should that alternative be ordered, it is asked that the court also rule for (c), that any Province or Municipality that wishes to opt out may do so.

Written submissions For challenge to UN Parliament

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

Part I: Jurisdiction

  1. 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.

  2. Federal Court also has jurisdiction to issue an injunction under Rule 18(1)(a) and 18(3) of Federal Courts Act ”
    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;

  3. 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.

  4. 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. Since there is no ”single person” who is responsible for this mess, the Attorney General of Canada shall be named as a Defendant

Part II: Issues

  1. Seven questions to consider

  2. First: Does the proposed UN Parliamentary Assembly (World Government), violate the 1867-1982 Constitution Act, which requires the Government of Canada to provide, “Peace, Order and Good Government” and makes no provision for abdication of that duty to supra-national bodies?

  3. Second: Does the proposed UN Parliamentary Assembly (World Government) violate the 1982 Constitution Act, which states that it is the supreme law of Canada, and that any laws that any law that is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution is, to the extent of the inconsistency, of no force or effect.”

  4. Third: Considering that this would add a new layer of Government to Canada, would this violate Sections 91 and 92 of the Consitution, which separate Federal and Provincial Jurisdictions?

  5. Fourth: Does the proposed UN Parliamentary Assembly (World Government), require a constitutional amendment (Part V, Section 38 of the Constitution) that would require consent of:
    (a) The House of Commons
    (b) The Senate
    (c) 7 of 10 Provinces, consisting of 50%+ of the population

  6. Fifth: Does the proposed UN Parliamentary Assembly (World Government) violate Section 3 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which ensure all Canadians the right to participate in their democracy?

  7. Sixth: Given some of the initiatives the UN proposes, such as internet regulation and free speech restrictions, would these violate Canadians’ fundamental freedoms, enshrined in Section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and explicitly affirmed in Section 32?

  8. Seventh: Would the proposed UN Parliamentary Assembly (World Government), violate Part II, Section 35 of the Constitution of Canada, which enshrines Aboriginal Rights?

Part III: Facts

  1. The United Nations (UN) is a globalist body which more and more is taking rights and sovereignty away from individual nation states

  2. Since 2007, there has been an initiative by high ranking politicians and former politicians of ”UN Countries” to form a United Nations Parliamentary Assembly (UNPA). Dozens of current Canadian MPs, including Liberal, NDP, PM Justin Trudeau, and Green Party Leader Elizabeth May have all endorsed such a World Gov’t (Exhibit B)

  3. As shown by screenshots (Exhibit A) from the website, the goal is explicitly to form LEGALLY BINDING decisions. This would in effect reduce nations to mere ”States” or ”Provinces” of the UN.

  4. Other initiatives by the UN include
    A/ Internet governance (digital cooperation)
    B/ Global ban on blasphemy (criticism of Islam)
    C/ Gender language agenda
    D/ Global MIgration Compact (258M economic migrants)
    E/ Paris Accord (carbon taxes)
    F/ UN Global Citizenship Education
    G/ Encouraging repatriation of Islamic terrorists
    H/ Right to abortion (even for children)
    I/ Agenda 21 (June 1992)
    J/ Agenda 2030 (September 2015)
    K/ Urban Development Agenda

  5. This is only a partial list. But if this proposed UN Parliamentary Assembly (World Government) were ever to take place, all of these ”non-legally binding” initiatives will become ”legally-binding”.

  6. Canadians have never been asked to vote on such a matter, either at the Municipal, Provincial or Federal level. The Government of Canada (nor any Gov’t) has no legal or moral mandate to enact such a proposal.

  7. Canadians have never participated in any sort of national referendum to guage interest and approval of such an idea.

  8. Canadians have never had the sort of public debate necessary to give an informed and intelligent response to such a proposed World Government.

Part IV: Relevant Laws

  1. The proposed United Nations Parliamentary Assembly (World Government) should be rejected because it violates a number of Constitutional provisions. Here are some of them:

(a) Section 2 of Charter: Fundamental Freedoms
(b) Section 3 of Charter: Right to participate in democracy
(c) Section 32 of Charter: Applicability
(d) Part II, Section 35 of Constitution, Aboriginal rights
(e) Part V, Section 38 of Constitution, amending Constitution
(f) Part VII, Section 52 of Constitution, primacy of Constitution
(g) Part VI: Section 91 & 92 of Constitution, distribution of powers

FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS (S2)

  1. (a) Fundamental Freedoms
    Marginal note:
    Fundamental freedoms
  2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
    (a) freedom of conscience and religion;
    (b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
    (c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
    (d) freedom of association.

DEMOCRATIC RIGHTS (S3)

  1. Democratic Rights
    Marginal note:
    Democratic rights of citizens
  2. Every citizen of Canada has the right to vote in an election of members of the House of Commons or of a legislative assembly and to be qualified for membership therein.

APPLICATION OF THE CHARTER (S32)

  1. Application of Charter
    Marginal note:
    Application of Charter
  2. (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.

ABORIGINAL RIGHTS (S35)

  1. RIGHTS OF THE ABORIGINAL PEOPLES OF CANADA
    Marginal note:
    Recognition of existing aboriginal and treaty rights
  2. (1) The existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada are hereby recognized and affirmed.
    Definition of “aboriginal peoples of Canada”
    (2) In this Act, “aboriginal peoples of Canada” includes the Indian, Inuit and Métis peoples of Canada.
    Marginal note:
    Land claims agreements
    (3) For greater certainty, in subsection (1) “treaty rights” includes rights that now exist by way of land claims agreements or may be so acquired.

PROCEDURE FOR AMENDING CONSTITUTION (S38)

  1. PROCEDURE FOR AMENDING CONSTITUTION OF CANADA (101)
    Marginal note:
    General procedure for amending Constitution of Canada
  2. (1) An amendment to the Constitution of Canada may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada where so authorized by
    (a) resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons; and
    (b) resolutions of the legislative assemblies of at least two-thirds of the provinces that have, in the aggregate, according to the then latest general census, at least fifty per cent of the population of all the provinces.
    Marginal note:
    Majority of members
    (2) An amendment made under subsection (1) that derogates from the legislative powers, the proprietary rights or any other rights or privileges of the legislature or government of a province shall require a resolution supported by a majority of the members of each of the Senate, the House of Commons and the legislative assemblies required under subsection (1).
    Marginal note:
    Expression of dissent
    (3) An amendment referred to in subsection (2) shall not have effect in a province the legislative assembly of which has expressed its dissent thereto by resolution supported by a majority of its members prior to the issue of the proclamation to which the amendment relates unless that legislative assembly, subsequently, by resolution supported by a majority of its members, revokes its dissent and authorizes the amendment.

PRIMACY OF CONSTITUTION (S52)

  1. Primacy of Constitution of Canada
  2. (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.

DISTRIBUTION OF POWERS (S91/S92)

  1. VI. DISTRIBUTION OF LEGISLATIVE POWERS
    Powers of the Parliament
    Marginal note:
    Legislative Authority of Parliament of Canada
  2. It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate and House of Commons, to make Laws for the Peace, Order, and good Government of Canada, in relation to all Matters not coming within the Classes of Subjects by this Act assigned exclusively to the Legislatures of the Provinces; and for greater Certainty, but not so as to restrict the Generality of the foregoing Terms of this Section, it is hereby declared that (notwithstanding anything in this Act) the exclusive Legislative Authority of the Parliament of Canada extends to all Matters coming within the Classes of Subjects next hereinafter enumerated; that is to say,
  3. Repealed. (44)
    1A.
    The Public Debt and Property. (45)
  4. The Regulation of Trade and Commerce.
    2A.
    Unemployment insurance. (46)
  5. The raising of Money by any Mode or System of Taxation.
    And any Matter coming within any of the Classes of Subjects enumerated in this Section shall not be deemed to come within the Class of Matters of a local or private Nature comprised in the Enumeration of the Classes of Subjects by this Act assigned exclusively to the Legislatures of the Provinces. (47)
    Exclusive Powers of Provincial Legislatures
    Marginal note:
    Subjects of exclusive Provincial Legislation
  6. In each Province the Legislature may exclusively make Laws in relation to Matters coming within the Classes of Subjects next hereinafter enumerated; that is to say,
  7. Repealed. (48)
  8. Direct Taxation within the Province in order to the raising of a Revenue for Provincial Purposes.
  9. The borrowing of Money on the sole Credit of the Province.
  10. The Establishment and Tenure of Provincial Offices and the Appointment and Payment of Provincial Officers.
  11. The Management and Sale of the Public Lands belonging to the Province and of the Timber and Wood thereon.
  12. The Establishment, Maintenance, and Management of Public and Reformatory Prisons in and for the Province.
  13. The Establishment, Maintenance, and Management of Hospitals, Asylums, Charities, and Eleemosynary Institutions in and for the Province, other than Marine Hospitals.
  14. Municipal Institutions in the Province.
  15. Shop, Saloon, Tavern, Auctioneer, and other Licences in order to the raising of a Revenue for Provincial, Local, or Municipal Purposes.
  16. Local Works and Undertakings other than such as are of the following Classes:
    (a)
    Lines of Steam or other Ships, Railways, Canals, Telegraphs, and other Works and Undertakings connecting the Province with any other or others of the Provinces, or extending beyond the Limits of the Province:
    (b)
    Lines of Steam Ships between the Province and any British or Foreign Country:
    (c)
    Such Works as, although wholly situate within the Province, are before or after their Execution declared by the Parliament of Canada to be for the general Advantage of Canada or for the Advantage of Two or more of the Provinces.
  17. The Incorporation of Companies with Provincial Objects.
  18. The Solemnization of Marriage in the Province.
  19. Property and Civil Rights in the Province.
  20. The Administration of Justice in the Province, including the Constitution, Maintenance, and Organization of Provincial Courts, both of Civil and of Criminal Jurisdiction, and including Procedure in Civil Matters in those Courts.
  21. The Imposition of Punishment by Fine, Penalty, or Imprisonment for enforcing any Law of the Province made in relation to any Matter coming within any of the Classes of Subjects enumerated in this Section.
  22. Generally all Matters of a merely local or private Nature in the Province.

  23. Sections 91 and 92 have no provision for any supra-national body to interfere with this distribution of powers.

  24. Note that ”Parliamentary Perogative” does not apply here, since the proposed Gobal Government is not a treaty BETWEEN governments. Rather, it would dissolve nations in favour of a supra-national body,

Part V: Authorities

Reference re Senate Reform, [2014] 1 SCR 704, 2014 SCC 32 (CanLII) (S38)
CLICK HERE, for full text of decision.

Sibbeston v. Canada (Attorney-General), 1988 CanLII 5673 (NWT CA) (S52)
CLICK HERE, for full text of decision.

Irwin Toy Ltd. v. Quebec (Attorney General), [1989] 1 SCR 927, 1989 CanLII 87 (SCC) (S2)
CLICK HERE, for the full text of decision.

Figueroa v. Canada (Attorney General), [2003] 1 S.C.R. 912 (S3)
CLICK HERE, for decision, view para 27, 30, 31.

2 cases on Aboriginal duty to consult:
Haida Nation v. British Columbia (Minister of Forests), [2004] 3 SCR 511, 2004 SCC 73 (CanLII) (S35)
(1) CLICK HERE, for full text of decision.

(2) Taku River Tlingit First Nation v. British Columbia (Project Assessment Director), [2004] 3 SCR 550, 2004 SCC 74 (CanLII) (S35)
CLICK HERE, for full text of decision.


Reference re Senate Reform, [2014] 1 SCR 704, 2014 SCC 32 (CanLII) (S38)
CLICK HERE, for full text of decision.

(a) The General Amending Procedure
[33] Section 38 of the Constitution Act, 1982 provides:
38. (1) An amendment to the Constitution of Canada may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada where so authorized by

(a) resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons; and

(b) resolutions of the legislative assemblies of at least two-thirds of the provinces that have, in the aggregate, according to the then latest general census, at least fifty per cent of the population of all the provinces.

(2) An amendment made under subsection (1) that derogates from the legislative powers, the proprietary rights or any other rights or privileges of the legislature or government of a province shall require a resolution supported by a majority of the members of each of the Senate, the House of Commons and the legislative assemblies required under subsection (1).

(3) An amendment referred to in subsection (2) shall not have effect in a province the legislative assembly of which has expressed its dissent thereto by resolution supported by a majority of its members prior to the issue of the proclamation to which the amendment relates unless that legislative assembly, subsequently, by resolution supported by a majority of its members, revokes its dissent and authorizes the amendment.

(4) A resolution of dissent made for the purposes of subsection (3) may be revoked at any time before or after the issue of the proclamation to which it relates.

[34] The process set out in s. 38 is the general rule for amendments to the Constitution of Canada. It reflects the principle that substantial provincial consent must be obtained for constitutional change that engages provincial interests. Section 38 codifies what is colloquially referred to as the “7/50” procedure — amendments to the Constitution of Canada must be authorized by resolutions of the Senate, the House of Commons, and legislative assemblies of at least seven provinces whose population represents, in the aggregate, at least half of the current population of all the provinces. Additionally, it grants to the provinces the right to “opt out” of constitutional amendments that derogate from “the legislative powers, the proprietary rights or any other rights or privileges of the legislature or government of a province”.

  1. Sibbeston v. Canada (Attorney-General), 1988 CanLII 5673 (NWT CA) (S52)
    CLICK HERE, for full text of decision.

[6] The respondent’s amended petition cannot be pursued under principles of Canadian constitutional practice that must now be regarded as established. They include the political reality that it is the people of Canada, expressing their political will through the joint constitutional authority of the Parliament of Canada and the elected legislative assemblies of the provinces, who are sovereign in the delineation of federal-provincial power-sharing under the Constitution of Canada. Beyond that no segment of the Constitution of Canada, including the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, is paramount to other segments, or indeed the balance, of the Constitution. The Constitution “as a whole” is Canada’s supreme law.

[7] Section 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982, provides:
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.
(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).
(3) Amendments to the Constitution of Canada shall be made only in accordance with the authority contained in the Constitution of Canada.

[8] Section 52 espouses the equality of its components including amendments. Charter scrutiny could not have been reserved by its drafters: Reference re an Act to Amend the Education Act (Ontario) (1987), 1987 CanLII 65 (SCC), 40 D.L.R. (4th) 18, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 1148, 77 N.R. 241.

[9] The Constitution Act, 1982, also provides:
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.

  1. Irwin Toy Ltd. v. Quebec (Attorney General), [1989] 1 SCR 927, 1989 CanLII 87 (SCC) (S2)
    CLICK HERE, for the full text of decision.

C.The Second Step: Was the Purpose or Effect of the Government Action to Restrict Freedom of Expression?

Having found that the plaintiff’s activity does fall within the scope of guaranteed free expression, it must next be determined whether the purpose or effect of the impugned governmental action was to control attempts to convey meaning through that activity. The importance of focussing at this stage on the purpose and effect of the legislation is nowhere more clearly stated than in R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd., 1985 CanLII 69 (SCC), [1985] 1 S.C.R. 295, at pp. 331-32 where Dickson J. (as he then was), speaking for the majority, observed:

In my view, both purpose and effect are relevant in determining constitutionality; either an unconstitutional purpose or an unconstitutional effect can invalidate legislation. All legislation is animated by an object the legislature intends to achieve. This object is realized through the impact produced by the operation and application of the legislation. Purpose and effect respectively, in the sense of the legislation’s object and its ultimate impact, are clearly linked, if not indivisible. Intended and actual effects have often been looked to for guidance in assessing the legislation’s object and thus, its validity.

Moreover, consideration of the object of legislation is vital if rights are to be fully protected. The assessment by the courts of legislative purpose focuses scrutiny upon the aims and objectives of the legislature and ensures they are consonant with the guarantees enshrined in the Charter. The declaration that certain objects lie outside the legislature’s power checks governmental action at the first stage of unconstitutional conduct. Further, it will provide more ready and more vigorous protection of constitutional rights by obviating the individual litigant’s need to prove effects violative of Charter rights. It will also allow courts to dispose of cases where the object is clearly improper, without inquiring into the legislation’s actual impact.

Figueroa v. Canada (Attorney General), [2003] 1 S.C.R. 912 (S2)
CLICK HERE, for decision, view para 27.

27 An understanding of s. 3 that emphasizes the right of each citizen to play a meaningful role in the electoral process also is sensitive to the full range of reasons that individual participation in the electoral process is of such importance in a free and democratic society. As Dickson C.J. wrote in R. v. Oakes, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103, at p. 136:

The Court must be guided by the values and principles essential to a free and democratic society which I believe embody, to name but a few, respect for the inherent dignity of the human person, commitment to social justice and equality, accommodation of a wide variety of beliefs, respect for cultural and group identity, and faith in social and political institutions which enhance the participation of individuals and groups in society.

In this passage, Dickson C.J. was addressing s. 1 . Yet since reference to “a free and democratic society” is essential to an enriched understanding of s. 3 , this passage indicates that the best interpretation of s. 3 is one that advances the values and principles that embody a free and democratic state, including respect for a diversity of beliefs and opinions. Defining the purpose of s. 3 with reference to the right of each citizen to meaningful participation in the electoral process, best reflects the capacity of individual participation in the electoral process to enhance the quality of democracy in this country.

30 In the final analysis, I believe that the Court was correct in Haig, supra, to define s. 3 with reference to the right of each citizen to play a meaningful role in the electoral process. Democracy, of course, is a form of government in which sovereign power resides in the people as a whole. In our system of democracy, this means that each citizen must have a genuine opportunity to take part in the governance of the country through participation in the selection of elected representatives. The fundamental purpose of s. 3 , in my view, is to promote and protect the right of each citizen to play a meaningful role in the political life of the country. Absent such a right, ours would not be a true democracy.

31 For this reason, I cannot agree with LeBel J. that it is proper, at this stage of the analysis, to balance the right of each citizen to play a meaningful role in the electoral process against other democratic values, such as the aggregation of political preferences. Legislation that purports to encourage the aggregation of political preferences might advance certain collective interests, but it does not benefit all citizens, namely, those whose interests are not aggregated by the mainstream political parties. As a result, the proportionality analysis endorsed by LeBel J. clearly admits of the possibility that collective or group interests will be balanced against the right of each citizen to play a meaningful role in the electoral process at the infringement stage of the analysis. If the government is to interfere with the right of each citizen to play a meaningful role in the electoral process in order to advance other values, it must justify that infringement under s. 1 .

Also worth noting (need a residency to vote) persons who have recently arrived in a province or territory (Reference Re Yukon Election Residency Requirements (1986), 27 D.L.R. (4th) 146 (Y.T.C.A.); Storey v. Zazelenchuk (1984), 36 Sask.R. 103 (C.A.); Olson v. Ontario (1992), 12 C.R.R. (2d) 120 (Ont.Gen.Div.); Arnold v. Ontario (Attorney General) (1987), 43 D.L.R. 4th 94 (Ont.H.Ct.) — although 6 to 12 month minimum residency requirements were justified under section 1)

Haida Nation v. British Columbia (Minister of Forests), [2004] 3 SCR 511, 2004 SCC 73 (CanLII) (S35)
CLICK HERE, for full text of decision.

26 Honourable negotiation implies a duty to consult with Aboriginal claimants and conclude an honourable agreement reflecting the claimants’ inherent rights. But proving rights may take time, sometimes a very long time. In the meantime, how are the interests under discussion to be treated? Underlying this question is the need to reconcile prior Aboriginal occupation of the land with the reality of Crown sovereignty. Is the Crown, under the aegis of its asserted sovereignty, entitled to use the resources at issue as it chooses, pending proof and resolution of the Aboriginal claim? Or must it adjust its conduct to reflect the as yet unresolved rights claimed by the Aboriginal claimants?

27 The answer, once again, lies in the honour of the Crown. The Crown, acting honourably, cannot cavalierly run roughshod over Aboriginal interests where claims affecting these interests are being seriously pursued in the process of treaty negotiation and proof. It must respect these potential, but yet unproven, interests. The Crown is not rendered impotent. It may continue to manage the resource in question pending claims resolution. But, depending on the circumstances, discussed more fully below, the honour of the Crown may require it to consult with and reasonably accommodate Aboriginal interests pending resolution of the claim. To unilaterally exploit a claimed resource during the process of proving and resolving the Aboriginal claim to that resource, may be to deprive the Aboriginal claimants of some or all of the benefit of the resource. That is not honourable.

Taku River Tlingit First Nation v. British Columbia (Project Assessment Director), [2004] 3 SCR 550, 2004 SCC 74 (CanLII)
CLICK HERE, for full text of decision.

23 The Province argues that, before the determination of rights through litigation or conclusion of a treaty, it owes only a common law “duty of fair dealing” to Aboriginal peoples whose claims may be affected by government decisions. It argues that a duty to consult could arise after rights have been determined, through what it terms a “justificatory fiduciary duty”. Alternatively, it submits, a fiduciary duty may arise where the Crown has undertaken to act only in the best interests of an Aboriginal people. The Province submits that it owes the TRTFN no duty outside of these specific situations.

24 The Province’s submissions present an impoverished vision of the honour of the Crown and all that it implies. As discussed in the companion case of Haida, supra, the principle of the honour of the Crown grounds the Crown’s duty to consult and if indicated accommodate Aboriginal peoples, even prior to proof of asserted Aboriginal rights and title. The duty of honour derives from the Crown’s assertion of sovereignty in the face of prior Aboriginal occupation. It has been enshrined in s. 35(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982, which recognizes and affirms existing Aboriginal rights and titles. Section 35(1) has, as one of its purposes, negotiation of just settlement of Aboriginal claims. In all its dealings with Aboriginal peoples, the Crown must act honourably, in accordance with its historical and future relationship with the Aboriginal peoples in question. The Crown’s honour cannot be interpreted narrowly or technically, but must be given full effect in order to promote the process of reconciliation mandated by s. 35(1).

25 As discussed in Haida, what the honour of the Crown requires varies with the circumstances. It may require the Crown to consult with and accommodate Aboriginal peoples prior to taking decisions: R. v. Sparrow, 1990 CanLII 104 (SCC), [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1075, at p. 1119; R. v. Nikal, 1996 CanLII 245 (SCC), [1996] 1 S.C.R. 1013; R. v. Gladstone, 1996 CanLII 160 (SCC), [1996] 2 S.C.R. 723; Delgamuukw v. British Columbia, 1997 CanLII 302 (SCC), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 1010, at para. 168. The obligation to consult does not arise only upon proof of an Aboriginal claim, in order to justify infringement. That understanding of consultation would deny the significance of the historical roots of the honour of the Crown, and deprive it of its role in the reconciliation process. Although determining the required extent of consultation and accommodation before a final settlement is challenging, it is essential to the process mandated by s. 35(1). The duty to consult arises when a Crown actor has knowledge, real or constructive, of the potential existence of Aboriginal rights or title and contemplates conduct that might adversely affect them. This in turn may lead to a duty to change government plans or policy to accommodate Aboriginal concerns. Responsiveness is a key requirement of both consultation and accommodation.

Part VI: Order Sought

  1. (a) To issue a permanent, binding injunction against the Federal Government ever participating in such a United Nations Parliament or other ”World Government” scheme on the grounds it violates the laws cited above

(b) To find that any such actions in furtherance of this scheme are unconstitutional.

Alternatively an order that:

(c) To rule that any such measure would require the following forms of consent:
I/ Vote from the Federal House of Commons
II/ Vote from the Senate
III/ Signature of the Prime Minister
IV/ Royal Assent from the Governor General
V/ A nationwide referendum on this issue with 75% majority
VI/ 7 of 10 Provinces (with 50%+ population) affirming

Note, should that alternative be ordered, it is asked that the court also rule for (c), that any Province or Municipality that wishes to opt out may do so.

Sincerely,

Me

Calgary 2.0: Proceedings Started To Challenge Loophole in Can/US S3CA


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

PETITION E-1906 (UN Global Migration Compact): CLICK HERE
PETITION E-2012 (UN Global Parliament) 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.


CLICK HERE, for the Canada/US Safe Third Country Agreement.
CLICK HERE, for rough work in the motion to extend time.

In a nutshell: you can file what is called an “APPLICATION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW” if you believe that the Government or a Government Body has made an illegal or improper decision.

However: if more than 30 days has lapsed (which is the case here), you need to file a motion to get an extension of time.

Here are the weblinks relied upon

EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT B
EXHIBIT C
EXHIBIT D
EXHIBIT E

Here is a cut-and-paste from the “WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS” which was sent as part of the motion record. It is a bit tedious to read. Just warning you.

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

Part I: Jurisdiction

  1. 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.
  2. Federal Court also has jurisdiction to grant a time extension to file application under Rule 18.1(2) of Federal Courts Act.
  3. Federal Court of Canada has right to correct ”technical irregularities” or to fix ”defects in form”, as is the case here. (Rule 18.1(5)).
  4. Federal Court of Canada has the jurisdiction to deal with matters where a Government will not do so, or unnecessarily delays in such matters (Rule 18.1(3) and 18.1(4)).
  5. This is a matter relating to border crossings and asylum/immigration, which falls exclusively under Federal jurisdiction

Part II: Issues

  1. Three questions to answer:
    (a) Can the Federal Court grant an extension of time (18.1(2) FCR) to file an application?
    (b) Does the Court see the matter of public interest to see through?
    (c) Does the Federal Court of Canada view the remedy sought as appropriate within Rules 18.1(3) and (4) and/or within 18.1(5)?

Part III: Facts

  1. The Safe Third Country Agreement is between Canada and the United States.

  2. The S3CA was signed on December 5, 2002, and took effect December 29, 2004 (Exhibit A and B)

  3. 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.

  4. The United States has an asylum process, which sees hundreds of thousands of people apply every year. (https://www.uscis.gov/i-589) (Exhibit E) is the application for asylum for the US.

  5. Every year people come to the United States seeking protection because they have suffered persecution or fear that they will suffer persecution due to:
    -Race
    -Religion
    -Nationality
    -Membership in a particular social group
    -Political opinion
     

  6. Since 2015, however, more than 40,000 illegal immigrants have entered Canada illegally, primarily through Roxham Road in Quebec. (Exhibit C)

  7. Many illegals travelled to New York State on tourist visas, then travelled north. New York State and Minnesota are not war zones. They are safe areas. However, they are exploited and used as a ”launchpad” to file fraudulent asylum claims in Canada.

  8. These illegals are now languishing in hotels at great public expense. (Exhibit D)

  9. 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

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
    (3) On an application for judicial review, the Trial Division 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.
     
    (4) The Trial Division 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.
    The wording in the Canada/US safe 3rd Country Agreement is clearly designed to prevent frivilious and fraudulent asylum claims by recognizing that both nations treat people humanely.  However, despite the evidence of this ”loophole” being exploited by illegal, economic migrants, the Federal Government has shown no willpower or resolve to correct this defect. Hence, they have not acted in accordance with 18.1(3) and 18.1(4)
  3. 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.
    Since there is no ”single person” who is responsible for this mess, the Attorney General of Canada shall be named as a Defendant.
  4. Provinces and Municipalities are forced to pay the tab for these illegal immigrants, and the Federal Government has shown little interest in stopping the influx.
  5. Without proper screening beforehand, the safety of Canadians is jeopardised. We should know who is being allowed into our country and under what circumstances BEFORE they arrive.

Part V: Authorities Cited

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.

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.
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.
 
 Cartier v. Canada (Attorney General), 2002 FCA 384 (CanLII), [2003] 2 F.C. 317 (C.A.), at paragraph 10 
 
Part VI: Order Sought

1/ A time extension to file an application for judicial review
2/ The ultimate goal is to have the entire Canada/US border declared an ”official port of entry” in order to close the loophole which allows illegal immigrants to cross into Canada and make refugee claims.

Signs You Should Not Vote For Someone


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.


Every one wants to make an informed decision when they vote. At least they “should want to” make an informed choice. Here are some warning signs to look out for when someone wants your vote. Regardless of your individual leanings.

Not all will be present in any one person, but normally several will be. Take this as a helpful guide.

(1) The Person Argues Over Trivial Points
People running for various offices will disagree on many things. Often they will argue over DIFFERENT POLICIES. However, when one argues over different ways to implement the SAME POLICIES, it becomes a fair question as to how different they really are. Fierce debate over essentially the same positions is a dog-and-pony show, which doesn’t offer a real alternative to voters.

(2) Not Being Clear About What Policies They Want
People have different ideas to offer when running for office. If they are sincere, those will be clearly expressed, whether on websites, signs, brochures, or other written formats. One thing to watch out for is policies that seem unusually vague or nondescript.

(3) Being Vague When Asked For Specific
This is related to the last point. If you don’t understand something, ask for clarification. If a candidate is sincere, the answers will become more and more SPECIFIC. On the other hand, if the answers become more VAGUE, then something is definitely wrong. This is true not only on future policy, but on questions about current actions.

(4) Deflect With Attacks On Another
When pressing a candidate for answers on a topic, clear direct answers should be forthcoming. One red flag is when those questions are not answered, but rather it shifts to an attack on why the political opponents are wrong on that topic.

(5) Positions Change Depending On Power
This is very common among mainstream parties that have been around for generations. While in opposition, a party will claim to oppose government actions. But once in government, that party will then adopt all or part of the legislation that the previously claimed to oppose.

(6) Opposition By “Scandal”
Don’t get the wrong idea. Governments in power do often have scandals, just as corruption, gross incompetence. While holding a government to account is important. All that said, it should not be the MAIN SOURCE of opposition. If someone seeks office, and their main points all have to do with pointing out current administration incompetence, then they likely have little to offer as a platform.

(7) Strawman Arguments
This is done by “setting up a strawman” and then taking it down. In other words, misrepresenting an opponent’s arguments or statements, to make them look much worse. Then the “strawman” will be handily defeated. Problem is, it attacks an argument that no one actually made, and is dishonest. Genuine misunderstandings are one thing, intentional distortion is another.

(8) Platform Really Doesn’t Add Up
This will involve research on your part. This is the opposite problem to #2. If a platform offers many lofty, expensive goals, with no clear way to pay for them, you should be suspect. Sure, circumstances will change as time goes on, but a platform should still offer a realistic agenda to all constituents.

Sure this list could be much longer. But deficient and inadequate candidates will engage in most, if not all of these traits. If someone won’t tell the truth BEFORE getting power, why should we trust them AFTER they are?

Don’t take anything at face value.
Protect yourself.

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
$900 — costs of travel, court fees, other fees
$500 — costs award issued by Calgary Court
PRICELESS — protecting Canada’s sovereignty