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

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

(Screenshots from the Federal Court website)

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

Please sign this: PETITION E-1906 CLICK HERE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

APPLICATION

(Court File No.)

FEDERAL COURT

BETWEEN:

Name
(Applicant)

and

Attorney General of Canada
(Respondent)

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

_____________________________________________________________________________
(Motion Record)

_____________________________________________________________________________
(Your Information)

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

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1/ Table of Contents (Page A)

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

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

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

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

NOTICE OF MOTION

(Motion in writing)

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

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

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

THE GROUNDS FOR THE MOTION ARE:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SOR/2004-283, s. 35

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

FORM 80A – Rule 80

AFFIDAVIT

(General Heading — Use Form 66)

AFFIDAVIT OF (Name)

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

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

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

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

_____________________________
(Signature of Deponent)

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

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS OF APPLICANT

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

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

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

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

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

Part V: Cases Cited

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

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

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

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

Please sign this: PETITION E-1906 CLICK HERE

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

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

(1) Some Background Information About the Issue

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

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

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

But here is the difference:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CLICK HERE, for Basic Insurance Tariff

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Justifying involves admitting the underlying facts.

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

(4) What The Constitution Says On The Matter

Enforcement of guaranteed rights and freedoms

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Equality Rights

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

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

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


Application of Charter
32. (1) This Charter applies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

49 Section 6 of the Charter states:

Mobility Rights

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(a) The Nature of the Right

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

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

[TRANSLATION]

(a) The principle: The right to pursue the gaining of a livelihood in any province;

(b) The exception: This right is subject to any laws or practices of a general application in force in that province;

(c) The exception to the exception: Except if these laws discriminate among persons primarily on the basis of the province of residence.

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

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

(a) The principle: The right to pursue the gaining of a livelihood in any province;

(b) The exception: This right is subject to any laws or practices of a general application in force in that province;

(c) The exception to the exception: Except if these laws discriminate among persons primarily on the basis of the province of residence.

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

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

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

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

(6) The Limitations Act

What about illegal overpayments from a long time ago?

Division 1 — Establishment of Basic Limitation Period

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(a) the outstanding principal, if any, and

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Progress In Legal Challenge To UN Global Migration Compact

(Liberal business sense, much like Liberal immigration policy)

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

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

Please sign this: PETITION E-1906 CLICK HERE

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

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

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

Section 18 of Federal Courts Act

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For more information, see the sections below.

(1) Statement of Claim

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

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

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

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

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

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

(2) Motion Record Compiled

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

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

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

(3) Notice of Constitutional Questions

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

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

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

(4) Where Things Stand Now

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

Currently waiting on responses from the Feds and the Provinces.

The story will be updated as progress is made

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

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

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

My Walkaway Story

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

A Much Simplified Version

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That is my walkaway story.

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