(From Canuck Politics. Although a political ad, this one is entirely truthful, and worth a mention.) Ideologically, Justin Trudeau and Rocco Galati seem to be aligned on this issue.
Galati wasn’t even born in Canada. This makes him a foreigner trying to change the laws for the benefit of other foreigners. He’ll never be a Canadian, except in a civic sense, and even that is questionable.
Note: at 3:30, Galati claims this is about stripping rights of CANADIAN born people. But in court, he tries to claim his immigrant status for private interest standing. Nice bait-and-switch.
1. Islam, Terrorism, Religious Violence
Check this series for more information on the religion of peace. Tolerance of intolerance is being forced on the unwilling public. Included are efforts to crack down on free speech, under the guise of “religious tolerance”. What isn’t discussed as much are the enablers, whether they are lawyers, politicians, lobbyists, of members of the media.
2. Galati A Professional Agitator/Disruptor?
Rocco Galati started his career as a tax litigator for the Department of Justice, but soon decided to switch sides: He devoted himself, he says, to “cases against the government.”
“You need a lawyer when the government’s after you. Private disputes you should be able to settle. But the government’s a machine,” he said. “Often there’s little room for negotiation. It’s all or nothing.”
The Toronto lawyer, known for his florid, over-the-top language, has carved a reputation for being a thorn in the side of the federal government. He stuck it to the government when he successfully challenged the appointment of Marc Nadon to the Supreme Court of Canada. Now, he’s at it again with a court challenge against changes to the Citizenship Act that allow the government to revoke the Canadian citizenship of dual citizens convicted of terrorism or treason.
Last month, Immigration Minister Chris Alexander called Mr. Galati a “disgraced, ideological former lawyer of the Khadr family.” Mr. Galati once represented Abdurahman Khadr, the older brother of convicted war criminal Omar Khadr.
Mr. Galati insists he is not driven by ideology or politics (“I sued the Liberal government more than I can count,” he said), and denounced Mr. Alexander for resorting to mudslinging. “Instead of trying to deal with the message, he tries to denigrate the messenger.”
Over the course of a 45-minute chat this week, Mr. Galati called the war on terror “phoney,” said judicial appointments aren’t based on merit but who you know, and suggested that the Canadian Security Intelligence Service is likely listening in on his calls.
The government, he said, is a “machine” that doesn’t care for the little guy.
The son of a construction worker, the Italian-born Mr. Galati, 55, has spent more than two decades of defending terror suspects and other individuals pegged for deportation.
That was a 2015 article from the National Post, which spells out pretty well the situation with Rocco Galati. He considers himself an opponent of the government.
3. Galati Fighting For Terrorists’ Rights
Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Mahjoub, 2001 CanLII 22177 (FCA)
This was an appeal to the Federal Court of Appeals as to whether suspected terrorists can be detained on “security certificates”, and what were the terms.
Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Mahjoub, 2003 FC 928 (CanLII),  1 FCR 493
A very interesting technique: Stall for as long as possible using various tactics, then claim your rights are violated when everything is delayed unreasonably. Seems designed to weaponize the rules.
Harkat (Re), 2003 FCT 759 (CanLII),  4 FC 1020
This challenge was to prevent a suspected terrorist from being removed from Canada. He was found to be ineligible to stay as a refugee.
In December 2003, Galati claimed he would no longer be taking terrorism cases because he was threatened. Spoiler: he still takes them. There seemed to be no moral issue with doing this line of work, however.
In 2004, Galati and Abdurahman Khadr (Omar Khadr’s older brother), held a press conference. Galati had secured Khadr’s release form Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Khadr admits that stories he previously told were completely made up.
R. v. Ghany, 2006 CanLII 24454 (ON SC)
In 2006, Galati launched a constitutional challenge to make it mandatory that all (Ontario) terrorism cases be heard in Ontario Superior Court, as opposed to the Lower Court. Galati reasoned that this would make it easier for accused terrorists to be bail.
Horrace v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 FC 114 (CanLII)
Galati represented a Liberian man who tried to claim asylum, and failed twice. He was under investigation for terrorism/subversion back home, and there were serious safety concerns. Galati attempted to secure permanent resident status but failed.
Galati v. Canada (Gov General), 2015 FC 91 (CanLII),  4 FCR 3
This challenge was against Harper’s Bill C-24. That bill would have seen foreigners who obtain Canadian citizeship have it stripped away if they were convicted of terrorism or treason. Galati claimed as an Italian born he would be theoretically vulnerable (as a way to gain private interest standing).
Galati v. Canada (Governor General), (A-52-15)
Galati lost his challenge to let dual national terrorists keep their Canadian citizenship. He appealed that ruling, however, the election of Justin Trudeau made this a non issue.
One thing that needs to be pointed out: it’s not like Galati was hard up for money, or that it was a single mistake. He has been doing this for many years.
4. Galati Billed $800/Hour For Nadon Case
Galati v. Harper, 2014 FC 1088 (CanLII)
Galati v. Harper, 2016 FCA 39 (CanLII)
Rocco Galati, et al. v. Right Honourable Stephen Harper, et al., 2016 CanLII 47514 (SCC)
Think that it was ideological that Galati challenged a judicial appointment? Not really. He tried to claim a fee of $800 per hour for his work. This is excessive, as ruled the Federal Court, and the Federal Court of Appeal. The Supreme Court of Canada declined to hear the appeal. So much for principles.
5. Mainville Reference: Quebec Court Of Appeal
Galati apparently wasn’t content with meddling in selection for the Supreme Court of Canada. He also tried to interfere with the selection of a Justice to the Quebec Court of Appeal. This time though, he failed.
6. Constitutional Rights Centre Inc.
The Constitutional Rights Centre Inc. (“CRC”) was incorporated, in Ontario, in November, 2004. From 2004 to 2013, it non-publicly, except to lawyers, operated in its development, in assisting and procuring legal counsel, with respect to constitutional cases, where counsel and/or their client, lacked the funds and/or expertise to mount, argue, or appeal a constitutional issue or case. Since 2013 it has, as co-Applicant, also initiated litigation in such cases as the “Nadon Reference” case, the “Mainville Reference” case, the challenge to the new Citizenship Act (Bill C-24).
Pretty strange that THESE are the cases that are first promoted on the main page of the website. Aren’t there better causes than convicted terrorists?
The CRC is structurally organized as follows:
It consists of one (1) Corporate Director.
It further consists of the following Operational Directors:
Rocco Galati, B.A.(McGill), LL.B., LL.M. (Osgoode)
Executive Director (Founder) and Director of Tax and other Civil Litigation
Paul Slansky, B.A., LL.B (Michigan)., J.D. (Detroit)
Operational Director, (Quasi) Criminal Litigation
Amina Sherazee, B.A., LL.B (Windsor)., LL.M. (Candidate)
Operational Director, Immigration, Human Rights, and Women’s Litigation
Manuel Azevedo, L.L.B. (Osgoode), LL.M. (LSE)
Operational Director, Administrative Law Litigation
From 2004 until 2013, it apparently operated as some secret organization to get counsel and funds for constitutional cases. Considering the cases they view as “worthwhile” it’s not surprising that it would be operated secretly.
7. Terrorist Lawyer Manuel Azevedo, Bill C-24
When Galati challenged Bill C-24 (stripping citizenship rights from dual national terrorists), Manuel Azevedo was an Applicant along side him. Azevdo was born in Portugal, not Canada, making him another foreigner trying to rewrite Canadian laws. Azevedo is also a Director at the Constitutional Rights Centre.
8. Terrorist Lawyer Paul Slansky: CRC Director
Who does Galati have as Directors in his organization? One is Paul Slansky, who also takes terrorism cases.
 Paul Slansky, counsel for the plaintiff Donald Best, appeals from a decision requiring Mr. Slansky to pay costs personally, in the sum of $84,000, on a joint and several basis with his client. He submits that the motion judge erred in two respects:
• The hearing was unfair, because he did not have adequate notice of the grounds upon which the motion judge grounded her decision to order him to pay costs personally.
• The motion judge awarded costs against him because he took on a weak case, not on the basis pleaded by the respondents, which was that he had taken procedural steps which wasted costs.
 More generally, Mr. Slansky submits that the motion judge should not have ordered him to pay costs personally, and would not have done so had she exercised the extreme caution required.
 For the following reasons, I would dismiss the appeal.
 On appeal, Mr. Slansky argues that Action 2 was not abusive. It was against many different parties and for different causes of action. That issue has now been conclusively determined by the dismissal of Mr. Best’s appeal from the decision striking Action 2 as an abuse of process. Action 2 made similar allegations of impropriety as had been voiced in the course of Action 1. The motion judge did not err in considering that Mr. Slansky incorporated into the pleading in Action 2 accusations of criminal misconduct against opposing counsel that had repeatedly been judicially rejected as baseless.
 Finally, as this court indicated in Galganov, at paras. 23-25, deference is owed to a motion judge’s decision as to whether a lawyer should pay costs personally:
 For these reasons, the appeal is dismissed with costs payable by Mr. Slansky in favour of the respondents in the agreed sum of $30,000 inclusive of HST and disbursements.
Judges don’t usually order lawyers to personally pay the costs of their own clients. This would have to be pretty bad to make such an exception.
9. Galati/COMER V. Bank Of Canada
The COMER case was previously covered on the site, and is actually a worthwhile cause. It ran from 2011 until 2017, when the Supreme Court of Canada declined to hear an appeal. The International Banking Cartel bleeds us dry. In retrospect, however, a cynic might wonder if it was rigged from the start, given there is no justification whatsoever for our participation in such a system.
Committee for Monetary and Economic Reform (“COMER”) v. Canada, 2013 FC 855 (CanLII) Text Of Ruling
Committee for Monetary and Economic Reform v. Canada, 2014 FC 380 (CanLII) Text Of Ruling
Committee for Monetary and Economic Reform v. The Queen, 2015 FCA 20 (CanLII) Text Of Ruling
Committee for Monetary and Economic Reform (“COMER”) v. Canada, 2016 FC 147 (CanLII) Text Of Ruling
Committee for Monetary and Economic Reform v. Canada, 2016 FCA 312 (CanLII) Text Of Ruling
The Supreme Court of Canada Declined to hear the case.
10. Not Who You Think They Are
Considering the history that the Constitutional Rights Centre Directors have defending terrorist rights. Why would sensible, intelligent people choose that as a cause to take on? Why would they try to intervene in judicial appointments?
Do they internally agree with the cases they’ve taken on, or is there some other agenda? It can’t (entirely) be about the money, as there are easier ways to get paid.
With the filing of the challenge in Ontario Superior Court, Rocco Galati has obtained somewhat of a cult following. The Statement of Claim is 191 pages, very repetitive, and contains a lot of argument and evidence, which it shouldn’t. 3 months later (and counting), no defense filed. However, people should know what he really stands for. This is not to question his ability or skill as a lawyer, but rather his priorities.
In 2005, almost the entire Conservative Party Caucus, and over 1/4 of the Liberal Party Caucus voted to conserve marriage as between 1 man and 1 woman. Taking such a stand would be completely unthinkable in today’s climate.
1. Understanding Our Real History
CLICK HERE, for #1: UN Declaration on Rights of Indigenous Peoples. CLICK HERE, for #2: Indian Act of Canada, wards of the Crown. CLICK HERE, for #3: UNESCO’s land grabs as “heritage sites”.
2. Why Cover This Particular Topic?
If anything, this marks a point where the globohomo movement really took off in Canada. Instead of being a small group out on its own, this was the beginning of lawfare in order to force itself on the public at large. Certainly there had been lobbying and court challenges before, but this seems to be a turning point.
The court challenges started in 2003, and it ended with Bill C-38 in 2005. For the full text of Bill C-38.
To accept this (and other “changes”) as part of our heritage to rewrite history. These changes — always done incrementally — are done to subvert and undermine what the country is.
There is more to the story than just Bill C-38. Starting in 2003, there were a series of Provincial Court challenges (each successful). In some sense, this made the Federal Bill a mere formality.
4. Harper Made No Real Effort To Reverse
After winning power in 2006, the Harper Government made a very half hearted attempt to pass a motion to reopen the debate on marriage. But it was obvious that it was just going through the motions to appease supporters.
5. Modern Conservatism In Canada
There is a vast difference between accepting a group, and openly promoting their agenda. Difficult to imagine these cucks standing up to “conserve” anything now. At this point, modern conservative parties need to be allowed to die so new options can come forward.
If a bill was introduced to restore the traditional definition of marriage, there is not a liberal politician in Canada who would support it. Very few conservatives would, and they would receive backlash for doing so.
P.S. It’s not just “conservatives” in Canada who pander to the gay mafia. It’s happening elsewhere as well.
(From Canuck Politics. Although a political ad, this one is entirely truthful, and worth a mention.)
Rocco Galati and Justin Trudeau both believe it’s a human right for foreigners who obtain Canadian citizenship to retain that citizenship, even after being convicted of terrorism or treason offences. Although Galati lost that court challenge, Justin Trudeau would “correct” it anyway, by implementing Bill C-6.
Simply holding a Canadian passport doesn’t make you a Canadian, except in a civic sense. Terrorists and traitors, however, don’t even deserve that.
1. Islam, Terrorism, Religious Violence
Check this series for more information on the religion of peace. Tolerance of intolerance is being forced on the unwilling public. Included are efforts to crack down on free speech, under the guise of “religious tolerance”.
2. Galati Defending Terrorists’ “Rights”
CLICK HERE, for Galati claiming to have received threats. CLICK HERE, for $10.5 million payout to Khadr. CLICK HERE, for Galati defending citizenship for terrorists.
 In my view, the real issue is whether the designated judge in a s. 40.1 hearing has jurisdiction to grant the remedy sought. Section 40.1(4)(d) states that the designated judge shall “determine whether the certificate filed by the Minister and the Solicitor General is reasonable on the basis of the evidence and the information available to the Chief justice or the designated judge, as the case may be, and, if found not to be reasonable, quash the certificate”. In Re Baroud, Denault, J., found that the role of this court is neither to substitute its decision for that of the Minister and the Solicitor General, nor to find that they were correct in their assessment of the evidence. Rather, the designated judge must determine, based on the evidence presented to him or her, whether the Ministers’ decision to issue the certificate is reasonable.
 Does the assessment of reasonableness, pursuant to s. 40.1(4)(d), include as assessment of whether upholding the certificate would breach the applicant’s constitutional rights? I do not find that it does. In my view, reasonableness and constitutionality are distinct issues. Reasonableness involves an evaluation of the evidence to determine if it supports the Ministers’ decision; constitutionality is a more in-depth assessment of the applicant’s constitutional rights. In my view, a plain reading of s. 40.1(4)(d) gives the designated judge jurisdiction only to consider the reasonableness of the certificate. If Parliament had intended the designated judge to consider the validity of the certificate, including its constitutionality, the section could have been so drafted.
 My decision that the designated judge does not have jurisdiction to consider Charter matters is further supported by the fact that there is no appeal from the decision of the designated judge. Section 40.1(6) states:
“A determination under paragraph (4)(d) is not subject to appeal or review by any court”.
By expressly prohibiting further appeal or review, Parliament reinforced the notion that proceedings under s. 40.1 of the Immigration Act are intended only to consider whether the Ministers’ decision to issue the certificate is reasonable on the basis of the available evidence.
 Although I initially had doubts regarding Cullen J.’s conclusion, I am now satisfied that his conclusion is the correct one. I find support for Cullen J.’s conclusion in the Federal Court of Appeal’s decision in Suresh v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)(1998), 229 N.R. 240. The issue before the Court of Appeal was whether a judge designated under subsections 40.1(8) and (9) of the Act had jurisdiction to hear constitutional issues that arose from an order made by a judge pursuant to subsection 40.1(9) of the Act.
This appeal concerned the constitutionality of the security certificates issued by the government. The limit scope of the appeals was over whether the decisions handed down were reasonable or not.
4. Bringing Back The Khadrs (2002 to ….)
Galati, decided to stop representing terrorists in late 2003. It wasn’t because he saw the practice as wrong. Instead, it was due to alleged death threats. One of his clients was Abdurahman Khadr, brother of Omar Khadr.
Omar Khadr himself, would eventually receive $10.5 million from taxpayers, due to “alleged” abuses and human rights violations at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
As to the first part of the test, the reference to a period of 120 days in subsection 84(2) reflects Parliament’s intent that once a certificate has been determined to be reasonable, the person named in the certificate should be removed expeditiously. In the present case, Mahjoub has been detained for slightly over three years and it has been 21 months since the certificate was upheld. However, by requiring as one of the criteria for release that the Court consider whether removal will or will not take place within a reasonable time, Parliament has contemplated that in some circumstances, removal will not have occurred within 120 days, but the period of detention may still be a reasonable period. Otherwise, release after 120 days would be automatic, absent considerations of national security or the safety of persons. What in any particular case will be reasonable will depend upon the facts and circumstances of that case. Any uncertainty about when Mahjoub may be removed resulted from two significant circumstances: (i) Court proceedings which he has initiated or will initiate; and (ii) concerns as to whether Mahjoub faces a risk of torture or death if he is removed to Egypt. With respect to the first circumstance, while it was Mahjoub’s right to exhaust all avenues of legal recourse, the time required for those challenges could not be relied upon for the purpose of arguing that he will not be removed within a reasonable time. As to the second circumstance, the Supreme Court of Canada affirmed in Suresh that, absent extraordinary circumstances, deportation to torture will generally violate the principles of fundamental justice protected by section 7 of the Charter. Thus, generally, as a matter of law, the Minister should decline to deport Convention refugees where there is a substantial risk of torture.
The position of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS), as stated in the summary, is that it believes that Mr. Mahjoub is a high-ranking member of an Egyptian Islamic terrorist organization, the Vanguards of Conquest, a radical wing of the Egyptian Islamic Jihad or Al Jihad. According to CSIS, Al Jihad is one of the groups which split from Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood in the 1970’s to form a more extremist and militant organization. Al Jihad, according to CSIS, advocates the use of violence as a means of establishing an Islamic state in Egypt.
The summary provided to Mr. Mahjoub set out, to the extent consistent with national security and the safety of persons, CSIS’s grounds for believing that Mr. Mahjoub will, while in Canada, engage in or instigate the subversion by force of the Gov ernment of Egypt, and that he is a member of an organization that there are reasonable grounds to believe was and is engaged in terrorism, and which will engage in subversion by force against the Government of Egypt. The summary also set out the Service’s grounds to believe that Mr. Mahjoub had engaged in terrorism.
An open hearing was held before Mr. Justice Nadon from February 26, 2001 to March 8, 2001 for the purpose of providing to Mr. Mahjoub a reasonable opportunity to be heard with respect to the certificate. Submissions were made by counsel to Mr. Justice Nadon on May 8, 2001. On October 5, 2001 [2001 FCT 1095 (CanLII),  4 F.C. 644 (T.D.)], Mr. Justice Nadon determined that, on the basis of the evidence and information available to him, the certificate filed by the Ministers is reasonable.
On March 25, 2002 [ I.Adj.D.D. No. 5 (QL)], the Adjudication Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board found Mr. Mahjoub to be inadmissible, based on the security certificate. A deportation order was therefore issued.
With respect to membership in the Vanguards of Conquest and/or Al Jihad, Mr. Justice Nadon found that:
1. Mr. Mahjoub perjured himself when he denied knowing Mr. Marzouk.
2. Mr. Mahjoub was not truthful with respect to his connection with Mr. Al Duri.
3. Mr. Mahjoub was not truthful with respect to the use of his alias “Mahmoud Shaker” to CSIS agents.
4. Mr. Mahjoub was not truthful regarding his true activities while he worked in the Sudan for Osama bin Laden.
5. Mr. Mahjoub was initially untruthful when he was interviewed by CSIS and he denied knowing Mr. Ahmad Said Khadr.
In addition to lying in his earlier application, a defense was raised that human rights had been violated, since the deportation order hadn’t taken place within 120 days (4 months). However, that falls flat when it’s pointed out that the Applicant tried other legal means to stay in Canada.
 The applicants submit that s. 83.01 offences are “akin, of the same class and indistinguishable from offences included in s. 469 of the Criminal Code, and therefore within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Superior Court of Justice. They argue that on the allegations as disclosed to date, “some of the allegations cited constitute, or may constitute, treason and/or intimidating Parliament or attempts thereunder”. Further, the applicants submit the nature and content of terrorism charges are “either subsets or specific instances of s. 469 offences or indistinguishably akin to them”.
 The fact that some of the offences under s. 83.01 involve elements of other offences does not assist the applicants. For example, another count of the information charges two accused with importing a firearm and prohibited ammunition contrary to s. 103 of the Criminal Code for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with a terrorist group, thereby committing an offence contrary to s. 83.2 of the Criminal Code. Doing so does not turn those offences into s. 469 offences. Section 103 is not covered by s. 469.
 The applicants further submit that their s. 15 Charter rights are impacted by this constitutional omission. Mr. Galati argues that having these offences “against the Canadian state tried by provincially appointed “lower magistrates” infringes sections 7 and 15 of the Charter, as well as infringing the pre-amble to the Constitution Act, 1982 in placing offences against the Canadian state before provincially appointed “lower magistrates and justices”. Finally, they submit that s. 469 “offers certain procedural and judicial benefits and protections for the accused” which mitigates in favour of having “the highest judicial scrutiny, and review by exclusive jurisdiction at first instance”. In regard to the contention that the cases are being “tried” in the Ontario Court of Justice, the issue on this application is the forum of the bail hearings.
In short, Galati wanted his client (who was charged with Section 83 — terrorism — offences), to have the court view them in the same manner as Section 469 offences. This would make it mandatory that bail hearings be held by the Superior Court of Justice in Ontario. Thus it would remove the discretion for the Lower Court to conduct it. Galati admits that the reason behind it is that he figures it will be easier for his client to get bail.
(8) The portion of subsection 3(3) of the Act before paragraph (b) is replaced by the following:
(3) Paragraphs (1)(b), (f) to (j), (q) and (r) do not apply to a person born outside Canada
(a) if, at the time of his or her birth, only one of the person’s parents was a citizen and that parent was a citizen under paragraph (1)(b), (c.1), (e), (g), (h), (o), (p), (q) or (r) or both of the person’s parents were citizens under any of those paragraphs;
(a.1) if the person was born before January 1, 1947 and, on that day, only one of the person’s parents was a citizen and that parent was a citizen under paragraph (1)(o) or (q), or both of the person’s parents were citizens under either of those paragraphs; (a.2) if the person was born before April 1, 1949 and, on that day, only one of the person’s parents was a citizen and that parent was a citizen under paragraph (1)(p) or (r), or both of the person’s parents were citizens under either of those paragraphs; or
This provision would allow for Canada to strip away the Canadian citizenship of a foreign-born person convicted of terrorism or treason, if citizenship elsewhere was an option.
 The applicants seek to set aside the decision of His Excellency The Right Honourable David Johnston Governor General of Canada on June 19, 2014 to grant royal assent to Bill C-24, the Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act, SC 2014, c 22 (Strengthening Citizenship Act).
 Section 8 of the Strengthening Citizenship Act amends the Citizenship Act, RSC 1985, c C-29 (Citizenship Act). The amendments allow the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to revoke the citizenship of natural-born and naturalized Canadian citizens where a citizen has a conviction relating to national security or terrorism. These convictions include treason under section 47 of the Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46 (subsection 10(2)(a) of the Citizenship Act); a terrorism offence as defined in section 2 of the Criminal Code (subsection 10(2)(b) of the Citizenship Act) and certain offences under the National Defence Act, RSC 1985, c N-5 and the Security of Information Act, RSC 1985, c O-5. Where the citizen holds, or could have a right to dual nationality, the Strengthening Citizenship Act provides for the revocation of citizenship and designation of that individual as a foreign national, which may lead to deportation from Canada.
 Given these principles, it is clear that Parliament must enjoy exclusive and unqualified legislative competence over citizenship, subject only to constraints of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
 The application for judicial review is dismissed. The matter in respect of which judicial review is sought, the decision to grant royal assent, is a legislative act and not justiciable. The respondents are not federal boards exercising a power or jurisdiction conferred under an act of Parliament. In any event, the substantive argument with respect to constitutionality of the Strengthening Citizenship Act fails. Section 8 of the Strengthening Citizenship Act is within the legislative competence of Parliament.
THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is that the application is dismissed, with costs. If parties cannot agree on the amount of costs, submissions of no more than five pages in length may be made within 10 days from the date of this decision.
Although this application was thrown out, Trudeau would soon be elected, making this all a non-issue. Still, it’s absurd beyond belief that foreigners who come to Canada only to engage in these crimes should have people fighting for their rights.
9. Trudeau Liberals Introduce Bill C-6 (2016)
In early 2016, the Trudeau Government introduced Bill C-6, to remove the requirement that foreign born dual nationals be deported if convicted of terrorism or treason. In short, Trudeau did in the legislature what Rocco Galati failed to accomplish in Federal Court.
10. Rights Of Canadians Don’t Matter
Lawyers have a well deserved reputation for being scum, and these are just a few examples of it. Societal norms and protections are undermined under the pretense of “rights” for people who enter Canada with the intention of doing harm.
Just as bad are the lobbyists, politicians, NGOs, and others who undermine our laws to let these people in. Islam is not compatible with a Western Society, and we should not make any effort to accommodate it.
Foreign NGOs should not be allowed to influence laws and policies in Canada. For that matter, foreigners shouldn’t be allowed to hold public office — because their loyalty will always be divided.
For more information in various processes, check out this series. Some useful tidbits for the average person.
2. Standard For Review (Appeals)
The standard of review for findings of fact is such that they cannot be reversed unless the trial judge has made a “palpable and overriding error”. The same degree of deference must be paid to inferences of fact, since many of the reasons for showing deference to the factual findings of the trial judge apply equally to all factual conclusions. The standard of review for inferences of fact is not to verify that the inference can reasonably be supported by the findings of fact of the trial judge, but whether the trial judge made a palpable and overriding error in coming to a factual conclusion based on accepted facts, a stricter standard. Making a factual conclusion of any kind is inextricably linked with assigning weight to evidence, and thus attracts a deferential standard of review. If there is no palpable and overriding error with respect to the underlying facts that the trial judge relies on to draw the inference, then it is only where the inference‑drawing process itself is palpably in error that an appellate court can interfere with the factual conclusion.
Questions of mixed fact and law involve the application of a legal standard to a set of facts. Where the question of mixed fact and law at issue is a finding of negligence, it should be deferred to by appellate courts, in the absence of a legal or palpable and overriding error. Requiring a standard of “palpable and overriding error” for findings of negligence made by either a trial judge or a jury reinforces the proper relationship between the appellate and trial court levels and accords with the established standard of review applicable to a finding of negligence by a jury. Where the issue on appeal involves the trial judge’s interpretation of the evidence as a whole, it should not be overturned absent palpable and overriding error. A determination of whether or not the standard of care was met by the defendant involves the application of a legal standard to a set of facts, a question of mixed fact and law, and is thus subject to a standard of palpable and overriding error, unless it is clear that the trial judge made some extricable error in principle with respect to the characterization of the standard or its application, in which case the error may amount to an error of law, subject to a standard of correctness.
FACTUAL FINDINGS: Overriding, palpable errors
ERRORS IN LAW: Standard of correctness
(1) Limiting the Number, Length and Cost of Appeals
(2) Promoting the Autonomy and Integrity of Trial Proceedings
(3) Recognizing the Expertise of the Trial Judge and His or Her Advantageous Position
Per the Chief Justice: Comment as to attempting to define or replace by paraphrases the phrases “gross negligence” or “wilful and wanton misconduct”, and observations as to a trial judge’s duty in assisting a jury in an action based upon said enactment. The said phrases imply conduct in which, if there is not conscious wrong doing, there is a very marked departure from the standards by which responsible and competent people in charge of motor cars habitually govern themselves. Subject to that, it is entirely a question of fact for the jury whether conduct falls within the category of one or other of said phrases.
That case was about a motor vehicle accident, but the same principles should apply elsewhere.
 With respect, I think the judge failed to consider the concept of gross negligence that may result from the wrongdoer’s willful blindness. Even a wrongful intent, which often takes the form of knowledge of one or more of the ingredients of the alleged act, may be established through proof of willful blindness. In such cases the wrongdoer, while he may not have actual knowledge of the alleged ingredient, will be deemed to have that knowledge.
 In this case there is nothing like that. On the contrary, there are misrepresentations and payment of rebates. Before cashing the refund cheques, the respondents were either made aware of the misrepresentations or had strong suspicions as to the existence of misrepresentations or the legitimacy of the refunds themselves. By cashing the refunds and paying rebates, the respondents acquiesced and participated in the scheme that had been established to defraud the Agency. Their participation, which was free and voluntary, was an essential link in the realization of that scheme and they benefited economically from it. It is simply impossible not to conclude that this was willful blindness and consequently gross negligence.
This involved a rebate scheme that people had to know was fraudulent. Consequently, their willful blindness amouinted to gross negligence, according to the Federal Court of Appeal.
There are three aspects to the test, all of which must be satisfied before interlocutory (temporary) injunctive relief can issue. An applicant must demonstrate:
(a) First, that there is a serious constitutional question to be tried;
(b) Second, that the applicant will suffer irreparable harm if the injunction is not granted; and
(c) third, that the balance of convenience favours the injunction
In order for a party to bring a case claiming “public interest standing”, there are a few questions that have to be answered. This is so they limit their time to important matters:
(a) Serious Justiciable Issue
(b) The Nature of the Plaintiff’s Interest
(c) Reasonable and Effective Means of Bringing the Issue Before the Court
(a) whether there is a serious justiciable issue raised by the claim;
(b) whether the plaintiff is directly affected by the proposed action or, if not, has a genuine interest in its outcome; and
(c) whether the action is a reasonable and effective means to bring the claim to court
On a motion to strike, a claim will only be struck if it is plain and obvious, assuming the facts pleaded to be true, that the pleading discloses no reasonable cause of action. The approach must be generous, and err on the side of permitting a novel but arguable claim to proceed to trial. However, the judge cannot consider what evidence adduced in the future might or might not show.
A. The Test for Striking Out Claims
 The parties agree on the test applicable on a motion to strike for not disclosing a reasonable cause of action under r. 19(24)(a) of the B.C. Supreme Court Rules. This Court has reiterated the test on many occasions. A claim will only be struck if it is plain and obvious, assuming the facts pleaded to be true, that the pleading discloses no reasonable cause of action: Odhavji Estate v. Woodhouse, 2003 SCC 69,  3 S.C.R. 263, at para. 15; Hunt v. Carey Canada Inc., 1990 CanLII 90 (SCC),  2 S.C.R. 959, at p. 980. Another way of putting the test is that the claim has no reasonable prospect of success. Where a reasonable prospect of success exists, the matter should be allowed to proceed to trial: see, generally, Syl Apps Secure Treatment Centre v. B.D., 2007 SCC 38,  3 S.C.R. 83; Odhavji Estate; Hunt; Attorney General of Canada v. Inuit Tapirisat of Canada, 1980 CanLII 21 (SCC),  2 S.C.R. 735.
In 2017, the Supreme Court of Canada entrenched rights and protections of self represented litigants and accused persons into law. In the ruling they endorsed the Statement of Principles on Self-represented Litigants and Accused Persons (2006) (online) established by the Canadian Judicial Council. Now, while it’s nice to have that extra protection, it won’t help a person if they truly have no case.
9. All You Need To Know?
No, of course not. But the following should at least be useful information in determining your options and next move.
LEAF comes across as such a well intentioned and benevolent group. However, dig a little deeper, and the problems start to show through.
1. Trafficking, Smuggling, Child Exploitation
While abortion is trumpeted as a “human right” in Western societies, the obvious questions have to be asked: Why is it a human right? Who are these groups benefiting financially, and why are so they so fiercely against free speech? Will the organs be trafficked afterwards?
2. Important Links
CLICK HERE, to search Corporations Canada registry. CLICK HERE, for funding announcement for LEAF. CLICK HERE, for LEAF and so-called “reproductive justice” CLICK HERE, for calls to finance foreign abortions. CLICK HERE, for Private Member’s Bill C-225. CLICK HERE, for LEAF trying to ban Meghan Murphy. CLICK HERE, for LEAF wants mercy for drug mule. CLICK HERE, for LEAF supports ON sex-ed program. CLICK HERE, for RCMP and illegal organ trade. CLICK HERE, for Bill S-204, buying trafficked organs abroad.
 WOMEN’S LEGAL EDUCATION AND ACTION FUND FOUNDATION
Corporation Number: 255753-3
Business Number (BN): 880802897RC0001
 WOMEN’S LEGAL EDUCATION AND ACTION FUND INC.
Corporation Number: 189741-1
Business Number (BN): 108219916RC0001
A point of clarification: there are actually 2 separate Federal corporations registered with the Government. They have different (though similar) names, and different corporate and business numbers. They also have different addresses in Toronto.
It’s worth pointing out that LEAF has branches across Canada and the United States. They operate with the same basic philosophy.
4. Mental Gymnastics In LEAF Agenda
The Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund (LEAF) works to advance the substantive equality rights of women and girls through litigation, law reform, and public education. Since 1985, we have intervened in landmark cases that have advanced equality in Canada—helping to prevent violence, eliminate discrimination in the workplace, provide better maternity benefits, ensure a right to pay equity, and allow access to reproductive freedoms. For more information, please visit www.leaf.ca.
LEAF claims to be committed to a variety of good causes. However, their logic seems messed up. While they want better childcare benefits, it’s okay to kill the child up to the point of birth. And even when the mother DOES kill the child after birth, the penalties should be reduced.
And by what stretch of logic is murdering children compatible with preventing violence?
5. Canadian Taxpayers Are Financing This
Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund (LEAF) is receiving $880,000 to develop a modern, intersectional, and feminist strategic litigation plan that will enable feminists and gender equality advocates to address systemic barriers to gender equality and eliminate gender discrimination.
Canadian taxpayers will be footing the bill for some $880,000, for this 2019 grant. This is to develop a litigation plan to for what they refer to as fighting for gender equality. It’s unclear from the announcement how much (if any) will end up being diverted into actual court challenges.
6. LEAF’s Take On “Reproductive Justice”
1987 Baby R.
LEAF argued that children not yet born shouldn’t be allowed to be taken by government officials. Custody should be for people already alive. leaf.intervenor.factum.1988-baby-r
1989 Borowski v. Canada (Attorney General)
LEAF argued that the right to life should apply to the mother (and not to the child). The criminal code and charter shouldn’t apply to the unborn baby. leaf.intervenor.factum.1989-borowski
1989 Daigle v. Tremblay
LEAF argued that biological fathers should have no say over whether the child lives or dies, and that otherwise, it is an attempt to control the mother using the child as a proxy. leaf.intervenor.factum.1989-daigle
1991 R. v. Sullivan
LEAF argued that 2 midwives convicted of criminal negligence causing death (for the death of the baby) should have that charge thrown out, since the baby isn’t actually a person. leaf.intervenor.factum.1991-sullivan
1996 R v. Lewis
LEAF argued in favour maintaining “bubble zones”. These effectively were areas where abortion protesting would be banned. Free speech is fine, just not in certain areas. leaf.intervenor.factum.1996-lewis
1997 Winnipeg Child and Family Services v. G. (D.F.)
LEAF argued against the the state’s ability to detain a pregnant women, who was harming her own child. In this case, the mother was sniffing glue. leaf.intervenor.factum.1997-winnipeg-child-family
2003 R. v. Demers
LEAF argued again against the rights of people who were protesting abortion, although the arguments differed somewhat. leaf.intervenor.factum.2003-demers
LEAF is Pro-Life?
Yeah, not really seeing that here.
LEAF is Anti-Life
1987 Baby R
1989 Borowski v. Canada (Attorney General)
1989 Daigle v. Tremblay
1991 R. v. Sullivan
1996 R v. Lewis
1997 Winnipeg Child and Family Services v. G. (D.F.)
2003 R. v. Demers
2006 Watson v. R; Spratt v. R
2016 R v. MB
Keep in mind, these are not cases that impact LEAF directly. Instead, they go searching for cases to act as an intervenor (or interested party). In short, they insert themselves into OTHER cases in order to get the outcomes they want.
An astute person will realize that LEAF is fundamentally anti-free speech. Among the challenges they brag about is getting free speech restricted in order to facilitate abortion access.
This list is hardly exhaustive, but should give a pretty good idea of the things they stand against: rights for unborn children.
7. LEAF Wants Foreign Abortions Funded Too
As organizations who are deeply committed to the rights of women and girls, we are very concerned by recent statements regarding the Government of Canada’s refusal to fund safe abortion services abroad, including in cases of rape and for young women and girls in forced marriages. This approach represents a serious setback on women’s human rights and the health and wellbeing of survivors of sexual violence and girls in early and forced marriages.
We call on the Canadian government to:
1. Include access to safe abortion services as part of the package of sexual and reproductive health services funded by Canadian international cooperation initiatives;
2. Support effective strategies to ensure that survivors of sexual violence and young women and girls in early and forced marriage have access to a comprehensive package of sexual and reproductive health services, including safe abortion; and
3. Produce clear policy for Canada’s international initiatives that adopts a human rights-based approach to sexual and reproductive health.
What about the babies being killed? Don’t their human rights matter? Oh, that’s right, these groups don’t consider babies to be people.
The undersigned organizations:
-Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada (ARCC) / Coalition pour le droit à l’avortement au Canada (CDAC)
-Action Canada for Population and Development / Action Canada pour la population et le développement
-Amnesty International Canada (English)
-Amnistie International Canada (Francophone)
-Canadian Council of Muslim Women
-Canadian Federation for Sexual Health
-Canadian Federation of University Women
-Canadian Women’s Foundation
-Choice in Health Clinic
-Clinique des femmes de l’Outaouais
-Fédération du Québec pour le planning des naissances (FQPN)
-Institute for International Women’s Rights – Manitoba
-MATCH International Women’s Fund
–Planned Parenthood Ottawa
-West Coast LEAF
-Women’s Health Clinic, Winnipeg
-Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund / Fonds d’action et d’education juridiques pour les femmes
(also addressed to)
-CC The Right Honourable Stephen Harper, P.C.
Prime Minister of Canada
-CC Hélène Laverdière, NPD, MP
NDP International Development Critic
-CC Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, MP
Liberal International Development and Status of Women Critic
-CC Paul Dewar, NDP, MP
NDP Foreign Affairs Critic
-CC Marc Garneau, Liberal, MP
Liberal Foreign Affairs Critic
-CC Niki Ashton, NDP, MP
NDP Status of Women Critic
Not content with killing Canadian children, this coalition demands that the Canadian Government finance foreign abortions as well. That is correct. Use taxpayer money to pay to kill children in other countries.
It’s not at all a surprise to see a Planned Parenthood Ottawa has joined this group in making the call. After all, Planned Parenthood is involved in trafficking organs.
It never seems to dawn on these people that in many parts of the world, girls and women are viewed as far less than boys and men. This leads often to SEX SELECTIVE abortions. Is it really a feminist idea to deliberately target female babies?
8. No protection For Unborn Victims Of Crime
Considering the 1989 Boroski intervention (see list of cases above), it’s no surprise that LEAF, and other feminist groups oppose Bill C-225. This would have made it an additional crime to injury or kill a fetus while in the commission of another offense.
9. LEAF Forcing Abortion/Euth On Doctors
There was a 2019 decision from the Ontario Court of Appeals. It mandated that doctors either had to perform abortions and/or euthanasia, or provide a referral to someone who would. LEAF was one of the groups pushing it. They had no standing, other than to push their own pro-death views on others.
10. LEAF Wants Gender Ideology Critic Banned
The Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund (LEAF) is troubled by the decision of the Toronto Public Library (the “TPL”) to rent one of its branch spaces to a group hosting an event with Meghan Murphy, who has a track record for denying the existence and rights of trans women. We are particularly concerned with Murphy’s history of publicly opposing efforts to codify the rights of trans people, specifically trans women, including her vocal opposition to federal human rights legislation prohibiting discrimination on the basis of gender identity and gender expression.
LEAF was founded in 1985 with a mandate to advance substantive equality for women and girls in Canada. LEAF has long been committed to a vision of feminism that is inclusive of all, regardless of sex, gender identity or gender expression. LEAF’s advocacy is and remains focused on challenging sex and gender discrimination that results in inequality for self-identified women and girls. The long-term success of this mission demands that LEAF work towards challenging and dismantling patriarchy, in all its forms.
LEAF believes freedom of speech plays an important role in strengthening and upholding substantive equality. Holding space for respectful dialogue among diverse viewpoints is essential to this work. However, LEAF has long maintained that freedom of speech is not absolute. Like all rights enjoyed by Canadians, freedom of speech must be balanced with other fundamental rights and freedoms, especially equality. Speech that perpetuates harmful stereotypes only serves to further marginalize and exclude an already vulnerable population and does not merit protection.
In a case of “eating your own“, LEAF tried to get Meghan Murphy dis-invited from a Toronto talk on trans-activism. And Murphy is about as hardcore feminist as they come. According to her biography:
Bachelor’s degree in women’s studies
Master’s degree in women’s studies
Wrote for feminist publications
Believes in the wage-gap nonsense
Believes women are oppressed
Still, that wasn’t enough to prevent feminist and “women’s rights” groups life LEAF from turning against her.
For a group that “claims” to support women, one has to ask why LEAF is trying to take away the rights of a woman (Murphy), specifically her free speech.
Murphy does address legitimate issues that trans-activists are involved with, (such as sports, pronounc, etc…), and how they are conflicting head on with the rights of women. It seems that the committment to women’s rights can be tossed aside in favour of this extremely small group.
11. LEAF: Reduce Sentence For Drug Mule
Somehow, LEAF believes that arguing against a mandatory minimum sentence for a person convicted of smuggling 2kg of cocaine (worth some $200,000), is a woman’s rights issue. What about the women who are harmed as a result of the drug trade? Don’t they matter?
While not directly related to the abortion/organs issue, it’s still bizarre to see how this group feels entitled to meddle in other people’s cases.
12. LEAF Supports ON Sex-Ed Agenda
This week’s move is getting a thumbs-up from a national women’s legal organization that teaches older students about consent.
“It’s extremely important for everyone to understand what their rights and responsibilities are under the law,” said Kim Stanton, legal director of the Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund, which runs workshops for high school and university students. “Students need to know what’s OK and what’s not.
Candid honesty is extremely rare in political circles. However, this critique of LEAF and Leslyn Lewis, is a true gem. Also see the video. Well worth the 10 minutes or so.
Now, what is the result of anti-life laws becoming normal?
14. RCMP & Illegal Organ Trade
There are far more people in the world in need of a new organ than there are organs available. Like in any market where a dollar can be made because demand far outweighs supply, people can turn to the black market to find what they need. When a person’s life is on the line, the will to survive may override morals. The following facts depict the seedy underbelly of organ trafficking.
The United Nations Global Initiative to Fight Human Trafficking (UN GIFT) says the organ trade occurs in three broad categories: traffickers who force or deceive victims to give up an organ, those who sell their organs out of financial desperation, often only receiving a fraction of the profit or are cheated out of the money altogether and victims who are duped into believing they need an operation and the organ is removed without the victim’s knowledge.
Organ trafficking is considered an organized crime with a host of offenders, including the recruiters who identify the vulnerable person, the transporter, the staff of the hospital or clinic and other medical centres, the medical professionals themselves who perform the surgery, the middleman and contractors, the buyers and the banks that store the organs.
And according to the UN GIFT, it’s a fact that the entire ring is rarely exposed.
A World Health Assembly resolution adopted in 2004 urges Member States to “take measures to protect the poorest and vulnerable groups from ‘transplant tourism’ and the sale of tissues’ and organs.
“Transplant tourism” is the most common way to trade organs across national borders. These recipients travel abroad to undergo organ transplants (WHO Bulletin). There are websites that offer all-inclusive transplant packages, like a kidney transplant that ranges from US$70,000 to US$160,000.
There’s no law in Canada banning Canadians from taking part in transplant tourism — travelling abroad and purchasing organs for transplantation and returning home to Canada.
According to the World Health Organization (WHO), one out of 10 organ transplants involves a trafficked human organ, which amounts to about 10,000 a year.
While kidneys are the most commonly traded organ, hearts, livers, lungs, pancreases, corneas and human tissue are also illegally traded.
In a recent report, Global Financial Integrity says that illegal organ trade is on the rise, and it estimates that it generates profits between $600 million and $1.2 billion per year with a span over many countries.
In Iran, the only country where organ trade is legal, organ sales are closely monitored and the practice has eliminated the wait list for kidney transplants and has provided an increase in post-mortem organ donations, which aren’t remunerated in Iran.
A Harvard College study says donors come from impoverished nations, like countries in South America, Asia and Africa, while recipients are from countries like Canada, the United States, Australia, the United Kingdom, Israel and Japan.
According to research out of Michigan State University that looked at the black market for human organs in Bangladesh, the average quoted rate for a kidney was US$1,400 but has dropped because of the abundant supply.
In Bangladesh, the trade is propelled by poverty, where 78 per cent of residents live on less than $2 a day. They give their organs to pay off loans and take care of their families. If they received the money at all, it disappears quickly and they are often left sick and unable to work after the operations.
The Voluntary Health Association of India estimates about 2,000 Indians sell a kidney every year.
Given that the organ trade is often a transnational crime, international law enforcers must co-operate across borders to address the crimes.
This comes from a 2014 post on the RCMP’s website. Despite being several years old, it has a lot of useful information.
Now, it’s true that there are only so many people dying with usable organs. It’s also true that abducting and/or murdering people for their organs is risky, and can only be done so often. However, that isn’t really the case with aborted babies, as they typically have healthy organs. Sure, they are smaller, but still usable at some point.
Ever wonder why the recent push to have later and later abortions? It’s because the organs of a 35 week fetus are much more developed than those of a 20 week fetus.
15. UNODC On Organ, Human Trafficking
III. Guidance for response
6. Article 3 (a) defines trafficking in persons: “Trafficking in persons” shall mean the recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring or receipt of persons, by means of the threat or use of force or other forms of coercion, of abduction, of fraud, of deception, of the abuse of power or of a position of vulnerability or of the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over another person, for the purpose of exploitation. Exploitation shall include, at a minimum, the exploitation of the prostitution of others or other forms of sexual exploitation, forced labour or services, slavery or practices similar to slavery, servitude or the removal of organs.”
It’s illegal to kidnap, force, or otherwise coerce people into giving up organs. However, aborted babies (even very late term) are just considered property with no legal rights of their own. At least, this is the case in Canada.
This UNODC paper is from 2011. However, its information is still very relevant today.
Whether this is intentional or not, it is one of the consequences of the actions of groups like LEAF. Removing any sort of legal protection from the unborn creates legal carte blanche to harvest and sell their organs at will.
This was addressed in Part 9, the connection between illegal immigration, and the trafficking and smuggling of migrants. However, in the context of organ harvesting, it does put the issue in a whole new light.
17. Bill S-204, Criminal Code Change
Senate Bill S-204 would make it criminal offence to go abroad for the purposes of obtaining organs where consent was not given. While promising, however, it hasn’t gone anywhere since being introduced. Now, would these penalties apply to the trafficked organs of aborted fetuses, or only to trafficked organs of people living for some period of time?
18. Abortion Fuels Organ Trafficking
Now, to tie all of this together: the abortion industry helps fuel the organ trafficking industry.
It’s a straightforward idea: in order to traffic organs in a large scale, there has to be a large, constant supply available.
The abortion industry (and their advocates) ensure this by waging lawfare. They fight in court to keep stripping away any protections unborn children may have. They also change the law to allow for later and later abortions, and thus, more developed organs. Advocates will gaslight others who make attempts to limit this, or enshrine rights for the children. Child rights must be removed in favour of women’s rights.
Is LEAF involved with trafficking organs? They don’t appear to be, but their frequent court efforts ensure that this will continue. Whether intentional of not, groups like LEAF are part of the problem.
And to be clear, LEAF openly supports restricting free speech, under the guise of protecting abortion and gender rights. Of course, open discourse on these subjects would immediately weaken their arguments.
19. Defending Non-Disclosure Of HIV
Note: this was added after the article was originally published. LEAF argued in a Parliamentary hearing that failure to disclose HIV status should be removed from sexual assault laws, and in some cases, decriminalized altogether. Way to protect women.
There were 2 rulings in Ontario (2015 and 2018), which concerned the “vaccinate or mask” policy for health care workers. BCPHO Bonnie Henry testified in the 2015 case that there was very limited evidence to support masks. Also, the June 2020 BC Ombudsman report is interesting in terms of government overreach.
Keep in mind that Bonnie Henry also says there’s no science behind limiting groups to 50 people. (See 1:00 in above video). But she imposed that restriction anyway.
1. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”
The rest of the series is here. There are many: lies, lobbying, conflicts of interest, and various globalist agendas operating behind the scenes, and much more than most people realize. For examples: The Gates Foundation finances many things, including, the World Health Organization, the Center for Disease Control, GAVI, ID2020, John Hopkins University, Imperial College London, the Pirbright Institute, and individual pharmaceutical companies. It’s also worth mentioning that there is little to no science behind what our officials are doing, though they promote all kinds of degenerate behaviour. Also, the Australian Department of Health admits the PCR tests don’t work, and the US CDC admits testing is heavily flawed.
322. The assertion that a mask requirement serves a valuable or essential purpose, albeit that there is only “some” evidence, is also weakened by actual employer practice. If the mask evidence were as supportive as claimed, it would suggest that vaccinated HCWs should also wear masks given the limited efficacy of the vaccine even in relatively ‘good’ years. The SAH Chief of Medical Staff raised this question at the outset. The Hospital’s failure to consider re-evaluating the Policy’s application when the extent of the 2014-2015 vaccine mismatch became known raises the same issue. The OHA/SAH expert responses to these questions set out in full above were short of satisfying.
323. Wearing a mask for an entire working shift, virtually everywhere, no matter the patient presenting circumstances, is most unpleasant. While I readily accept that the wearing of a mask for good reason may reasonably be expected of HCWs, an Irving “balancing of interests” is required. The Policy makes a significant ‘ask’ of unvaccinated employees; that is to wear an unpleasant mask for up to six months at a time. As noted, the evidence said to support the reason for the ‘ask’—evidence concerning asymptomatic transmission and mask effectiveness–may be described at best as “some” and more accurately as “scant”. I conclude that many of the articles footnoted in support of the strong opinions set out in the OHA/SAH expert Reports provide very limited or no assistance to those views. The required balancing does not favour the Policy.
342. On the evidence before me, I find the VOM provisions of the SAH Policy to be unreasonable. Accordingly, for all of the foregoing reasons, I declare SAH to be in breach of Article B-1 (e) of the ONA/SAH Local Agreement and Article 18.07 (c) of the ONA Central Agreement.
343. Any question concerning the need, if any, for additional relief is remitted to the parties for their consideration. I remain seized of remedial issues.
Dated at Toronto, this 8th day of September, 2015
It was found that there wasn’t strong evidence that masking health care workers for months at a time actually had a proven effect. It was further undermined by inconsistent practices at the Sault Area Hospital.
134. Dr. Henry agreed with this observation by Dr. Skowronski and Dr. Patrick who are her colleagues at the British Columbia Centre for Disease Control:
I do agree, as we’ve discussed earlier, influenza is mostly transmitted in the community and we don’t have data on the difference between vaccinated and unvaccinated healthcare workers and individual transmission events…in healthcare settings.
135. Dr. Henry agreed that no VOM policy would influence influenza in the community. Dr. McGeer denied that she had used or recommended the use of community burden in the assessment of development of such a policy.
So there is no data on any differences between vaccinated and unvaccinated health care workers. Yet these people are still arguing for VOM (vaccine or mask).
145. In her Report Dr. Henry also referred to observational studies as supporting the data she said was derived from the RCTs but acknowledged that these studies related to long term care and not acute care settings. She was cross-examined at length concerning the studies referenced in this section of her Report, some that dealt with other closed community settings, and agreed that they were “clearly not referring to a healthcare setting”.
146. Witness commentary concerning the observational/experimental studies relied upon in the McGeer/Henry Reports is set out in Appendix A to this Award. I conclude from a review of these studies, and the expert witness commentary, that they do not disclose a consistent position. They address a wide range of issues in a wide range of settings. Some are not supportive of the OHA/SAH experts’ claim. Some provide weak support at best. Some have nothing to do with the issue in question. Some have acknowledged study design limitations.
Evidence introduced by Bonnie Henry was for long term care centers, not health care settings, so this apples and oranges. There is also weak or irrelevant evidence argued.
160. In direct examination Dr. Henry stated that the pre-symptomatic period was “clearly not the most infectious period but we do know that it happens”. She also agreed in cross-examination that transmission required an element of proximity and a sufficient amount of live replicating virus.
161. At another point, the following series of questions and answers ensued during Dr. Henry’s cross-examination:
Q. With respect to transmission while asymptomatic, and I want to deal with your authorities with respect to that, would you agree with me that there is scant evidence to support that virus shedding of influenza actually leads to effective transmission of the disease before somebody becomes symptomatic?
A. I think we talked about that yesterday, that there is some evidence that people shed prior to being symptomatic, and there is some evidence of transmission, that leading to transmission, but I absolutely agree that that is not the highest time when shedding and transmission can occur.
Q. So were you—I put it to you that there’s scant evidence, and that was Dr. De Serres’ evidence, so—but that there’s very little evidence about that, do you agree?
A. There is—as we talked about yesterday, there is not a lot of evidence around these pieces, I agree.
Q. And clearly transmission risk is greatest when you’re symptomatic, when you’re able to cough or sneeze?
A. Transmission risk is greatest, as we’ve said, when you’re symptomatic, especially in the first day or two of symptom onset
Not a lot of evidence regarding risks of transmission. Yes, this is 2015, but it coming straight from BCPHO Bonnie Henry.
177. Dr. McGeer and Dr. Henry presented the position of the OHA and the Hospital based upon their understanding of the relevant literature. Neither of them asserted that they had particular expertise with respect to masks or had conducted studies testing masks.
So, no actual expertise of research. Bonnie Henry just read what was available. And this is the Provincial Health Officer of British Columbia.
184. In her pre-hearing Report Dr. Henry responded to a request that she discuss the evidence that masks protect patients from influenza this way:
There is good evidence that surgical masks reduce the concentration of influenza virus expelled into the ambient air (a 3.4 fold overall reduction in a recent study) when they are worn by someone shedding influenza virus. There is also evidence that surgical masks reduce exposure to influenza in experimental conditions.
Clinical studies have also suggested that masks, in association with hand hygiene, may have some impact on decreasing transmission of influenza infection. These studies are not definitive as they all had limitations. The household studies are limited by the fact that mask wearing did not start until influenza had been diagnosed and the patient/household was enrolled in the study, such that influenza may have been transmitted prior to enrollment. A study in student residences is limited by the fact that participants wore their mask for only approximately 5 hours per day. Two systematic reviews of the cumulative studies conclude that there is evidence to support that wearing of masks or respirators during illness protects others, and a very limited amount of data to support the use of masks or respirators to prevent becoming infected
In summary, there is evidence supporting the use of wearing of masks to reduce transmission of influenza from health care workers to patients. It is not conclusive, and not of the quality of evidence that supports influenza vaccination. Based on current evidence, patient safety would be best ensured by requiring healthcare providers to be vaccinated if they provide care during periods of influenza activity. However, if healthcare workers are unvaccinated, wearing masks almost certainly provides some degree of protection to their patients.
Bonnie Henry keeps hedging her answers. Yes, there is protection, but there are issues with the studies, and the evidence isn’t conclusive. She also takes the position that vaccinating everyone in health care settings would be prefereable.
219. Dr. Henry answered the ‘why not mask everyone’ question this way:
It is [influenza vaccination] by far, not perfect and it needs to be improved, but it reduces our risk from a hundred percent where we have no protection to somewhat lower. And there’s nothing that I’ve found that shows there’s an incremental benefit of adding a mask to that reduced risk…..there’s no data that shows me that if we do our best to reduce that incremental risk, the risk of influenza, that adding a mask to that will provide any benefit. But if we don’t have any protection then there might be some benefit when we know our risk is greater.
When we look at individual strains circulating and what’s happening, I think we need it to be consistent with the fact that there was nothing that gave us support that providing a mask to everybody all the time was going to give us any additional benefit over putting in place the other measures that we have for the policy. It’s a tough one. You know, it varies by season.
It is a challenging issue and we’ve wrestled with it. I’m not a huge fan of the masking piece. I think it was felt to be a reasonable alternative where there was a need to do—to feel that we were doing the best we can to try and reduce risk.
I tried to be quite clear in my report that the evidence to support masking is not as great and it is certainly not as good a measure
Bonnie Henry admits no strong evidence to support maskings.
2. The primary issue dividing ONA and the hospitals was the controversial ‘vaccination or mask’ policy (“VOM policy”) adopted by many hospitals. The question proceeded to arbitration by test case leading to the decision in Sault Area Hospital, 2015 CanLII 55643 (ON LA). Following an exhaustive review of the available medical scientific literature and having heard from a number of expert witnesses, I determined that:
Absent adequate support for the freestanding patient safety purpose alleged, I conclude that the Policy operates to coerce influenza immunization and, thereby, undermines the collective agreement right of employees to refuse vaccination. On all of the evidence, and for the reasons canvassed at length in this Award, I conclude that the VOM Policy is unreasonable. (at para. 13)
12. Insofar as the First Issue is concerned, I do not agree that the recommendation to wear a mask for the duration of the influenza season in any patient area of the Hospital is sustainable. I found at para. 319 of Sault Area Hospital that there was “scant scientific evidence of the use of masks in reducing the transmission of influenza virus to patients”. In the absence of further evidence to the contrary, I conclude that there is no reasonable basis for the recommendation and that it should be deleted from the Policy.
13. Insofar as the Second Issue is concerned, I am satisfied that a blend of the Hospital and Union proposals is preferable to either of them standing alone.
14. The Union accurately summarizes the evidence heard in Sault Area Hospital about the typical length of the influenza incubation period before the onset of symptoms. Nevertheless, I am reluctant to designate a specific number of hours; the length of time will almost certainly vary with individual circumstances. The Hospital’s written submission states that: “We have chosen with our proposed language to have individual assessments made by Infection Control Practitioners at the Hospital.” On the assumption that those assessments will be made available and conducted very close to the 72-hour mark, I find the Hospital’s approach to be acceptable. I also find that the Union’s alternative suggestion to the ‘patient care area’ question to be appropriate.
Just as with the Sault Area Hospital case, this “vaccinate or mask” policy was found to be unreasonable, an unsupported by hard evidence.
Summarily stated, this case concerns the reasonableness of the Vaccinate or Mask Policy (hereafter “VOM policy”) that was introduced at St. Michael’s Hospital (hereafter “St. Michael’s”) in 2014 for the 2014-2015 flu season and which has been in place ever since. Under the VOM policy, Health Care Workers and that group, of course, includes nurses (hereafter “HCWs”), who have not received the annual influenza vaccine, must, during all or most of the flu season, wear a surgical or procedural mask in areas where patients are present and/or patient care is delivered.
St. Michael’s is one of a very small number of Ontario hospitals with a VOM policy: less than 10% of approximately 165 hospitals. The Ontario Nurses’ Association (hereafter “the Association”) immediately grieved the VOM policy in every hospital where it was introduced. It should be noted at the outset that the VOM policy has nothing to do with influenza outbreaks that are governed by an entirely different protocol, and one that is not at issue in this case.
This is not the first Ontario grievance taking issue with the VOM policy. The parties appropriately recognized that the matters in dispute were best decided through a lead case rather than through multiple proceedings at the minority of hospitals where the policy was in place. Accordingly, the Association grievance at the Sault Area Hospital was designated as that lead case and proceeded to a lengthy hearing before arbitrator James K.A. Hayes beginning in October 2014 and ending in July 2015. Arbitrator Hayes heard multiple days of evidence (replicated to some extent in this proceeding) and issued his decision, discussed further below, on September 8, 2015 (hereafter “the Hayes Award”). Arbitrator Hayes found that the Sault Area Hospital’s VOM policy was inconsistent with the collective agreement and unreasonable. The grievance was, accordingly, upheld.
It was noted at the outset that this case was, in large measure, a repeat of the one put before Arbitrator Hayes. It is not, therefore, surprising that there is an identical outcome. Ultimately, I agree with Arbitrator Hayes: “There is scant scientific evidence concerning asymptomatic transmission, and, also, scant scientific evidence of the use of masks in reducing the transmission of the virus to patients” (at para. 329). To be sure, there is another authority on point, and the decision in that case deserves respect. But it was a different case with a completely different evidentiary focus. It is not a result that can be followed.
One day, an influenza vaccine like MMR may be developed, one that is close to 100% effective. To paraphrase Dr. Gardam, if a better vaccine and more robust literature about influenza-specific patient outcomes were available, the entire matter might be appropriately revisited. For the time being, however, the case for the VOM policy fails and the grievances allowed. I find St. Michael’s VOM policy contrary to the collective agreement and unreasonable. St. Michael’s is required, immediately, to rescind its VOM policy. I remain seized with respect to the implementation of this award.
The Sault Area Hospital case had largely set the precedent, and the issues were were virtually identical. Another hospital was forced to scrap its “vaccinate or mask” policy.
Conclusion: The Ministerial Orders Are Contrary to Law Based on the above analysis of the orders and the Emergency Program Act, I have concluded that to the extent that they purport to suspend or amend the provisions of statutes, Ministerial Orders M098 and M139 are contrary to law because they are not authorized by the governing legislation, the Emergency Program Act. Many of the orders made by the minister have been in place for more than two months. In my view, it is incumbent on government to seek an appropriate solution to this problem of invalidity that minimizes any negative impacts to the public. In this respect, I note that Ministerial Order M192, the order replacing M139, continues to purport to suspend and amend statutory requirements that apply to local governments.
The Exercise of Ministerial Discretion The Supreme Court of Canada has made clear that just as there are limits on what statutory powers can be exercised under a statute, there are also limits on how those powers can be exercised: . . . there is no such thing as absolute and untrammeled “discretion,” that is that action can be taken on any ground or for any reason that can be suggested to the mind of the administrator; no legislative Act can, without express language, be taken to contemplate an unlimited arbitrary power exercisable for any purpose . . . regardless of the nature or purpose of the statute
The BC Ombudsman found that 2 Ministerial Orders were actually illegal, and far exceeeded the discretion which they were allowed to use.
8. These Rulings Are Very Encouraging
The 2015 and 2018 rulings are important, as they are 2 precedents in a quasi-judicial body, that found mask wearing to be of very limited value. It’s even better (from a B.C. perspective), that Bonnie Henry is on record saying that there is little evidence that masks work.
The B.C. Ombudsman’s Report is also helpful. Although not binding on a court, those opinions do carry some weight. And 2 orders have already been found to be illegal.