Category: Canada

Posted on

Action4Canada Again Lying To Donors, No Amended Claim Ever Filed

As many are aware, Courts typically make information available online for the public to look up. The Courts in British Columbia do this, and allow documents to be directly downloaded. It’s great for researchers and journalists.

This will likely be the last post on the subject, since there’s no realistic prospect of having new material to cover. Put simply: donors were lied to, and ripped off.

A few years ago, Action4Canada made national news with their nonsense lawsuit.

Fast forward to today. According to the B.C. Supreme Court in Vancouver, no amended Notice of Civil Claim (or NOCC) has been filed. A quick search with Court Services Online has confirmed that.

The 2023 activity seen above had to do with Action4Canada challenging the costs to be awarded to some of the Respondents. It had nothing to do with fixing the existing pleading.

Brief Timeline Of Events Leading To This

Summer 2020: Action4Canada solicits donations for a promised “Constitutional challenge”, but doesn’t actually deliver anything. Naive donors hand over large amounts of money.

August 2021: The Notice of Civil Claim is eventually filed. It’s a rambling, disjointed and incoherent 391 page document. It obviously doesn’t comply with the Rules of Civil Procedure.

August 2022: The Claim is struck as “bad beyond argument”. However, Justice Ross does allow for a rewrite, which is referred to as “Leave to Amend”.

September 2022: Instead of rewriting the NOCC, the decision is appealed.

February 2023: Action4Canada becomes the laughing stock of the legal profession in B.C. The Law Society of B.C. includes Justice Ross’ decision in their latest training manual for new lawyers. This proceeding is cited as an example of what not to do.

October 2023: After publicly getting called out for delay, Action4Canada does eventually arrange to have the hearing scheduled.

February 2024: The B.C. Court of Appeal hears the case. The Justices appear baffled, and cannot understand the purpose of the Appeal. After all, it was agreed the NOCC was “prolix” and had to be rewritten anyway.

February 2024: The B.C. Court of Appeal dismisses the Appeal. Justice Marchand writes that no “reviewable error” had been identified, and confirms the NOCC wasn’t written properly.

That was February, and this is October.

No Amended Notice Of Claim Was Ever Filed

Despite their Appeal being dismissed, Action4Canada went on to publish that it was somehow a “successful outcome”.

However, we are now into October 2024. Nearly 8 months have passed since the BCCA ruling. There’s no amended Claim on file, and in fact, no activity at all with the file.

Were a new NOCC be filed, it would of course face another Application to Strike. Counsel has repeatedly proven to be unable (or unwilling) to follow Civil Procedure when drafting documents. While Justice Ross did allow a rewrite last time, it won’t happen again, especially with the wasteful Appeal.

Even in the remote possibility that a new — and decent — NOCC is filed, the Statute of Limitations only gives 2 years. Any new allegations prior to October 2022 would likely be disallowed. This is one of the few deadlines that’s strictly enforced by the Courts.

With all of this information taken into account, it’s reasonable to conclude that Action4Canada NEVER intended to go ahead with their case. People were lied to since 2020 to get them to donate.

They call critics “paid agitators” but never meaningfully address the litany of valid criticisms about their litigation. See here, here, here, here and here.

So, that appears to be the end of this case, at least on this site.

Action4Canada lied about this lawsuit, supposedly to take down Bonnie Henry. They wasted hundreds of thousands in donor money, with nothing to show for it. The Claim and Appeal were clearly designed to go nowhere.

These people belong in prison, not given deference as “respected elders”.

Remember: The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves, and to sue our critics.

ACTION4CANADA APPEAL DOCUMENTS:
(1) A4C Notice Of Appeal September 28 2022
(2) A4C Appeal – Notice Of Appearance – VIHA
(3) A4C Appeal – Notice Of Appearance – BC Defendants
(4) A4C Appeal – Notice Of Appearance – Attorney General of Canada
(5) A4C Appeal – Notice Of Appearance – Peter Kwok, Translink
(6) A4C Appeal – Notice Of Appearance – BC Ferries, Brittney Sylvester
(7) A4C Appeal – Appeal Book – Appellant
(8) A4C Appeal – Appeal Book – Respondent VIH And PHC
(9) A4C Appeal – Appeal Record – Stand Alone Respondents VIHA
(10) A4C Appeal – Appeal Record – Stand Alone
(11) A4C Appeal – Factum – Appellant
(12) A4C Appeal – Factum – Respondent Attorney General Of Canada
(13) A4C Appeal – Factum – Respondent BC Ferries and Brittney Sylvester
(14) A4C Appeal – Factum – Respondent HMK -Provincial Defendants
(15) A4C Appeal – Factum – Respondent Peter Kwok and Translink
(16) A4C Appeal – Factum – Respondent VIHA and Providence Health
(17) A4C Appeal – Consent Order – Factum, Time Limits
(18) A4C Appeal – Change In Representation – BC Defendants
(19) A4C Appeal – Notice Of Hearing February 2024
(20) CanLII Decision In Action4Canada Appeal

ACTION4CANADA BCSC DOCUMENTS:
(1) A4C BCSC – Notice Of Civil Claim
(2) A4C BCSC – Response to Civil Claim (Health Authority Defendants)
(3) A4C BCSC – Response to Civil Claim (Provincial Defendants)
(4) A4C BCSC – Affidavit No 1 of Rebecca Hill
(5) A4C BCSC – Notice of Application (AG and RCMP applies to strike)
(6) A4C BCSC – Notice of Application (Provincial Defendants applies to strike)
(7) A4C BCSC – Notice of Application (Translink applies to strike)
(8) A4C BCSC – Application Response (Health Authority Defendants consent to strike)
(9) A4C BCSC – Application Response (BC Ferries consents to strike)
(10) A4C BCSC – Application Response (AG and RCMP consent to Prov. strike application)
(11) A4C BCSC – Application Response (Translink consents to HA Defendants strike application)
(12) A4C BCSC – Application Response (Translink consents to Prov. strike application)
(13) A4C BCSC – Affidavit No 2 of Rebecca Hill
(14) A4C BCSC – Application Record (to strike)
(15) A4C BCSC – Application Response (all plaintiffs)
(16) A4C BCSC – Amended Application Response (all plaintiffs)
(17) A4C BCSC – Transcript Application To Strike
(18) A4C BCSC – Reasons For Striking NOCC In Its Entirety
(19) A4C BCSC – Order striking pleadings
(20) A4C BCSC – Order striking pleading in its entirety with costs payable forthwith
(21) A4C BCSC – Appointment to assess bill of costs for Kwok and Translink
(22) A4C BCSC – Notice of Discontinuance (Kimberly Woolman & Estate of Jaqueline Woolman)
(23) A4C BCSC – Notice of Discontinuance (Amy Muranetz)
(24) A4C BCSC – Notice of Discontinuance (Federico Fuoco & Fire Productions Ltd.)

OTHER:
(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2022/2022bcsc1507/2022bcsc1507.html
(2) https://www.lawsociety.bc.ca/Website/media/Shared/docs/becoming/material/civil.pdf
(3) https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/168_2009_01#rule3-1
(4) https://justice.gov.bc.ca/cso/index.do
(5) https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/120_2022a#division_d0e3656
(6) https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcca/doc/2022/2022bcca450/2022bcca450.html#par10

ACTION4CANADA FINANCIAL DOCS:
(A) A4C Docs Profits And Losses 2021-2022
(B) A4C Docs Balance Sheet 2021-2022
(C) A4C-Docs-General-Ledger-2021-2022

Posted on

Take Action Canada Case Discontinued Back In July 2024

The anti-lockdown group, Take Action Canada, has discontinued their case against the Ontario Government. This was the “Ontario First Responders” case broadly publicized. It challenged the injection pass mandate for about 100 Plaintiffs, primarily police and fire fighters.

For reasons that never made any sense, counsel decided to sue twenty (20) different Municipalities and Cities as well, and the specific employers. This resulted in a small army of lawyers being retained to defend the case. Unsurprisingly, it was to jack up the expenses as well.

The Statement of Claim was horribly deficient, being a replica of Action4Canada and Adelberg, both of which were found to be “bad beyond argument”. The amended version did little to fix those problems. Ontario, like other Provinces, has Rules of Civil Procedure which, among other things, outline how Claims are to be drafted.

There’s also the issue that most (if not all) of the Plaintiffs were either Government workers or unionized, which meant they would be government by a collective bargaining agreement. Such contracts typically outline a grievance process, which almost exclusively leads to arbitration. So jurisdiction was a serious concern.

For background on the case, see Parts: 1, 2, 3 and 4.

The initial filing made national news. But there was never any follow-up, outside of this site. So many of these cases are simply allowed to die off once the cameras are gone. No refunds, naturally. Has this been reported anywhere else?

Realizing that costs would likely exceed initial fees, counsel tried to blackmail the Plaintiffs. Instead of the $1,500 each to pursue the entire case, another $4,500 was demanded. Sources have reported that this was voted down.

There was an aborted hearing back in January 2024. The dozens of lawyers bringing Summary Judgement Motions wanted to schedule dates for a hearing. However, it ended with nothing being determined. Presumably, the Plaintiffs needed time to assess their options.

Now the other shoe (and the case itself) drop. There won’t even be a Motion to Strike or Summary Judgement Motion heard. The case has simply been discontinued.

Good luck Canuck Law defending the legal action by Rocco!

Thing is: Take Action Canada was well aware in advance of the kinds of of problems they’d be having. Sandra Sable testified (against CSASPP) that criticism of counsel threatened the viability of the Claim. Prospective Plaintiffs kept bailing out, and demanding refunds. See original.

They threw clients to the wolves anyway.

Now for a productive suggestion: while Plaintiffs won’t ever get justice against the Ford regime, or their employers, there are other targets. In order to practice law, a lawyer MUST have malpractice insurance. This is not negotiable.

Ashvinder Lamba and Kulvinder Gill were very unhappy with the quality of their legal representation. They had no qualms about trying to take some of that insurance money. Perhaps former Plaintiffs here should consider their options.

Donors, and former clients, should have a serious discussion with Sandy and Vince about where their money has been going. Presumably, no one has received refunds.

(1) https://takeactioncanada.ca/
(2) https://twitter.com/Takeactioncan
(3) Ontario EMS Statement Of Claim
(4) Ontario EMS Amended Statement Of Claim
(5) Ontario EMS Requisition To Amend
(6) Ontario EMS Notice Of Intent To Defend
(7) Ontario EMS Demand For More Money
(8) https://canucklaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/Notice-Of-Application-Police-On-Guard.pdf
(9) https://canucklaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/Take-Action-Canada-Retainer-Essential-First
(10) https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2022/2022bcsc1507/2022bcsc1507.html#par45
(11) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2023/2023fc252/2023fc252.html#par52
(12) https://takeactioncanada.ca/tac911-legal-action-1st-responder-essential-workers-update-dec-survey/
(13) https://canucklaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/CSASPP-RG-Sable-Affidavit.pdf

Posted on

Rickard/Harrison “Travel Mandates Challenge” Really Just A PRIVATE Suit For Damages

When people are being asked to donate to public cases, a.k.a. public interest litigation, they are entitled to be fully informed about the nature of the suit. As a consumer, honesty and transparency in advertising are obviously important. This applies regardless of industry.

Plaintiffs in a high profile lawsuit filed last year are asking for money. However, it appears they are not being forthcoming about what is really going on. This is, of course, the latest “travel mandates challenge” filed in Federal Court.

Upon reading the Statement of Claim, and the Amended Claim, it appears simply to be a suit requesting damages. There’s no relief sought that would benefit Canadians as a whole. Even if the lawsuit were successful, there’s nothing for the public listed.

It doesn’t look like there’s much of an ideological issue with the injection pass anyway. Starting on paragraph 32, they argue that the Feds were neglient and incompetent in how it was set up. They also try to argue “negligence” and “bad faith” at the same time, despite them being contradictory.

There’s no order being challenged, nor any request that would prevent injection mandates from returning in the future. There’s no money or justice being sought for the “unvaccinated” as a group.

Rickard and Harrison were asked about this, but have refused to provide any answer, other than some insults. It will be interesting to see what happens now.

Brief History On The Proceedings In Federal Courts


The story actually has quite the convoluted history. There were originally 4 Applications filed in Federal Court and heard together. See parts 1, 2, 3 and 4.

The Statement of Claim is the more well known way to start litigation. It typically involves requests for financial compensation, but other orders can be sought as well. By contrast, an Application for Judicial Review has to do with reviewing an existing order, and is meant to be streamlined.

JURISDICTION ACTION JUDICIAL REVIEW STEPS TAKEN
Federal Statement Of Claim Application Motion
Ontario Statement Of Claim Application Motion
British Columbia Notice Of Civil Claim Petition Application
  • December 2021: Rickard/Harrison (T-1991-21)
  • January 2022: Naoum (T-145-22)
  • January 2022: Peckford (T-168-22)
  • February 2022: Bernier (T-247-22)

The Applications were declared “moot” in 2022 by Justice Jocelyne Gagné, but with the caveat that remedies could still be pursued by way of an Action, with a Statement of Claim.

It turned out that none of the Applicants were actually asking for any sort of damages. They were just asking that the injection pass requirement disappear permanently.

[27] Of note, after the IOs/MO were repealed and the Respondent had given notice of its motion for mootness, the Applicants in file T-1991-21 filed a Notice of Motion seeking orders to amend their Notice of Application to assert damages and indicating that their Application would proceed as an Action. On August 3, 2022, Associate Judge Tabib denied the motion, noting “it appears that one of the goals of the proposed amendments is to attempt to insulate the Applicants from the potential consequences of the Respondent’s motion to declare this application moot.” She considered the implications of a dismissal of the motion for mootness and concluded that “I am, accordingly, not satisfied that the dismissal of this application for mootness, if it is ordered, would substantially prejudice the Applicant’s ability to pursue a claim for damages by way of action. More importantly, I am not satisfied that the possibility of a future dismissal, with the resulting costs and inefficiency, justifies, at this time, the extraordinary remedy sought by the Applicants.”

[41] As stated above, these proceedings will have no practical effect on the rights of the Applicants. They have obtained the full relief available to them and a decision of the remaining declaratory relief would provide them no practical utility. If they suffered damages as a result of these IOs/MO being in force, they would have to bring an action against the Crown and have their respective rights assessed in light of all the relevant facts.

[46] Additionally, the rail passenger vaccine mandate is also challenged for breaching sections 2(a), 7, 8 and 15 of the Charter in several actions in damages before this Court (files no. T-554-22 and T-533-22), and the air passenger vaccine mandate in the Alberta Court of King’s Bench (file no. 2203 09246). It is true that none of these proceedings will test the IOs/MO against section 6 of the Charter but, as indicated above, considering that they are no longer in force, the proper vehicle would be an action in damages if the Applicants suffered any damages as a result of these temporary measures. The Court would then have the proper factual background to assess the Applicants’ Charter rights.

The Government lifted the mandates shortly before filing a Motion to declare the cases moot. Yes, this was a cynical ploy, but it was success in obtaining dismissals. The Judge declined to hear the challenges anyway, but gave an alternative path forward.

For reasons that were never made clear, at least not publicly, the Applicants all appealed. They APPEALED a ruling when they could have simply REFILED as an Action. The Federal Court of Appeal threw it out, noting the lawyers didn’t even understand the Standard For Review. (See here)

TYPE OF ERROR STANDARD FOR REVIEW
Error of Fact Overriding, Palpable Error
Error of Pure Law Correctness
Mixed Fact & Law Spectrum, Leaning To Overriding, Palpable Error
Discretionary Orders Overriding, Palpable Error

Justice Gagné’s decision of “mootness” could be challenged by arguing “overriding palpable error”. Granted, this is often harder than “correctness”. But this is very basic, and it’s baffling that senior, experienced lawyers don’t know this.

Then again, why are they appealing at all? Justice Gagné ruled that they could refile as an Action (with a Statement of Claim) if anyone had suffered any damages.

This is “bad beyond argument” level stupid.

[8] Two of the four groups of appellants do not address the standard of review at all in their memoranda of fact and law. The other two argue that the standard of review in these appeals is correctness. However, in oral submissions, the appellants now acknowledge that this Court must follow the appellate standards of review described in the previous paragraph.

Bernier, Peckford and Naoum decided to APPEAL AGAIN, seeking Leave to file with the Supreme Court of Canada. Keep in mind, they still could have refiled their pleadings (as an Action) with the Federal Court. Quite predictably, all Leave Applications were denied.

To their credit, this time, Rickard and Harrison decided to file a Statement of Claim, as had been recommended earlier. However, their suit is so poorly drafted that it’s unlikely to ever go anywhere.

Now we get to the main point of this article.

Rickard/Harrison Claim Is A PRIVATE Lawsuit

1. The Plaintiffs claim the following:

a. Constitutional damages pursuant to Section 24(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the “Charter”), in the amount of $1,000,000, exclusive of interest and costs, for breach of the Plaintiffs’ Section 6, 7 and 15 rights and freedoms as guaranteed by the Charter as a result of government decision-making and action conduct that was rooted in negligence, bad faith and willfully blind to the lack absence of scientific evidence or disconfirming scientific evidence regarding the role, and, in particular, the unknown efficacy, of Covid-19 vaccination in reducing the risk of Covid-19 transmission and infection within the transportation sector;

b. Costs of this action in accordance with the Federal Court Rules, SOR/98-106; and,

c. Such further and other relief as counsel may advise and this Honorable Court deem just.

Both the Statement of Claim and the Amended Claim are available. This is important because it doesn’t match with what’s being claimed. The content of this is quite clearly a private lawsuit for damages. It seeks monetary awards for themselves.

(a) Damages, interest, costs recovered
(b) Costs of the proceeding

While the original Applications were a direct challenge to injectin travel mandates, this case does no such thing. It’s a private lawsuit for money. Even if they were successful, there would be no impact on society at large, as none is being sought.

And by arguing “negligence”, Rickard and Harrison are opening the door for the Government to propose so-called better safeguards.

If Rickard and Harrison wanted donations to finance a lawsuit for their retirements, they can ask. However, they need to be transparent about the nature of the case.

Requests For Donations For “Travel Mandates Challenge”

In his pinned tweet, Rickard promotes this case as “seeking justice for 6-7 million ‘unvaccinated’ Canadians”. However, this is not the case.

The Claim (both original and amended versions) do not ask for any kind of remedy that would aid the public as a whole. There’s no remedy being sought that would benefit 6 or 7 million people. Rickard and Harrison are asking for money for themselves.

True, the original Applications challenged mandates, but this case doesn’t.

Reading the case as a whole, Rickard and Harrison aren’t really even challenging the idea of a “vaccine passport”. Instead, they go on and on about how the Trudeau Government was “negligent” and “reckless” in how it was implemented.

Potentially, a Judge could issue guidance on how to better administer such a system.

Interestingly, Rickard often provides screenshots of the front page of his suit. However, a link to the full document is rarely (if ever) included. A possible reason is that reading the Claim reveals instantly that the “challenge” being described doesn’t exist.

Donations To Be Funneled Through A “Charity”

Also in the pinned tweet, Rickard asks for money for this “historic and incredibly import lawsuit”, offering “charity receipts” to people donating. Now, this charity does exist, and can be found on the C.R.A. site.

Registration can also be found with Corporations Canada. Karl Harrison is listed as a director of the organization.

However, the concern comes in about what is being fundraised. Rickard and Harrison are pitching this lawsuit as public interest litigation, a challenge to the travel mandates.

In reality, it’s a private suit for money — for themselves.

Rickard whines (again, pinned tweet) that the mainstream press in Canada has effectively buried the story. Presumably, he’s not getting the money or attention because everyone’s in bed with Trudeau. It’s quite amusing to see.

Incidently, Rickard and Harrison were contacted about this. They were asked why they were only seeking money for themselves, if they were fundraising for a “travel mandates challenge”. Both have refused to answer.

If there is a legitimate explanation, it would be nice to know. However, it comes across as soliciting funds for a private case, disguised as public interest litigation.

They’re handing out tax receipts to cover donations to their private case, while telling prospective donors that it’s a challenge to injection travel mandates. Not a good look.

FEDERAL COURT APPLICATIONS STRUCK:
(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2022/2022fc1463/2022fc1463.html

FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL RULING:
(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fca/doc/2023/2023fca219/2023fca219.html

SUPREME COURT OF CANADA APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE:
(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc-l/doc/2024/2024canlii80713/2024canlii80713.html (Bernier)
(2) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc-l/doc/2024/2024canlii80711/2024canlii80711.html (Peckford)
(3) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc-l/doc/2024/2024canlii80702/2024canlii80702.html (Naoum)

RICKARD/HARRISON STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
(1) Rickard T-2536-23 Statement Of Claim
(2) Rickard T-2536-23 Notice Of Intent To Respond
(3) Rickard T-2536-23 Amended Statement Of Claim
(4) Rickard T-2536-23 Notice Of Motion
(5) https://x.com/ShaunRickard67/status/1840070389965128046
(6) https://www.freedomandjustice.ca/donate/
(7) CRA Page Of Institute For Freedom And Justice
(8) Corporations Canada Page

STANDARD OF REVIEW:
(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2002/2002scc33/2002scc33.html
(2) Housen (Highlighted)

Posted on

Private Member’s Bill C-413: Jail Time For Residential School “Denialism”

Leah Gazan, New Democrat M.P. for Winnipeg Centre, has made good on an earlier promise. Bill C-413 has now had First Reading in Parliament. If passed, it would ban “Residential School Denialism”, and people could face prison time for doing so.

In case people still think voting matters — for some reason — let’s differentiate between “left wing” politics and “right wing” politics in Canada. Hopefully, this clears things up.

Left Wing Politics: Jail Time For “Residential School Denialism”

Gazan, who is Jewish, touts the “Never Again” motto as a rationale for bringing in this Bill.

Interestingly, she rails against war crimes committed in the Middle East, by Israel. However, she seems to support the same kind of censorship laws that Zionists do regarding the Holocaust. This appears to involve some mental gymnastics, especially given her enthusiasm for abortion.

Anyhow, this is what she recently contributed:

Criminal Code
1 (1) Section 319 of the Criminal Code is amended by adding the following after subsection (2.‍1):
Willful promotion of hatred — Indigenous peoples

(2.‍2) Everyone who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against Indigenous peoples by condoning, denying, downplaying or justifying the Indian residential school system in Canada or by misrepresenting facts relating to it
(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

(2) Subsections 319(4) to (6) of the Act are replaced by the following:
Defences — subsection (2.‍2)
(3.‍2) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2.‍2)
(a) if they establish that the statements communicated were true;
.
(b) if, in good faith, they expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text;
.
(c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds they believed them to be true; or
.
(d) if, in good faith, they intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward Indigenous peoples.

Forfeiture
(4) If a person is convicted of an offence under subsection (1), (2), (2.‍1) or (2.‍2) or section 318, anything by means of or in relation to which the offence was committed, on such conviction, may, in addition to any other punishment imposed, be ordered by the presiding provincial court judge or judge to be forfeited to His Majesty in right of the province in which that person is convicted, for disposal as the Attorney General may direct.

Exemption from seizure of communication facilities
(5) Subsections 199(6) and (7) apply, with any modifications that the circumstances require, to subsection (1), (2), (2.‍1) or (2.‍2) or section 318.

Consent
(6) No proceeding for an offence under subsection (2), (2.‍1) or (2.‍2) shall be instituted without the consent of the Attorney General.

If the text of Bill C-413 looks familiar, it should. It’s identical to Bill C-250. That was introduced in 2022 by “Conservative” Kevin Waugh to criminalize Holocaust denial. More on that later.

Both this Bill, and the one criminalizing Holocaust denial contain a provision that requires consent from the Attorney General to proceed. While this may be viewed as a safety mechanism, it can also mean that politically motivated cases would be filed only.

The Bill allows for the seizure and forfeiture of “anything in relation to the offence”, which presumably refers to computers and cell phones.

Right Wing Politics: Jail Time For “Holocaust Denial”

The text of Bill C-413 is modelled on Bill C-250, which was started by Kevin Waugh. However, the contents of that Bill were eventually incorporated into a budget, so this became irrelevant. As a result, people who “publicly deny the Holocaust” can now be locked up for 2 years.

This wasn’t just Waugh going rogue. The “Conservative” Party of Canada bragged about this being brought in, at least initially. Although the article was scrubbed, an archive of it is still available.

Things didn’t stop there. Yves-François Blanchet and Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, both part of the Bloc Québécois, introduced Bills C-367 and C-373, respectively. These identical pieces of legislation were aimed at removing the “religious exemption” defence of Holocaust denial.

Back in July 2018, Kevin Waugh took a taxpayer funded trip to Israel. He billed $16,200 for this. It’s apparently commonplace to bring Members of Parliament (and spouses) each year to “foster cultural understanding”. To be fair, it seems to be commonplace that MPs are travelling to other countries at taxpayer expense.

Waugh, Blanchet and Brunelle-Duceppe were all lobbied by CIJA prior to their respective Bills being introduced. This is the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, the Canadian equivalent of AIPAC.

This is the left v.s. right political framework in Canada. There doesn’t seem to be any principled protection or dedication to free speech. Instead, special rules are brought in, depending on the political leanings of the people involved.

Time after time, we are seeing hate speech laws being brought for the protection of a specific group. But, will we ever see any legislation that prohibits the “willful promotion of hatred” against whites? Don’t count on it.

GAZAN’S BILL C-413:
(1) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/44-1/c-413
(2) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Members/en/leah-gazan(87121)
(3) https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/C-413/first-reading

WAUGH’S BILL C-250:
(1) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/44-1/c-250
(2) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Members/en/kevin-waugh(89084)
(3) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/cmmLgPblcVw?comlogId=521753
(4) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=111&regId=917368&blnk=1
(5) https://www.conservative.ca/mp-waugh-introduces-legislation-to-prohibit-holocaust-denial/
(6) https://archive.ph/fCnNn

BLANCHET’S BILL C-367:
(1) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/44-1/c-367
(2) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Members/en/yves-francois-blanchet(104669)
(3) https://www.parl.ca/diplomacy/en/groups/cail
(4) https://www.parl.ca/documentviewer/en/IIA/constitution/8385503
(5) https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/C-367/first-reading
(6) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/cmmLgPblcVw?comlogId=584234

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

Private Member Bills In Current Session:
(1) Bill C-206: Decriminalizing Self Maiming To Avoid Military Service
(2) Bill C-207: Creating The “Right” To Affordable Housing
(3) Bill C-219: Creating Environmental Bill Of Rights
(4) Bill C-226: Creating A Strategy For Environmental Racism/Justice
(5) Bill C-229: Banning Symbols Of Hate, Without Defining Them
(6) Bill C-235: Building Of A Green Economy In The Prairies
(7) Bill C-245: Entrenching Climate Change Into Canada Infrastructure Bank
(8) Bill C-250: Imposing Prison Time For Holocaust Denial
(9) Bill C-261: Red Flag Laws For “Hate Speech”
(10.1) Bill C-293: Domestic Implementation Of Int’l Pandemic Treaty
(10.2) Bill C-293: Concerns Raised In Hearings Over Food Supplies
(11) Bill C-312: Development Of National Renewable Energy Strategy
(12) Bill C-315: Amending CPPIB Act Over “Human, Labour, Environmental Rights”
(13) Bill C-367: Removing Religious Exemptions Protecting Against Antisemitism
(14) Bill C-373: Removing Religious Exemptions Protecting Against Antisemitism 2.0
(15) Bill C-388: Fast Tracking Weapons, Energy, Gas To Ukraine
(16) Bill C-390: Expanding Euthanasia Into PROVINCIAL Frameworks
(17) Bills C-398/C-399: Homeless Encampments, Immigration “Equity”
(18) Bill S-215: Protecting Financial Stability Of Post-Secondary Institutions
(19) Bill S-243: Climate Related Finance Act, Banking Acts
(20) Bill S-248: Removing Final Consent For Euthanasia
(21) Bill S-257: Protecting Political Belief Or Activity As Human Rights
(22) Bill S-275: Adding “Sustainable And Equitable Prosperity” To Bank Of Canada Act

Posted on

Adam Skelly, Part 4: October Hearing To Be Postponed Into 2025

The long anticipated hearing of Adam Skelly challenging the Reopening Ontario Act (R.O.A.) has been delayed again, this time, until 2025. It was supposed to begin next week, and last for 3 days. See parts 1, 2 and 3 for background information.

The prime reason seems to be that one of the expert witnesses has withdrawn, leaving Skelly scrambling to find a replacement.

Justice Akazaki vacated the dates, while questioning whether or not the hearings could be squeezed into a single day, or 2.

ENDORSEMENT

[1] This is a request to adjourn and reschedule a three-day hearing of a constitutional challenge to a provincial offence arising from the alleged breach of the Ontario Covid-19 lockdown order.

[2] The OCJ has stayed the provincial offence trial. The applicant / accused has waived his s. 11(b) rights. Nevertheless, I am cognizant of the need to avoid further delay. The OCJ proceeding largely entails an agreed statement of fact.

[3] The adjournment was necessitated by the withdrawal of one of the applicant’s expert witnesses. There are also additional steps to be undertaken.

[4] The main impediment to scheduling the return date was the dispute over the length of the hearing. The applicant maintained the case requires three days. The respondents both stated the hearing can be completed in one day.

[5] There is an advantage to having the duration of the hearing settled by a case conference judge, once counsel have organized the completion of the next steps. If the hearing can take place during one day or two instead of three, the hearing can be scheduled earlier and without taking up unnecessary hearing dates.

[6] Therefore, I hereby order:
1. The October 1, 2, and 7, 2024, hearing dates are hereby vacated.
2. The parties shall request a case conference at the earliest opportunity, once the next steps have been agreed, to reschedule the hearing

Why does all of this still matter? For starters, the R.O.A. is still on the books, even if there are no orders in effect from it. This means that in theory, a new “crisis” could lead to future dictates.

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

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

(1) Skelly – RBC Default Judgement Order

MALPRACTICE SUIT AGAINST MICHAEL SWINWOOD:
(1) Skelly – Swinwood Malpractice Statement Of Claim

NEW APPLICATION DOCUMENTS:
(1) Skelly – Notice Of Application (Ian Perry)
(2) Skelly – Costs – Notice of Motion – Moving Party (Respondent) HMTK
(3) Skelly – Costs – Motion Record-Moving Party (Respondent)
(4) Skelly – Costs – Applicant Responding Motion Record Security For Costs
(5) Skelly – Costs – Factum – Moving Party – HMK
(6) Skelly – Costs – Responding Factum Applicants Skelly et al
(7) Skelly – Justice Akazaki Deferral Of Case

EXPERT REPORTS:
(1A) Skelly – Byram Bridle Resume
(1B) Skelly – Byram Bridle Expert Report
(1C) Skelly – Byram Bridle Expert Reply Report

(2A) Skelly – Douglas Allen Resume
(2B) Skelly – Douglas Allen Expert Report
(2C) Skelly – Douglas Allen Expert Report

(3A) Skelly – Gilbert Berdine Resume
(3B) Skelly – Gilbert Berdine Expert Report
(3C) Skelly – Gilbert Berdine Expert Reply Report

(4A) Skelly – Harvey Risch Affidavit
(4B) Skelly – Harvey Risch Expert Report

(5A) Skelly – Joel Kettner Resume
(5B) Skelly – Joel Kettner Expert Report
(5C) Skelly – Joel Kettner Expert Reply Report

(6A) Skelly – William Briggs Resume
(6B) Skelly – William Briggs Expert Report
(6C) Skelly – William Briggs Expert Reply Report

Posted on

Bills C-398/C-399: The “Right” Of Homeless Encampments, And Immigration “Equity”

Just before Parliament took its Summer recess in 2024, NDP Member of Parliament, Jenny Kwan, introduced 2 Private Member’s Bills: C-398 and C-399.

Both are in the introductory stage in the House of Commons. While Private Bills don’t commonly become law, there’s always the possibility they will. There’s also the prospect that the contents will simply be incorporated into a larger, Government Bill.

Starting with Bill C-398, it would create the “right” to set up homeless encampments on Federal land. It would amend the National Housing Strategy Act in several places. Authorities would be prevented from blocking them, or shutting them down. And for reference:

Homeless encampment means an outdoor settlement of one or more temporary structures, such as tents, vehicles or other structures that are not designed or intended for permanent human habitation but that one or more persons experiencing homelessness use as their residence.‍ (campement d’itinérants).

(e) establish measures to prevent the removal of homeless encampments on federal land and to identify alternatives to homeless encampments following meaningful engagement with their residents; and

(f) provide for processes to ensure that Indigenous peoples are actively involved and supported in determining and developing culturally appropriate housing-related programs and that responses to homeless encampments respect their rights.

Bill C-398 does talk about “identifying alternatives to homeless encampments”. Presumably this means providing people with low or no-cost housing. Interestingly, there’s nothing in the legislation that says it will only apply to Canadian citizens, or permanent residents, or landed immigrants.

Logically, anyone who entered the country illegally, who who overstayed their visa, would be entitled to the same protections.

Mandate
10 (1) The mandate of the Ombud is to examine the practices of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration to ensure that they are fair, equitable, unbiased, non-racist and non-discriminatory, and to conduct investigations if the Ombud has reasonable grounds to believe that a person or group of persons has been the victim of unfairness, inequity, bias, racism or discrimination — including systemic racism and systemic discrimination — in the Department’s decision-making process.

Duties and functions
(2) The Ombud’s duties and functions include
(a) reviewing the Department of Citizenship and Immigration’s policies, programs, initiatives, training procedures and processing standards to identify fairness or equity problems in the Department’s administration of the Citizenship Act and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, including those resulting from biases and discrimination — including systemic racism and systemic discrimination;
(b) receiving and, if appropriate, investigating complaints, including complaints about the problems referred to in paragraph (a);
(c) monitoring trends and patterns in complaints in order to identify the problems referred to in paragraph (a); and
(d) making recommendations to the Minister regarding any unfairness, inequity, bias or discrimination — including systemic racism and systemic discrimination — that the Ombud identifies.

Kwan wants to create an ombudsman to ensure that “equitable” policies and practices are being implemented by the Ministry of Citizenship and Immigration. She also wants that ombudsman to make recommendations to the Minister in order to help this along.

Now, while the connection may seem tenuous, consider this:

The New Democrats and experts agree that the problem on orderly crossings is the safe third country agreement. For over a year now, I have been calling on the government to invoke article 10 of the safe third country agreement and to provide written notice to the United States that we are suspending the agreement.

If the safe third country agreement is suspended, asylum seekers can make safe, orderly crossings at designated ports of entry. This will protect the rights of the asylum seekers, provide safety and stability to Canada’s border communities most impacted by this influx, and allow for the government agencies, such as the RCMP, CBSA, IRCC, and the IRB, to strategically deploy personnel and resources necessary to establish border infrastructure instead of this ad hoc approach. This is the rational, reasonable response to this situation.

Back in April 2018, Kwan posted on her website that she had been calling on the Trudeau Government to suspend the Safe Third Country Agreement. The reason for doing this is so that people entering from the United States — to claim asylum — could simply stroll into any official port of entry.

In November 2018, Kwan called for the Safe Third Country Agreement to be suspended, claiming that the U.S. (under Donald Trump) wasn’t a “safe country”.

In March 2020, she wrote to Trudeau and Freeland, protesting that illegals trying to cross from the U.S. were being turned back.

Taken together, what does this all mean?

It means that Kwan, who is pro-open borders, supports having illegals come in from the U.S., and presumably elsewhere as well. On one hand, she introduces Bill C-398, which entrenches the “right” of people to set up encampments on Federal land. On the other, she has Bill C-399, which creates and ombudsman to ensure that “equitable” immigration policies are enforced, and to make recommendations to the Minister.

Will taxpayer funded “housing for illegals” become a human right?

(1) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/44-1/c-398
(2) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Members/en/jenny-kwan(89346)
(3) https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/C-398/first-reading
(4) https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/n-11.2/FullText.html
(5) https://www.parl.ca/LegisInfo/en/bill/44-1/C-399
(6) https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/C-399/first-reading
(7) https://www.jennykwanndp.ca/on_irregular_border_crossings
(8) https://www.jennykwanndp.ca/emergency_study_on_irregular_border_crossings
(9) https://www.jennykwanndp.ca/open_letter_to_deputy_prime_minister_on_border_restriction

Private Member Bills In Current Session:
(1) Bill C-206: Decriminalizing Self Maiming To Avoid Military Service
(2) Bill C-207: Creating The “Right” To Affordable Housing
(3) Bill C-219: Creating Environmental Bill Of Rights
(4) Bill C-226: Creating A Strategy For Environmental Racism/Justice
(5) Bill C-229: Banning Symbols Of Hate, Without Defining Them
(6) Bill C-235: Building Of A Green Economy In The Prairies
(7) Bill C-245: Entrenching Climate Change Into Canada Infrastructure Bank
(8) Bill C-250: Imposing Prison Time For Holocaust Denial
(9) Bill C-261: Red Flag Laws For “Hate Speech”
(10.1) Bill C-293: Domestic Implementation Of Int’l Pandemic Treaty
(10.2) Bill C-293: Concerns Raised In Hearings Over Food Supplies
(11) Bill C-312: Development Of National Renewable Energy Strategy
(12) Bill C-315: Amending CPPIB Act Over “Human, Labour, Environmental Rights”
(13) Bill C-367: Removing Religious Exemptions Protecting Against Antisemitism
(14) Bill C-373: Removing Religious Exemptions Protecting Against Antisemitism 2.0
(15) Bill C-388: Fast Tracking Weapons, Energy, Gas To Ukraine
(16) Bill C-390: Expanding Euthanasia Into PROVINCIAL Frameworks
(17) Bill S-215: Protecting Financial Stability Of Post-Secondary Institutions
(18) Bill S-243: Climate Related Finance Act, Banking Acts
(19) Bill S-248: Removing Final Consent For Euthanasia
(20) Bill S-257: Protecting Political Belief Or Activity As Human Rights
(21) Bill S-275: Adding “Sustainable And Equitable Prosperity” To Bank Of Canada Act