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[425] 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.
Decision
.
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”.[203] 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.[320]
.
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.
Introduction
.
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.
Conclusion
.
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.
A response that frequently comes up is for people to ask what to do about it. Instead of just constantly pointing out what is wrong, some constructive suggestions should be offered. This section contains a list of proposals that, if implemented, would benefit society. While the details may be difficult to implement, at least they are a starting point.
This piece addresses the coronavirus “planned-emic”, but in the larger context of an attack on religion.
Over the last few months, the priorities and demands of various governments has seemed illogical, conflicting, and downright nonsensical. Here are just a few examples:
Abortion is still considered an essential service, but performing marriages is something that can wait
Interprovincial travel restricted, but foreigners still allowed in
Mass unemployment gets worse, but foreign workers still imported
Possible arrest for not “social distancing”, but criminals are released for their own safety
Religious gatherings banned, but only for some groups
Shutting down the economy and arranging bailouts for cronies is no shocker. However, there is something more nefarious at play, the destruction of Western Society. In particular, there is a continued attack on a major institution that built the West: Christianity.
It’s bittersweet that Prime Minister Trudeau constantly flouts the 1982 Charter of Rights and Freedoms that his father implemented. There seems to be no hesitation to trample on Section 2 (fundamental freedoms).
As officials in Canada (and the U.S) see nothing wrong with forcibly shutting down religious services, the time is long overdue to fight back.
This fake pandemic is blatant, but it’s part of a larger effort. The goal is to erase the Christian founding of Canada and replace it with a mix of: nihilism; Satanism; Islam; diversity and multiculturalism. The ideology which built the West (and its old-stock) are being replaced.
But while these groups enjoy Human Rights Tribunals and special rights fighting for them, Christian groups are told they have to become secular to be ever more accommodating.
Yes, the majority are being told they can’t have an identity and must accommodate everything under the sun. Yet groups that are hostile to Christians are pandered to endlessly. This is a recipe for breaking up Western nations. This pattern applies both to religions and ethnic groups.
4. Theresa Tam Rehearsed Scenario In 2010
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VtSgG6-96×0&feature=youtu.be
Start clip at 56:50. It will give you chills.
Thank you to Civilian Intelligence Network for digging up the film. In what can only be described as predictive programming, or a trial run, Theresa Tam “Canada’s top Doctor” takes part in a 2010 film about a fictional epidemic in Canada. Doesn’t get much more premeditated than shooting a film a decade in advance.
In the film (56:50 to 57:50) Tam talks approvingly (seeming almost giddy) about being able to enforce mandatory quarantines, using tracking bracelets, and only “worry later” about questions of an overreach. It’s difficult to make the clip look worse than it actually is. Seems that life is now imitating art.
The video also talks about mandatory vaccinations. If people refused, they can be taken “to temporary detention centers”. Again, this video was released in 2010, a decade ago.
5. Lobbying/Vaxx Agenda Behind The Scenes
CLICK HERE, for CV #0: Theresa Tam; archives; articles; lobbying. CLICK HERE, for CV #1: piece on Bill Gates, Pirbright, depopulation. CLICK HERE, for CV #2: Coronavirus research at U of Saskatchewan. CLICK HERE, for CV #3: Gates; WHO, ID2020; GAVI; Vaccines. CLICK HERE, for CV #4: Gates using proxies to push vaxx agenda. CLICK HERE, for CV #5: Crestview Strategy, GAVI’s lobbying firm. CLICK HERE, for CV #6: people GAVI/Crestview lobbied follow Gates. CLICK HERE, for CV #7: M-132, Canada financing pharma research. CLICK HERE, for CV #8: Canada/WHO & “vaccine hesitancy” research. CLICK HERE, for CV #9: Raj Saini, lobbied by big pharma (M-132). CLICK HERE, for CV #10: pharma lobbying in Alberta legislature. CLICK HERE, for CV #11: ON Pharma; Bill 160 Not Implemented.
If you doubt that government lobbying and the pharma lobby are greatly influencing how this “pandemic” is playing out, consider the content in the above articles. The Federal Government, the Provincial Governments of Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Ontario (among many others), are being lobbied by drug companies.
Furthermore, “depopulation” fetishists like Bill Gates are active in the media claiming vaccines are needed. Globalists everywhere are clamoring for more control of their populations.
There is much more at stake than simply a virus or public illness. Assuming it even exists, the severe overreach cannot be explained merely by hysteria. Something else is in play.
Of course, if Western nations do impose mandatory vaccinations on their citizens, guess which groups will be predominantly impacted?
6. Court Rulings Against Christianity
This page is available on the Canadian Department of Justice website, and lists a few dozen critical cases in Charter precedent. While they may seems appealing on the surface, most are actually quite disturbing. Let’s look at some.
10. Hate speech towards targeted groups
James Keegstra was a high school teacher in Alberta who taught his students that Jewish people were evil. He also denied that the Holocaust occurred and said it was invented by Jewish people to gain sympathy. Keegstra was convicted for promoting hatred against an identifiable group based on these statements to his students.
.
Keegstra argued that the Criminal Code prohibitions on hate speech infringed his freedom of expression. The Supreme Court confirmed that the Charter protects all forms of speech, including hate speech, so long as it does not include violence. However, the majority of the Court concluded that the limits the Criminal Code placed on Keegstra’s freedom of expression were justifiable. This is because the limits aimed to protect groups targeted by hate speech and to promote positive relations in a country dedicated to equality and multiculturalism.
.
The Keegstra case serves as a reminder that freedom of expression is not absolute and can be limited in situations where there is a need to balance competing interests like respect for difference, equality and multiculturalism.
That’s right. As of 1990, “Holocaust denial” is deemed to be a criminal offense, regardless of how well founded it may be. This also applies even when there no violence sought. The Court considers promoting positive relations to be more important than truth.
19. Freedom speech and equality of the LGBTQ2 community
Little Sisters was a specialized bookstore that sold books primarily to the gay and lesbian community. The bookstore imported most of its material from the United States. Customs officials classified the books and other materials as “obscene” which prevented the shipments from entering Canada. Under the customs regime, businesses and individuals in Canada were prohibited from importing “obscene” materials into Canada.
.
Little Sisters challenged the customs rules, arguing that the regime violated freedom of expression and the equality rights of the LGBTQ2 community. The Supreme Court concluded that the customs regime did limit freedom of expression, but that most of the law could be justified as a reasonable limit on this right. However, the Court found that the way that the customs officials were applying the law violated the equality rights of the customers of Little Sisters bookstore because the officials were applying a discriminatory standard to their materials compared to those aimed at a heterosexual audience.
.
This case helped pave the way for further recognition of the rights of sexual minorities in Canada and also confirmed that freedom of expression protects the right to receive materials like books. The case also highlighted that both laws and the actions of all government officials must respect the Charter.
So Customs was within its discretion to not allow obscene material into Canada. However, the gay rights screamed discrimination and had their property admitted anyway. Now that drag queen story hour is a reality, will denying child pornography now be constitutionally protected?
24. Religious freedom in school
Gurbaj Singh Multani was an orthodox Sikh student who believed that his religion required him to wear a kirpan at all times, including at school. A kirpan is a religious object worn by people of Sikh faith that looks like a dagger. Multani and his parents agreed with the school board’s request that he seal the kirpan in his clothing at all times while wearing it at school. However, the school board’s council of commissioners told Multani that he could not wear the kirpan to school even if it was sealed in his clothing because bringing dangerous objects to school violated the school’s code of conduct.
.
The Supreme Court found that the council’s decision infringed Multani’s freedom of religion. Multani sincerely believed that his Sikh faith required him to wear the kirpan and the prohibition on wearing it would have prevented him from attending public school altogether. The school board had not justified that a full ban on wearing kirpans in school was a reasonable limit on freedom of religion. There had never been a violent incident involving a kirpan at school and there was no evidence that the kirpan itself was a symbol of violence. The Court’s decision provides important guidance on the relationship between religious freedom, multiculturalism and public education in Canada. A total ban on wearing kirpans in schools ignores the importance of respect for minorities and religious tolerance in Canada’s multicultural society.
It seems that knives are a public safety issue in Canadian schools, and must be banned. That doesn’t seem to apply, though, when people of non-Christian religions complain that it’s mandatory.
29. Supervised injection sites
In 2003, health authorities in British Columbia opened a supervised drug injection site to combat the epidemic of HIV/AIDS and hepatitis C in the Downtown Eastside of Vancouver. In order for the operation of these sites to be considered legal, the federal Minister of Health must grant an exemption from the prohibitions of possession and trafficking of controlled substances. In 2008, the BC health authorities made an application for a new exemption before the previous one expired. The Minister denied the application. The organization that ran the site and a number of its clients argued that the Minister’s decision violated the right to life, liberty and security of the person.
.
The Supreme Court found that the Minister’s decision would prevent injection drug users from accessing life-saving health services. As a result, the health of the clients would be threatened and their lives would be endangered. Evidence showed that in over the 8 years of its operation, the safe injection site had proven to save lives with no known negative impact on public safety or health. The Minister’s decision went against the public safety objectives it was supposed to be pursuing. It was also arbitrary, meaning it had no rational connection to the government’s stated purpose of protecting lives and health. The Court ordered the Minister to grant the exemption.
Rather than getting these people real treatment, the BC Health Authorities decided that funded that taxpayer funded narcotics was a better solution. Additionally, BC would also cover the salaries and building overhead needed for this operation to function.
31. Balancing competing rights and freedoms: religious freedom and trial fairness
After N.S. was sexually assaulted, the Crown called her as a witness in the preliminary inquiry of her accused attackers. For religious reasons, N.S. asked to testify wearing a niqab, a head scarf that covers the face except the eyes. The judge ordered her to remove her niqab, but N.S. argued that making her do so would infringe her right to religious freedom.
.
The majority of the Supreme Court held that if wearing the niqab poses no serious risk to trial fairness, a witness who wishes to wear it for sincere religious reasons may do so. This case requires judges try to find a way to balance freedom of religion and trial fairness if the two rights conflict with each other. More generally, this case highlights the need for public institutions to accommodate religious difference as much as possible so everyone feels respected, while still upholding other Charter-protected rights and freedoms.
Most adults will know that a lot of information can be gleaned from facial expressions. In criminal cases, being able to properly cross examine a witness is very important. Having the face covers denies the other side the chance to fully get a read on the person. Additionally, it is extremely disrespectful to have this coming into the courts at all.
32. Sex work and the right to security of the person
Terri Jean Bedford, Amy Lebovitch and Valerie Scott were current or former sex workers who challenged three provisions of the Criminal Code which criminalized various activities relating to prostitution, including:
-public communication for the purposes of prostitution
-operating a bawdy house
-living off of the avails of prostitution
.
They argued that these restrictions deprived sex workers of their right to security by forcing them to work in secret, which prevented them from adopting important and life-saving safety measures, even though prostitution itself was legal.
.
The Supreme Court decided these provisions violated the right to security because they increased the serious risks sex workers faced on a daily basis. The government had not proven that the provisions were a proportionate response to the harms of social nuisance and the exploitation of sex workers. The provisions were unconstitutional because they went too far in terms of the conduct they prohibited as compared to the social harms they were supposed to address. In addition, the very serious impact of some of the prohibitions on sex workers’ safety was “totally out of sync” with the objective of the law.
The Canadian authorities have an obligation to ensure that the most degenerate and disgusting acts are performed safely. Perhaps not engaging in it at all would be safer, but who am I to judge?
So what do we have here?
Holocaust denial is an actual crime
Degeneracy allowed into Canada as gay rights
Sikhs can bring knives to school
Taxpayer funded narcotics is a human right
Muslims can conceal their faces while testifying
Laws changed to make sex work safe
Ex-pats with citizenship allowed to vote
Criminals allowed to vote while in prison
The above rulings of course are just a small piece of what has been happening in Western countries. While Christianity (the foundation of the West) is being stripped away, other groups are able to come in and use the courts to impose their ideologies.
Another important one to list is marriage being redefined. While it is arguable how much harm this causes, the gay rights movement has proceeded to demand that institutions such as churches host their weddings, and that bakers make their cakes. So much for not imposing on others.
What is obviously the best option is to stop the ever increasing demands for accommodation. Alternatively, Christians need to start militarizing the courts to have their interests protected. Being passive about it will only lead to their destruction.
Simply being tolerant and accepting of other groups does not work when they seek to replace your way of like with theirs. This is what multiculturalism brings: eventually the host(s) get replaced by the foreigners who are allowed in.
What is the consequence of laws and rulings that strip away the founding religion of the country? Eventually you end up with a group, (despite being a majority), have no real rights. And when they become a minority — as demographics shift — they will become targeted.
7. Churches Shut Down During “Planned-Emic”
Government across the West are ordering religious congregations to stope while the alleged “pandemic” is putting everyone in danger. However, it is nice to see that some are willing to defy what are illegal and unconstitutional orders. This is in the U.S., but things are starting to happen in Canada as well.
Having such incidents videotaped and splashed across the internet causes headaches for the police, who come across looking heavy handed and fascistic. It also creates problems for politicians who claim to support freedom of religion and be religious themselves.
If the court can’t or won’t act to defend these fundamental freedom, then perhaps good old fashioned shaming and humiliation will do the trick.
8. Fighting For Freedom Of Religion
Now let’s get into the Charter a little bit:This is going to be a bit out of order, though done intentionally. The purpose is to go through the mental process of standing up for your rights
Fundamental freedoms
2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association.
These are the fundamental freedoms that any modern society would have. The content of section 2 is very similar to the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Without these fundamental freedoms, you are essentially living in a dictatorship. There are 2 provisions in the constitution which will help
Enforcement of guaranteed rights and freedoms
24. (1) Anyone whose rights or freedoms, as guaranteed by this Charter, have been infringed or denied may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction to obtain such remedy as the court considers appropriate and just in the circumstances
Primacy of Constitution of Canada
52. (1) The Constitution of Canada is the supreme law of Canada, and any law that is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution is, to the extent of the inconsistency, of no force or effect.
Marginal note:
Constitution of Canada
(2) The Constitution of Canada includes
(a) the Canada Act 1982, including this Act;
(b) the Acts and orders referred to in the schedule; and
(c) any amendment to any Act or order referred to in paragraph (a) or (b).
If your rights are being violated, you can cite one of — or both — Sections 24 and 52. Section 24 states that you have the right to seek a remedy in court, and section 52 states that laws inconsistent with the Constitution have no effect. (Note: The Charter is a subset of the Constitution as a whole). But, it is not quite as simple as that, and here is why:
Rights and freedoms in Canada
1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
Section 1 is very important here. Plainly put, it says that the government must be able to justify any Charter violation it causes in any of the further sections. While a difficult burden, it’s often not impossible to meet.
If you believe that these forced church closures violate your Section 2 rights (fundamental freedoms), you can go to court to assert that. Should you be able to prove it, the burden then shifts to the Government to establish that these violations are justified under Section 1.
Interestingly, these prohibitions seems almost exclusively aimed at Christians. Most likely, Muslims would react violently if treated the same way.
Now, would a court find that these restrictions are reasonably justified? The answer is not as clear cut as many would like. It would largely depend on information coming from the Office of Public Health, and laws such as the Quarantine Act or Emergencies Act.
Let’s ignore for the time being that this pandemic is a hoax, and that the courts are politically stacked. Let’s assume it were to play out in a fair way.
9. Quarantine & Emergencies Act
Quarantine station
6 (1) The Minister may establish a quarantine station at any place in Canada.
Marginal note:
.
Provision and maintenance of area or facility
(2) The operator of a facility in which a customs office, within the meaning of subsection 2(1) of the Customs Act, is located shall, when required in writing by the Minister, provide and maintain free of charge any area or facility, along with its fixtures, that the Minister considers necessary for establishing a quarantine station
Quarantine facilities
7 The Minister may by order designate any place in Canada as a quarantine facility and amend, cancel or reinstate the designation.
Well, so much for properties rights if any place in Canada can simply be deemed a quarantine station by the Minister, with no say so by the owners or tenants.
Duty to provide
8 (1) Any person in charge of a place shall, at the request of the Minister, provide that place to the Minister if, in the opinion of the Minister, the temporary use of the place as a quarantine facility is necessary to protect public health.
Marginal note:
Deeming
(2) The place is deemed to be designated as a quarantine facility.
Marginal note:
Compensation
(3) The Minister may compensate any person for the Minister’s use of the place.
Marginal note:
Consultation
(4) The Minister shall consult with the provincial public health authority of the province in which the place is situated before taking possession of it.
The Minister “may” compensate the owners for property that is seized and used but they don’t have to. Also, while the Province must be consulted, it doesn’t say they have to agree.
Arrest without warrant
18 A peace officer may, at the request of a screening officer or quarantine officer, arrest without a warrant and bring to a quarantine officer any traveller who the peace officer has reasonable grounds to believe has refused to be isolated or refuses to comply with a measure under subsection 15(3).
Offence committed intentionally
67 (1) Every person is guilty of an offence if they cause a risk of imminent death or serious bodily harm to another person while wilfully or recklessly contravening this Act or the regulations.
Marginal note:
Punishment
(2) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1) is liable
(a) on conviction on indictment, to a fine of not more than $1,000,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than three years, or to both; and
(b) on summary conviction, to a fine of not more than $300,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than six months, or to both.
The problem is that so much in this Quarantine Act is discretionary, and leaves citizens with no real rights. The act is too long to cover in a single article, but the link is provided.
National emergency
3 For the purposes of this Act, a national emergency is an urgent and critical situation of a temporary nature that
(a) seriously endangers the lives, health or safety of Canadians and is of such proportions or nature as to exceed the capacity or authority of a province to deal with it, or
(b) seriously threatens the ability of the Government of Canada to preserve the sovereignty, security and territorial integrity of Canada
and that cannot be effectively dealt with under any other law of Canada.
Declaration of a public welfare emergency
6 (1) When the Governor in Council believes, on reasonable grounds, that a public welfare emergency exists and necessitates the taking of special temporary measures for dealing with the emergency, the Governor in Council, after such consultation as is required by section 14, may, by proclamation, so declare.
Marginal note:
Contents
(2) A declaration of a public welfare emergency shall specify
(a) concisely the state of affairs constituting the emergency;
(b) the special temporary measures that the Governor in Council anticipates may be necessary for dealing with the emergency; and
(c) if the direct effects of the emergency do not extend to the whole of Canada, the area of Canada to which the direct effects of the emergency extend.
Orders and regulations
8 (1) While a declaration of a public welfare emergency is in effect, the Governor in Council may make such orders or regulations with respect to the following matters as the Governor in Council believes, on reasonable grounds, are necessary for dealing with the emergency:
(a) the regulation or prohibition of travel to, from or within any specified area, where necessary for the protection of the health or safety of individuals;
(b) the evacuation of persons and the removal of personal property from any specified area and the making of arrangements for the adequate care and protection of the persons and property;
(c) the requisition, use or disposition of property;
(d) the authorization of or direction to any person, or any person of a class of persons, to render essential services of a type that that person, or a person of that class, is competent to provide and the provision of reasonable compensation in respect of services so rendered;
(e) the regulation of the distribution and availability of essential goods, services and resources;
(f) the authorization and making of emergency payments;
(g) the establishment of emergency shelters and hospitals;
(h) the assessment of damage to any works or undertakings and the repair, replacement or restoration thereof;
(i) the assessment of damage to the environment and the elimination or alleviation of the damage; and
(j) the imposition
(i) on summary conviction, of a fine not exceeding five hundred dollars or imprisonment not exceeding six months or both that fine and imprisonment, or
(ii) on indictment, of a fine not exceeding five thousand dollars or imprisonment not exceeding five years or both that fine and imprisonment,
for contravention of any order or regulation made under this section.
There are some problems with the Emergency Act, and they are much the same as with the Quarantine Act. The Act allows the Government broad, sweeping powers, with little in the way of oversight.
How does having entire cities in lockdown, and shutting down religious services make the public safer? The government knows so little about this virus, that it is cutting off the well being and livelihoods of people in the name of scaremongering.
Both the Emergency Act (1985) and the Quarantine Act (2005), have been on the books for a long time. Would invoking either of them be a reasonably justified used of limiting people’s fundamental freedoms, which are guaranteed under Section 2 of the Charter? Would the circumstances allow the infringement to be justified under Section 1?
Most people would say no. And most wouldn’t want important things — such as weekly services — shut down for such vague reasons. However, if Government agents were to CLAIM there is an ever present threat, they may be able to get away with it for a time.
While there is little interest in packed grocery stores (although that is changing), religious services need to be shut down almost entirely. This is not about public safety, but about control.
If the public officials are acting on the orders from near dictatorial politicians, and the courts are unable or unwilling to intervene, what options do we have?
10. Tips On Fighting Back
First, understand that according to Pintea v. Johns (2017), court officers now have a legal obligation to go the extra mile to ensure that self represented people get a fair hearing. It isn’t option.
Second, in most cases (criminal court) there will be a duty counsel that you can speak to — for free — to get general information on how to proceed.
Third, legal research is within the grasp of most everyone with decent reading skills. My favourite is https://www.canlii.org/en/, where there is a wealth of free information. The skill involved is a combination of searching Google and Wikipedia.
Fourth, all of the rules you need to know are freely available online. This includes the Canadian Criminal Code (if applicable), and the Rules for Civil Procedure in your Province.
This experience will be frustrating, but standing up for your rights is within the grasp of most people. You can always pay for a lawyer later if need be.
People who do get arrested, or who are ticketed for practicing their faith (or some other harmless activity) should fight back. Contest the ticket, and fight any charges. If it’s something you and you family are comfortable with, publish the incident, and feel free to out the police officer or by-law officers.
While this does seem daunting, the overwhelming majority of these cases will be quietly dismissed. Why? Because the authorities don’t want a lingering public headache.
But think it through before making a hasty decision.
11. Demographic Replacement Of Christianity
About 20% of Canada’s current population was born in some other country. With such a large presence, immigrants have had a substantial impact on Canada’s religious landscape (as in the United States, where immigrants – including those who are unauthorized – make up an estimated 13% of the total population.)
In the 1970s and 1980s, Canada’s foreign-born population was smaller, largely European and overwhelmingly Christian. In recent years, however, rising numbers of immigrants – nearly half of Canada’s immigrant population – have come from Asia, Africa and the Middle East. In the U.S., by comparison, three-in-ten of all foreign-born residents have come from these three regions.
In Canada, disaffiliation has increased markedly within some generations as they have aged. For example, one-in-ten Canadians born between 1947 and 1966 had no religious affiliation in 1981, but one-in-five are unaffiliated as of 2011. Even Canada’s older adults (those born in 1946 or earlier) have experienced gradual increases in disaffiliation; their rate of disaffiliation has gone from the single digits in the 1970s to double digits in recent years. In the U.S., by contrast, the share of people with no religious affiliation has been fairly stable within each generation over time (though disaffiliation has ticked up slightly among American Baby Boomers – those born between 1946 and 1964 – and Gen Xers – those born between 1965 and 1980).
As the geographic origins of Canadian immigrants have shifted, so has their religious makeup. A majority of immigrants (56%) who arrived during the 1970s were either Catholic or Protestant, while about a quarter were affiliated with other religious traditions, including Eastern Orthodox Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Sikhism, Hinduism, and Judaism. Since 2001, about four-in-ten (39%) new Canadian immigrants have belonged to these religious minorities, the same as the share of new immigrants (also 39%) who identify as either Catholic or Protestant. Because immigrants comprise more than a fifth of Canada’s population, the rising share of immigrants who belong to religious minorities has had a substantial impact on the religious composition of the overall population.
This 2013 report from Pew Research details Canada’s changing religious landscape over recent decades. It correctly points out that huge amounts of immigration is in fact changing the overall landscape.
12. Pop’n Replacement Is Spiritual Replacement
This seemingly absurd statement makes sense when you put it into context. Every year, Canada is bringing in large numbers of people from countries that are of a very different religious makeup. Consequently, there is a large demographic shift going on.
(Page 18 of the 2004 Annual Report to Parliament)
(Page 24 of the 2005 Annual Report to Parliament)
(Page 18, 19 of the 2006 Annual Report to Parliament)
(Page 19, 20 of the 2007 Annual Report to Parliament)
(Page 21, 22 of the 2008 Annual Report to Parliament)
Note: this by no means it everyone who enters Canada in those years. In particular, it leaves out large numbers of students and temporary workers.
Nonetheless: look at who is actually staying in Canada. Each year we bring in people from India (Sikh and Hindu), China (Communist, Atheist), and various Middle Eastern and African nations (Islam). While the people coming in are not monolithic, these trends do have a significant impact on the religious demographic changes in Canada.
Interestingly, there doesn’t seem to be much of a difference in Liberal and Conservative immigration policies. Neither care about maintaining the demographic or founding ideologies of the West. Of course if you bring any of this up, you will be called a bigot.
All they focus on is:
(a) Singing the praises of diversity
(b) Perceived economic growth — ie cheap labour
13. Spiritual Replacement Is Genocide
Consider the UN Convention on preventing and punishing genocide.
Article I
The Contracting Parties confirm that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law which they undertake to prevent and to punish.
Article II
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
Despite the West being founded on Christianity, our “leaders” see nothing wrong with bringing hordes of other ideologies over. They are given free reign and protected status, while Christians must become more secular and accommodating. I wonder how tolerant these other groups will be as their numbers grow. This is all while “conservatives” crow about how tolerant they are.
Just like with replacing ethnic groups, replacing religious groups also qualifies as genocide under the 1948 UN Convention.
14. Foreign Religions Taking Over
At the Al-Quds Festival, Muslim man bragging that demographic change will lead to Sharia Law replacing Canadian Law at some point. He cites Pew Research data that suggests Muslims will have a plurality — be the biggest individual group — by 2060.
This man isn’t kidding about Islam becoming the biggest religious group. The goal is world domination, and they are breeding their way to get it. These findings, from Pew Research.
Babies born to Muslims will begin to outnumber Christian births by 2035; people with no religion face a birth dearth.
More babies were born to Christian mothers than to members of any other religion in recent years, reflecting Christianity’s continued status as the world’s largest religious group. But this is unlikely to be the case for much longer: Less than 20 years from now, the number of babies born to Muslims is expected to modestly exceed births to Christians, according to new Pew Research Center demographic estimates.
Muslims are projected to be the world’s fastest-growing major religious group in the decades ahead, as Pew Research Center has explained, and signs of this rapid growth already are visible. In the period between 2010 and 2015, births to Muslims made up an estimated 31% of all babies born around the world – far exceeding the Muslim share of people of all ages in 2015 (24%).
The current age distribution of each religious group is an important determinant of demographic growth. Some groups’ adherents are predominantly young, with their prime childbearing years still ahead, while members of other groups are older and largely past their childbearing years. The median ages of Muslims (24 years) and Hindus (27) are younger than the median age of the world’s overall population (30), while the median age of Christians (30) matches the global median. All the other groups are older than the global median, which is part of the reason why they are expected to fall behind the pace of global population growth.
He’s not wrong at all. Pew Research is predicting exactly that. Muslims will become the biggest religious group in a short time.
Of course, the fact that they murder: Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Atheists, gays, blasphemers, apostates, and different sects of Islam “might” have something to do with those changing demographics. They aren’t exactly tolerant.
How is Canada, or any nation for that matter, supposed to retain its heritage when it allows large numbers of people annually from completely different backgrounds who will soon outbreed their hosts?
Muslims maintain their religion and culture. Westerners give it all up in the name of being “diverse and tolerant”. But when push comes to shove, the stronger and more cohesive group will win, especially should civil war break out.
15. Time To Reverse This Trend
The government imposed closing of churches and other religious institutions is an attack on religion itself. None of this is necessary for public health. Instead, this is a show of force, and a show of how much contempt it holds in general for faith.
While the Quarantine Act and Emergency Act are seriously overreaching. There are ways to fight back. And the fighting back must happen. This “pandemic” is a thinly veiled attempt at seizing money and power, and was never about public safety.
Beyond this though: Christianity has been under attack in the West for a very long time. Most overtly, the population replacement agenda has led to the importation of large numbers of people (each year), who have nothing to do with Christianity. Worse still, Liberals and Conservatives (basically the same thing) see nothing wrong with bringing people — like Muslims — who are openly hostile to Christianity.
It’s beyond cliché at this point, but modern Conservatives conserve absolutely nothing. Preserving the spiritual foundations of the Western world is no exception. It’s disturbing how much pride they take in proclaiming that “we don’t play identity politics”, and that “We’re not socially conservative. We support freedom”.
It is group identity and cohesion that is the basis for a society. If Christians (or related denominations) don’t do it, they will be replaced by groups that are cohesive. Islam being an obvious example.
Serious issues like smuggling or trafficking are routinely avoided in public discourse. Also important are the links between open borders and human smuggling; between ideology and exploitation; between tolerance and exploitation; between abortion and organ trafficking; or between censorship and complicity. Mainstream media will also never get into the organizations who are pushing these agendas, nor the complicit politicians. These topics don’t exist in isolation, and are interconnected.
2. Why Canadians Should Care
It should worry Canadians greatly when there is a sustained effort to undermine and erode our borders. The overwhelming majority of people don’t know how far back this goes. Although efforts predate these cases, this is where we will start.
On the first attempt, the Canadian Council of Churches went to court to try to get certain new legislation thrown out. This legislation would have made it harder for people to enter Canada from the U.S. and claim asylum. It went to the Supreme Court, but ultimately, it was ruled the group did not have public interest standing.
3. Court History Over The Years
Again, many more attempts have been made in recent decades to erase borders, but this article will only focus on a few of them.
FIRST ATTEMPT: KILL “SAFE COUNTRY” DESIGNATION
(a) Federal Court, Trial Division, Rouleau J., [1989] 3 F.C. 3
(b) Canadian Council of Churches v. Canada,
Federal Court of Appeal, [1990] 2 F.C. 534
(c) Canadian Council of Churches v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1992] 1 S.C.R. 236 1992.SCC.Rules.No.Standing
SECOND ATTEMPT: KILL CANADA/US S3CA
(a) 2008 ruling S3CA has no effect
Docket: IMM-7818-05 S3CA Provisions Struck Down
(b) The 2008 ruling is overturned on appeal
Canadian Council for Refugees v. Canada, 2008 FCA 229 Appeal granted, S3CA restored
THIRD ATTEMPT: TORONTO CASES TO STRIKE S3CA
(a) 2017, Prothonotary Milczynski considers consolidation
IMM-2229-17, IMM-2977-17, IMM-775-17 Milczynski Considers Consolidation
Federal Court, Trial Division, Rouleau J., [1989] 3 F.C. 3
.
Rouleau J. dismissed the application. His judgment reflects his concern that there might be no other reasonable, effective or practical manner to bring the constitutional question before the Court. He was particularly disturbed that refugee claimants might be faced with a 72-hour removal order. In his view, such an order would not leave sufficient time for an applicant to attempt either to stay the proceedings or to obtain an injunction restraining the implementation removal order.
.
Federal Court of Appeal, [1990] 2 F.C. 534
.
MacGuigan J.A. speaking for a unanimous Court allowed the appeal and set aside all but four aspects of the statement of claim.
.
In his view the real issue was whether or not there was another reasonably effective or practical manner in which the issue could be brought before the Court. He thought there was. He observed that the statute was regulatory in nature and individuals subject to its scheme had, by means of judicial review, already challenged the same provisions impugned by the Council. Thus there was a reasonable and effective alternative manner in which the issue could properly be brought before the Court.
.
He went on to consider in detail the allegations contained in the statement of the claim. He concluded that some were purely hypothetical, had no merit and failed to disclose any reasonable cause of action. He rejected other claims on the grounds that they did not raise a constitutional challenge and others on the basis that they raised issues that had already been resolved by recent decisions of the Federal Court of Appeal.
.
He granted the Council standing on the following matters raised on the statement of claim
Without getting too much into the technical details, the Supreme Court had to decide whether the Canadian Council of Churches, an organization, should be granted public interest standing to strike down all or part of the immigration laws. Ultimately, the ruling was no.
Disposition of the Result
.
In the result I would dismiss the appeal and allow the cross-appeal on the basis that the plaintiff does not satisfy the test for public interest standing. Both the dismissal of the appeal and the allowance of the cross-appeal are to be without costs.
Appeal dismissed and cross-appeal allowed.
.
Solicitors for the appellant: Sack Goldblatt Mitchell, Toronto.
.
Solicitor for the respondents: John C. Tait, Ottawa.
. Solicitors for the interveners The Coalition of Provincial Organizations of the Handicapped and The Quebec Multi Ethnic Association for the Integration of Handicapped People: Advocacy Resource Centre for the Handicapped, Toronto.
.
Solicitors for the intervener League for Human Rights of B’Nai Brith Canada: David Matas, Winnipeg, and Dale Streiman and Kurz, Brampton.
.
Solicitors for the interveners Women’s Legal Education and Action (LEAF) and Canadian Disability Rights Council (CDRC): Tory, Tory, DesLauriers & Binnington, Toronto and Dulcie McCallum, Victoria.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court thought that a refugee, someone with actual standing (or something at stake) should be the one making the case.
Also worth noting, consider who some of the intervenors are in this case. A lot of people who want to make it easier to get into Canada.
IT IS ORDERED THAT this application for judicial review is granted and the designation
of the United States of America as a “safe third country” is quashed.
Yes, the Canada/U.S Safe Third Country Agreement was actually declared to have no legal effect. However, this is not the end of it, as we will soon see.
IT IS DECLARED THAT:
.
1. Paragraphs 159.1 to 159.7 (inclusive) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection
Regulations and the Safe Third Country Agreement between Canada and the United
States of America are ultra vires and of no legal force and effect.
2. The Governor-in-Council acted unreasonably in concluding that the United States of
America complied with Article 33 of the Refugee Convention and Article 3 of the
Convention Against Torture.
3. The Governor-in-Council failed to ensure the continuing review of the designation
of the United States of America as a “safe third country” as required by
paragraph 102(2) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
4. Paragraphs 159.1 to 159.7 (inclusive) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection
Regulations and the operation of the Safe Third Country Agreement between
Canada and the United States of America violate sections 7 and 15 of the Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms and are not justified under section 1 thereof.
THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS are certified as serious questions of general
importance:
.
1. Are paragraphs 159.1 to 159.7 (inclusive) of the Immigration and Refugee
Protection Regulations and the Safe Third Country Agreement between Canada and
the United States of America ultra vires and of no legal force and effect?
2. What is the appropriate standard of review in respect of the Governor-in-Council’s
decision to designate the United States of America as a “safe third country” pursuant
to s. 102 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act?
3. Does the designation of the United States of America as a “safe third country” alone
or in combination with the ineligibility provision of clause 101(1)(e) of the
Immigration and Refugee Protection Act violate sections 7 and 15 of the Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms and is such violation justified under section 1?
If the United States is not a safe country, then why do tens of thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of people try to apply for asylum there every year?
The Safe Third Country Agreement was meant to prevent “asylum shopping” from taking place, but that is exactly what this ruling would have allowed.
6. 2009: Previous Ruling Overturned
The impugned Regulations and the Safe Third Country Agreement are not ultra vires the IRPA. Subsection 102(1) of the IRPA gives the GIC the power to promulgate regulations governing the treatment of refugee claims which may include provisions designating countries that comply with Article 33 of the Refugee Convention and Article 3 of the Convention Against Torture. This is a broad grant of authority intended to give effect to Parliament’s expressed intent that responsibility for the consideration of refugee claims be shared with countries that are respectful of their Convention obligations and human rights. The factors to be considered before designating a country are expressly set out in subsection 102(2) of the IRPA. The applications Judge’s misapprehended concern that the GIC would have the discretion to designate a country that does not comply with the Conventions led him to transform the statutory objective of designating countries “that comply” into a condition precedent.
The applications Judge adopted a hypothetical approach to the respondent organizations’ Charter challenge, i.e. that a class of refugees would be treated a certain way if they were to present themselves at a Canadian land border port of entry. This approach went against the well-established principle that a Charter challenge cannot be mounted in the abstract. There was no evidence that a refugee would have to bring a challenge from outside Canada. The respondent organizations’ ability to bring the Charter challenge depended on John Doe. As the latter never presented himself at the border and therefore never requested a determination regarding his eligibility, there was no factual basis upon which to assess the alleged Charter breaches. The applications Judge thus erred in entertaining the Charter challenge.
[14] On December 29, 2005, the respondents launched an application for leave and judicial review seeking a declaration that the designation of the U.S. under section 102 of the IRPA was ultra vires, that the GIC erred in concluding that the U.S. complied with Article 33 of the Refugee Convention and Article 3 of the Convention against Torture and further, that the designation breached sections 7 and 15 of the Charter. For purposes of clarity, it is useful to set out in full the issues set out in the judicial review application filed before the Court:
[130] In short, a declaration of invalidity of the STCA Regulations is not required in order to ensure that they are not applied to claimants for protection at the land border in breach of either Canada’s international obligations not to refoule, or the Charter.
.
D. CONCLUSIONS
.
[131] For these reasons I would allow the appeal
The Federal Court of Appeal ruled that the Lower Court considered a hypothetical scenario, and wrongly applied it to a Charter challenge. Put simply, Charter challenges are supposed to be ground in fact, and not “what if” situations. The ruling was overturned, and the Safe Third Country Agreement was restored.
7. 2017-Present: Toronto Challenge
Chief Justice Paul Crampton transferred 3 related cases to Justice Diner for case management. This is the same CJ Crampton who ruled that private citizens wishing to oppose the destruction of the S3CA don’t have standing.
Justice Diner granted public interest standing to 3 NGOs: Amnesty International, Canadian Council for Refugees, and Canadian Council of Churches.
Justice Diner order the 3 cases to be consolidated and tried together because of the overlapping issues.
Note: also see here, for decisions from the Federal Court in the matter above.
These are of course not the only NGOs working to open up our borders (and other nations’ borders as well), but it does at least provide some insight.
Also, see the above links in Section #1 for other articles published on these NGOs.
9. Look At The Bigger Picture
Last fall, the story made the news that a challenge would be coming to Toronto to the Safe Third Country Agreement.
However, the Canadian media left out important information. Shocking.
First, it didn’t go into any detail on the groups lobbying for this. It wasn’t just some helpless “asylum claimants”, but an organized effort to help erase Canada’s border with the U.S.
Second, the full extent of the NGO meddling is not mentioned. True, some media DO reference the 2007 case, but not further. It doesn’t provide a complete picture of what is going on. Nor does it mention how these groups are pushing similar initiatives elsewhere. Amnesty International, for example, claims to have 7 million members pushing to bring more migrants (primarily) to the West. The Canadian Council for Refugees, as another example, spends considerable time and effort lobbying our Parliament for more refugee friendly laws.
Third, there seems little concern for the Canadian who would have their safety and sovereignty eroded should this pass. Instead, the focus is always on people coming to Canada and what their needs are.
This is lawfare: using our courts and legal system to open our borders.
(This “charity” was originally called the Independent Immigration Aid Association. The goal was to help settle British immigrants into BC. It was acquired by Malcolm, renamed, and used for tax purposes for her media company.)
(From later in 2020. Interesting that a group claiming to provide independent coverage of the Government is in fact receiving subsidies from the same Government, to keep its operations going)
CLICK HERE, for prior coverage by PressProgress.ca.
When researching into True North Center’s tax returns and history, I stumbled across this piece on the subject. Quite thorough, and difficult to add to this, but let’s try anyway.
4. True North Originally Called I.I.A.A.
From Data On CRA Website
True North Centre for Public Policy
Business/Registration number: 132703448 RR 0001
Charity status: Registered
Effective date of status: 1994-06-18
Designation: Charitable organization Charity type: Relief of Poverty
Category: Organizations Relieving Poverty
Address: 2030 – 10013 RIVER DR
City: RICHMOND
Province, territory, outside of Canada: BC
From “About Us” On Website
True North Centre for Public Policy (True North Centre) is a registered Canadian charity, independent and non-partisan. We conduct policy research on immigration and integration issues and provide timely investigative journalism on issues that affect Canada’s national security.
.
The True North Initiative is a not-for-profit advocacy organization that raises awareness around immigration and integration issues and advances Western democratic values.
.
Together, these organizations form True North Canada.
Interesting. On its own website, True North Canada claims to be about conducting policy research on immigration and integration issues.
However, in tax filings True North Centre for Public Policy (which claims to be a charity) says the organization is about relieving poverty. It also claims to be helping UK immigrants settle into BC.
The reason for this discrepancy is that the Independent Immigration Aid Association (I.I.A.A.) that was founded in 1994 was taken over by Candice Malcolm. It was renamed as TRUE NORTH CENTRE FOR PUBLIC POLICY. An interesting point to raise: why take it over? Why not just start a brand new organization?
It could be to continue the tax benefits that come with being a registered charity, which True North Center still officially is.
5. Registered Charity Information Returns, 2014
Director/trustee and like official # 1
Full name: Daniel J Brown
Term Start date: 2014-01-01
Term End date: 2014-12-31
Position: President
At Arms Length with other Directors? Yes
Director/trustee and like official # 2
Full name: Roger A Dawson
Term Start date: 2014-01-01
Term End date: 2014-12-31
Position: Vice President
At Arms Length with other Directors? No
Director/trustee and like official # 3
Full name: Carole Clark
Term Start date: 2014-01-01
Term End date: 2014-12-31
Position:
At Arms Length with other Directors? No
Director/trustee and like official # 4
Full name: Robert Davies
Term Start date: 2014-01-01
Term End date: 2014-12-31
Position:
At Arms Length with other Directors? Yes
Director/trustee and like official # 5
Full name: Thomas Viccars
Term Start date: 2014-05-01
Term End date: 2014-12-31
Position:
At Arms Length with other Directors? Yes
Director/trustee and like official # 6
Full name: Tom Moses
Term Start date: 2014-05-01
Term End date: 2014-12-31
Position:
At Arms Length with other Directors? Yes
Director/trustee and like official # 7
Full name: Peter Howard
Term Start date: 2014-01-01
Term End date: 2014-12-31
Position:
At Arms Length with other Directors? Yes
6. Registered Charity Information Returns, 2015
Director/trustee and like official # 1
Full name: Daniel J Brown
Term Start date: 2015-01-01
Term End date: 2015-12-31
Position: President
At Arms Length with other Directors? Yes
Director/trustee and like official # 2
Full name: Roger A Dawson
Term Start date: 2015-01-01
Term End date: 2015-12-31
Position: Vice President
At Arms Length with other Directors? No
Director/trustee and like official # 3
Full name: Carole Clark
Term Start date: 2015-01-01
Term End date: 2015-12-31
Position: At Large
At Arms Length with other Directors? No
Director/trustee and like official # 4
Full name: Robert Davies
Term Start date: 2015-01-01
Term End date: 2015-12-31
Position: At Large
At Arms Length with other Directors? Yes
Director/trustee and like official # 5
Full name: Thomas Viccars
Term Start date: 2015-01-01
Term End date: 2015-12-31
Position: At Large
At Arms Length with other Directors? Yes
Director/trustee and like official # 6
Full name: Tom Moses
Term Start date: 2015-01-01
Term End date: 2015-12-31
Position: At Large
At Arms Length with other Directors? Yes
Director/trustee and like official # 7
Full name: Peter Howard
Term Start date: 2015-01-01
Term End date: 2015-12-31
Position: At Large
At Arms Length with other Directors? Yes
7. Registered Charity Information Returns, 2016
Director/trustee and like official # 1
Full name: Daniel J Brown
Term Start date: 2016-01-01
Term End date: 2016-12-31
Position: President
At Arms Length with other Directors? Yes
Director/trustee and like official # 2
Full name: Roger A Dawson
Term Start date: 2016-01-01
Term End date: 2016-12-31
Position: Vice President
At Arms Length with other Directors? No
Director/trustee and like official # 3
Full name: Carole Clark
Term Start date: 2016-01-01
Term End date: 2016-12-31
Position: At Large
At Arms Length with other Directors? No
Director/trustee and like official # 4
Full name: Robert Davies
Term Start date: 2016-01-01
Term End date: 2016-12-31
Position: At Large
At Arms Length with other Directors? Yes
Director/trustee and like official # 5
Full name: Tom Moses
Term Start date: 2016-01-01
Term End date: 2016-12-31
Position: At Large
At Arms Length with other Directors? Yes
Director/trustee and like official # 6
Full name: Patricia Morris
Term Start date: 2016-01-01
Term End date: 2016-12-31
Position: At Large
At Arms Length with other Directors? Yes
8. Registered Charity Information Returns, 2017
Director/trustee and like official # 1
Full name: Kasra Nejatian
Term Start date: 2017-12-07
Term End date:
Position: Director
At Arms Length with other Directors? Yes
Director/trustee and like official # 2
Full name: Erynne Schuster
Term Start date: 2017-02-07
Term End date:
Position: Director
At Arms Length with other Directors? Yes
Director/trustee and like official # 3
Full name: William McBeath
Term Start date: 2017-12-07
Term End date:
Position: Director
At Arms Length with other Directors? Yes
9. Registered Charity Information Returns, 2018
Director/trustee and like official # 1
Full name: Kasra Nejatian
Term Start date: 2017-12-07
Term End date:
Position: Director
At Arms Length with other Directors? Yes
Director/trustee and like official # 2
Full name: Erynne Schuster
Term Start date: 2017-12-07
Term End date:
Position: Director
At Arms Length with other Directors? Yes
Director/trustee and like official # 3
Full name: William McBeath
Term Start date: 2017-12-07
Term End date:
Position: Director
At Arms Length with other Directors? Yes
10. Koch/Atlas Network, Canadian Partners
Alberta Institute
Canadian Constitution Foundation
Canadian Taxpayers Federation
Canadians For Democracy And Transparency
Fraser Institute
Frontier Center For Public Policy
Institute For Liberal Studies
Justice Center For Constitutional Freedoms
MacDonald-Laurier Institute For Public Policy
Manning Center
Montreal Economic Institute
World Taxpayers Federation
These “think tanks” all promote the same things: economic libertarianism; mass economic immigration; liberal or free trade; less government; larger role for private sector. Now, let’s connect some dots.
Spoiler alert: you will notice that none of the connections you are about to be shown actually appear in True North Canada’s public information. Almost like they didn’t want the public to know.
11. Candice Malcolm’s Ties To Koch/Atlas
Candice worked for Koch and the Fraser Institute, before getting into journalism. She now runs True North Initiative, which “identifies” as a non-profit group. Of course, there is also True North Center, which “identifies” as a charity.
This was a November 2014 Atlas gettogether to complete “THINK TANK LEADERSHIP TRAINING”, whatever that means. Canadian Taxpayer’s Federation rep, Candice Malcolm was there.
At this 2014 dinner, Malcolm was a member of the Canadian Taxpayer’s Federation. Yes, one of Atlas’ Canadian partners.
Malcolm leaves out any trace of her Atlas past in the TNC website. Not very candid, is it? Malcolm also omits being a political staffer, for Jason Kenney, who “enriched” the GTA as Immigration Minister, and who wants to enrich Rural Alberta now.
12. Kasra Nejatian’s Ties To Koch/Atlas
Interesting side note: Kasra Nejatian (a.k.a. Kasra Levinson) is Candice Malcolm’s husband. He is a Director at the Canadian Constitution Foundation, which is also part of Atlas Network. He’s part of the CCF, and she was part of Fraser and Koch Institute.
Interesting omission on the TNC site: not only does Candice not mention that Kasra — her husband — is a Director of a Koch group (CCF), she omits that he is a Director at True North Center, the “charity” branch of True North Canada.
There’s no information about this on the website. In fact, one would have to search Revenue Canada’s records in order to find this out. The TNC site doesn’t even say that THERE ARE any Directors.
Worth pointing out, Nejatian was also a staffer, for Jason Kenney, former Federal Immigration Minister, and current Alberta Premier.
13. William McBeath’s Ties To Koch/Atlas
One of the Directors for True North’s “charity” wing is William McBeath, who used to work for the Manning Center. Again, one would have to look at the Revenue Canada website to get this information, as it is not available on TNC.news.
Interestingly, he has also held party roles with both the Alberta and Federal Conservatives. Again, no mention of this on the TNC.news website. You need to check outside information.
14. Andrew Lawton, Ontario PC Candidate
True North admits that one of their fellows, Andrew Lawton, was a candidate in the 2018 Ontario Provincial election for the Progressive Conservative Party. A refreshing bit of candour considering what they leave out.
Nothing inherently wrong with journalists getting into politics, or politicians getting into journalism. However, being so recent, it should be noted the biases and beliefs Lawton will bring to the role.
15. Charity V.S. Non-Profit: CRA
CHARITY NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION
Purposes must be established and operate exclusively for charitable purposes can operate for social welfare, civic improvement, pleasure, sport, recreation, or any other purpose except profit
cannot operate exclusively for charitable purposes
Registration must apply to the CRA and be approved for registration as a charity does not have to go through a registration process for income tax purposes
Charitable registration number is issued a charitable registration number once approved by the CRA is not issued a charitable registration number
Tax receipts can issue official donation receipts for income tax purposes cannot issue official donation receipts for income tax purposes
Spending requirement (disbursement quota) must spend a minimum amount on its own charitable activities or as gifts to qualified donees does not have a spending requirement
Designation is designated by the CRA as a charitable organization, a public foundation, or a private foundation does not receive a designation
Returns must file an annual information return (Form T3010) within six months of its fiscal year-end may have to file a T2 return (if incorporated) or an information return (Form T1044) or both within six months of its fiscal year-end
Personal benefits to members cannot use its income to personally benefit its members cannot use its income to personally benefit its members
Tax exempt status is exempt from paying income tax is generally exempt from paying income tax
may have to pay tax on property income or on capital gains
GST/HST generally must pay GST/HST on purchases
may claim a partial rebate of GST/HST paid on eligible purchases
most supplies made by charities are exempt
calculates net tax using the net tax calculation for charities must pay GST/HST on purchases
may claim a partial rebate of GST/HST paid on eligible purchases only if it receives significant government funding
few supplies made by NPOs are exempt
calculates net tax the regular way
Given how Revenue Canada distinguishes between charities and non-profits, this may be why Candice Malcolm took over Independent Immigration Aid Association and renamed it to True North Center for Public Policy. They likely wouldn’t be able to obtain charity status on their own. Therefore, taking an existing charity might have been an easier bet.
While True North does do decent work, there is nothing to indicate that it deserves special status, or should be registered as a charity. Otherwise, virtually any media would qualify.
Seriously, what else is the reason for acquiring the Independent Immigration Aid Association? It’s not like Malcolm, Nejatian, or any of the others wish to preserve their legacy. In fact, without looking any deeper into the topic, one would never know about it.
So did Malcolm found True North Initiative? In a deceptively technical sense, yes. The “non-profit” branch of True North Canada came from her. However, the “charity” portion which makes the organization eligible for tax perks was founded in 1994 by a completely different group of people. A lie of omission.
16. What Exactly Is True North Canada?
Press Progress picked up on the inconsistencies in Malcolm’s ever-changing description of True North Canada. So let’s go through some of them.
Could be that Malcolm wants to keep the tax breaks that come with the current structure. That could be why she “founded” True North Initiative (a non-profit), yet the True North Center for Public Policy (a charity) was a rebranded one from 1994.
Now, for a semi-related, but interesting ruling from the Federal Court of Canada.
17. Federal Court Ruling: T-1633-19
Recently, True North and Rebel Media won court cases which overturned (on an interlocutory basis) the decisions of the Elections Commissioner to restrict them from covering Federal debates in the 2019 election. This is an interesting side note to the story.
Worth stating at the front: although there were a few different names to choose from, Malcolm et al chose to use True North Center for Public Policy (the charity), for the court case.
Well, yes. They do engage in advocacy. It says so right on their website. While this may come across as pedantic, they are not wrong about this. However, things are not that simple.
The Test for the Requested Relief
[24] The test the Court must apply when asked to issue a mandatory interlocutory injunction is set out by the Supreme Court of Canada in R v Canadian Broadcasting Corp, 2018 SCC 5 [CBC] at para 18:
In sum, to obtain a mandatory interlocutory injunction, an applicant must meet a modified RJR — MacDonald test, which proceeds as follows:
(1) The applicant must demonstrate a strong prima facie case that it will succeed at trial. This entails showing a strong likelihood on the law and the evidence presented that, at trial, the applicant will be ultimately successful in proving the allegations set out in the originating notice;
(2) The applicant must demonstrate that irreparable harm will result if the relief is not granted; and
(3) The applicant must show that the balance of convenience favours granting the injunction. [emphasis in original]
[25] The Applicants bear the burden of proving to the Court on a balance of probabilities that they have met all three prongs of the tri-partite test. This Court observed in The Regents of University of California v I-Med Pharma Inc, 2016 FC 606 at para 27, aff’d 2017 FCA 8 that “[t]hese factors are interrelated and should not be assessed in isolation (Movel Restaurants Ltd v EAT at Le Marché Inc, [1994] FCJ No 1950 (Fed TD) at para 9, citing Turbo Resources Ltd v Petro Canada Inc (1989), 24 CPR (3d) 1 (FCA)).”
[26] The Order the Applicants seek is both extraordinary and discretionary. Given its discretionary nature, provided the tri-partite test has been met, the “fundamental question is whether the granting of an injunction is just and equitable in all of the circumstances of the case:” Google Inc v Equustek Solutions Inc, 2017 SCC 34 at para 25.
[37] There is also evidence in the record that some of the accredited news organizations have previously endorsed specific candidates and parties in general elections. The Commission responds that in those cases the advocacy was in editorials or produced by columnists. This begs the question as to where one draws the line as to what is and is not advocacy that disqualifies an applicant from accreditation. This goes to the lack of rationality and logic in the no-advocacy requirement.
This is a valid point. Most media outlets engage in some level of advocacy. So to disallow 1 or 2 outlets would be hypocritical.
[38] This also goes to the lack of transparency. Absent any explanation as to the meaning to be given to the term “advocacy” and given that the Commission accredited some organizations that have engaged in advocacy, I am at a loss to understand why the Commission reached the decisions it did with respect to the Applicants.
Agreed. The decisions weren’t really explained beyond the simple “you engage in advocacy”.
[39] Accordingly, I find that the Applicants are likely to succeed on the merits in setting aside the decisions as unreasonable.
The Procedural Fairness of the Process
[40] The application and scope of procedural fairness in administrative decision-making is explained by the Supreme Court of Canada in Baker v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] 2 SCR 817 [Baker].
[41] It was noted at para 20 of Baker that “The fact that a decision is administrative and affects ‘the rights, privileges or interests of an individual’ is sufficient to trigger the application of the duty of fairness.” In the matters before this Court the interests of those whose accreditation applications were rejected are most certainly affected. This was not disputed by the Commission; rather it submitted that the Applicants were afforded a fair process in accordance with Baker.
[42] The Supreme Court of Canada observed at para 22 of Baker that “the duty of fairness is flexible and variable, and depends on an appreciation of the context and the particular statute and the rights affected.” In paras 23 to 27, it listed five factors that a court ought to consider when determining the content of the duty of fairness in a particular case. There is no suggestion that these are the only factors a court may consider:
(i) The nature of the decision being made and the process followed in making it;
(ii) The nature of the statutory scheme and the terms of the statute pursuant to which the decision-maker operates;
(iii) The importance of the decision to those affected;
(iv) The legitimate expectations of those challenging the decision regarding the procedures to be followed or the result to be reached; and
(v) The choices made by the decision-maker regarding the procedure followed.
Conclusion
[68] I have found that these Applicants have satisfied the tripartite test for the granting of the injunction requested. Moreover, and for the reasons above, I find that granting of the requested Order is just and equitable in all of the circumstances.
[69] For these Reasons, following the oral hearing on October 7, 2019, the Court issued the following two Orders:
the Leaders’ Debates Commission / Commission des Debats des Chefs is to grant David Menzies and Keenan [sic] Bexte of Rebel News the media accreditation required to permit them to attend and cover the Federal Leaders’ Debates taking place on Monday, October 7, 2019 in the English language and Thursday, October 10, 2019 in the French language;
the Leaders’ Debates Commission / Commission des Debats des Chefs is to grant Andrew James Lawton of the True North Centre for Public Policy the media accreditation required to permit him to attend and cover the Federal Leaders’ Debates taking place on Monday, October 7, 2019 in the English language and Thursday, October 10, 2019 in the French language;
[70] After issuing these Orders, the Applicants requested and were granted an opportunity to make submissions on costs. The Court was later informed that “the parties have resolved the issue of costs” and thus no further Order is required.
For all the issues a person may have with an outlet, such as Rebel Media or True North Canada, it was nice to see this decision happen. The public is best served with more media available.
Regardless of how sketchy True North is, Elections Canada acted in a very heavy-handed way. The Courtruling was a very welcome victory.
18. Malcolm Misrepresents On Twitter
Malcolm claims to be the FOUNDER of True North Canada in her Twitter biography. While this is true on a technical level, it omits that she and her husband took an existing charity, renamed and repurposed it, and now use it for tax benefits.
It’s not entirely clear what this “non-profit” of True North Initiative adds, other than perhaps some cover. Slapping that on a rebranded charity seems to be what counts as “founding” these days.
While I support the challenge in Federal Court (allowing coverage of the debates), it was in the spirit of open media. It is not in any way to be seen as an endorsement of this “organization”. It is deceitful and underhanded.
Much of the Canadian public knows about “Gladue Rights”, which is essentially a race-based discount given to Aboriginal defendants in criminal proceedings. In short, judges must consider systemic racism and other discrimination, and search for ways to reduce their sentences.
However, this does not extend only to Aboriginals. Blacks can also use many of the same excuses in pleading for reduced punishment for crimes they commit.
Everyone, regardless of their race, should be against this. The only way a society works is when everyone is treated the same way for their actions. One group should not benefit, or be hindered by unequal laws.
3. Court Cases For Blacks
Here are some recent court cases in which “racial discrimination” or “system racism” was taken into account by judges sentencing black felons. This is not the complete list.
Again, this is not nearly all of them, but a snapshot into what the legal system (it’s not really a justice system) has become in Canada.
4. Looking At A Cultural Assessment
[17] Cultural Assessment – Completed by Mr. R. Wright, MSW, RSW. It is extensive, well-informed and well-researched.
The Nature of an Impact of Race and Culture Assessment
Though much has been written about the intersection of race and the criminal justice system, and in particular the experience of North Americans of African descent, until the development of IRCA’s (sic) there had been no recognized form for the presentation of such a report. That people of African descent have been overrepresented among incarcerated persons in Canada has been studied by academics, justice system leaders, and activist persons. The Office of the Correctional Investigator took special notice of the conditions of inmates of African descent in federal correctional institutions in its year end report in 2013. It concluded:
“Black inmates are one of the fastest growing sub-populations in federal corrections. Over the last 10 years, the number of federal incarcerated Black inmates has increased by 80% from 778 to 1,403. Black inmates now account for 9.5% of the total prison population (up from 6.3% in 2003/04) while representing just 2.9% of the general Canadian population.” (p.8)
Now, 4 years after the advent of these reports in the well publicized YCJA matter described as R v. X, IRCAs have been widely accepted in Nova Scotia courts and have also been conducted in Ontario. Though I fully respect that the experience of aboriginal Canadians is quite unique, and I have no wish to expropriate or exploit their struggle and leadership, I nevertheless need to acknowledge that my development of IRCAs has been influenced by my familiarity with Gladue reports. Like Gladue reports, the goal of IRCAs is to provide courts with more background information about an offender’s race and cultural background to assist the court at arriving at a just sentence: A sentence that considers the circumstances of the offender, alternatives to incarceration, and does not further contribute to the systemic problems of overrepresentation of persons within correctional populations. This principle is generally stated in the Criminal Code of Canada with particular attention given to Aboriginal offenders:
718.2 A court that imposes a sentence shall also taken into consideration the following principles:
(e) all available sanctions, other than imprisonment, that are reasonable in the circumstances and consistent with the harm done to victims or to the community should be considered for all offenders, with particular attention to the circumstances of Aboriginal offenders.
In keeping with these principles, it is a founding premise of IRCAs that a person’s race and cultural heritage should be considered as a significant factor in considering their sentence n a criminal matter. Not just because of cultural responses to normal stressors, but also because of the forces of racism that person experience and our growing understanding of how this affects outcomes when one encounters the justice and other government systems. In Nova Scotia we have significant reason to understand these effects. We are the province of the Royal Commission on the Donald Marshall, Jr., Prosecution (1989), which opening paragraph is very telling:
The criminal justice system failed Donald Marshall, Jr. at virtually every turn from his arrest and wrongful conviction for murder in 1971 up to, and even beyond, his acquittal by the Court of Appeal in 1983. The tragedy of the failure is compounded by evidence that this miscarriage of justice could – and should – have been prevented, or at least corrected quickly, if those involved in the system had carried out their duties in a professional and/or competent manner. That they did not is due, in part at least, to the fact that Donald Marshall, Jr. is a Native. (p.1)
We are also the province of the Black Learners Advisory Committee Report on Education: Redressing Inequity – Empowering Black Learners (1994). This report was produced as part of a comprehensive study of the education inequities that exist for African Nova Scotians (ANS). It produced 3 volumes of materials and 30 recommendations for education reform. That systemic racism exists in the Nova Scotia education system was well described by this report:
“Black Nova Scotians, like other Black Canadians, are victimized by a racist ideology and a racist social structure. Racism permeates the entire social, economic, political and cultural environment of Nova Scotian and Canadian….
During the BLAC research, we encountered widespread condemnation of the education system as biased, insensitive and racist. Systemic racism was seen as manifested in student assessment and placement; in labelling of large numbers of Black students as slow learners or having behaviour problems; in steraming (sic); in low teacher expectation; in denigration by and exclusion of Blacks from the curriculum; and in the total lack of responsiveness to the needs of Black learners and concerns of the Black community.” (pp. 34, 35)
Similarly, the differential and disadvantageous experience of African Canadians in the federal corrections system has been documented by the Office of the Correctional Investigator in it year end report in 2013. Nova Scotia’s review of the Mental Health and Addictions system produced the Together We Can Strategy (2012) found that African Nova Scotians were among a number of diverse communities whose mental health and addictions treatment needs had not yet been served sufficiently. This Nova Scotian finding was identified earlier in a national study completed by a subcommittee of the Mental Health Commission of Canada. The document they produced: Improving Mental Health Services for Immigrant, Refugee, Ethno-Cultural and Racialized Groups: Issues and Options for Service Improvement (2009). It is interesting to note, that I served on the MHCC subcommittee and was a contributor to that report. Ms. Lana MacLean, my colleague and friend who is also a person who conducts IRCAs served on the committee that produced the Nova Scotia review document.
Knowing all of this, an IRCA then seeks to understand how an individual’s ANS heritage and interaction with formal and informal systems has affected their involvement in criminal behaviour, will be a factor in their treatment while incarcerated, and will be a factor in their rehabilitation and reintegration in the community. These issues are consistent with the expectations of the report described in Judge Curran’s order requesting: “preparation of a cultural assessment report regarding his African Nova Scotian background and any cultural factors and racial factors which are suggested to be systemic in nature, but may also have individual impacts on him,” Examination of “the role played by Derek Demitrius Faulkner’s cultural and racial background with respect to the criminal offence herein.”
Preparation of this Report
In preparing this report I have participated in the following activities:
• Interview in person of Mr. Faulkner at Northeast Nova Scotia Correctional Facility
• Review of JEIN report, Crown Brief and other Disclosure material
• Interview by phone of Mr. Michael Dull, counsel for Mr. Faulkner in the civil matter
• I attempted contact with other collaterals but were not able to reach them in time for the drafting of this report. I will continue to reach out to collaterals in the event that I am called to testify on this report.
According to the cultural report, Nova Scotians engage in system racism. This is the case of R. v. Faulkner, 2019 NSPC 36 (CanLII).
It had nothing to do with any of the AGGRAVATING FACTORS that were cited in Paragraph 5 of the sentencing report
II AGGRAVATING FACTORS
(1) Robbery is inherently violent and there were implied threats of violence to clerk #1 and specific to #2
(2) Lengthy record including two robberies, 2005/2009
(3) Accused released from custody; breached release
(4) Prolonged nature of the offence – accused was in store for over an hour
(5) Clerk asked member of public to call police
Nothing to do with committing a robbery and making threats.
Nothing to do with a robbery in 2005.
Nothing to do with a robbery in 2009.
Nothing to do with other criminal convictions.
Nothing to do with being in the store over an hour.
Nothing to do with breaching conditions of release.
The court needs to consider the “systemic racism” that blacks face.
Yeah, it’s all about those racist Nova Scotians. Turned him into a career criminal.
5. Section 15 Of Canadian Charter
Equality Rights
Marginal note:
Equality before and under law and equal protection and benefit of law
15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
Marginal note:
Affirmative action programs
(2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
Serious question: under the Canadian Charter, would this count as a law that ameliorates conditions of disadvantaged individuals? Guess we aren’t so equal after all.
6. Follow-up To Old Story
This topic was covered in a previous article in June last year. It was reported that this may become the law of the land. Admittedly I should have checked deeper into it at the time.
However, it seems that these cases have been going on for many years. The National Post just missed that detail. It just has not been codified into law — yet.
How exactly do we live in any sort of just society, when there are different rules and standards for people based on their skin colour? This completely flies in the face of equality under the law, which SHOULD apply to everyone.
7. 3 Levels Of Justice Now?
Under the Gladue ruling, judges are REQUIRED to take an Aboriginal person’s background into account when handing down sentencing. There is no discretion in the matter.
However, for blacks, judges MAY take race and circumstances into account, but this is not mandatory.
Everyone else, though, must take responsibility for their own actions. They don’t have the race card to play.
In 2003, the current Conservative Party of Canada did not exist. Instead, there was the Alliance Party, led by Stephen Harper, and the Progressive Conservative Party, undergoing a leadership race.
Two candidates in that race, David Orchard and Peter Mackay, struck a deal: Orchard would support MacKay’s leadership bid in return for a written pledge not to pursue a merger or deal with the Alliance. At that time, a merger had been seriously considered, as a way to form a united alternative to the Liberal Party. But MacKay promised — in writing — not to pursue this if he was supported for leader of the Progressive Conservative leadership.
The deal went ahead as planned (so it seemed), and MacKay became leader of the party. However, it appeared he had no intention of honouring his deal. Almost immediately, he pursued merger talks with the Alliance. The eventually merged, and the new party formed government from 2006 until 2015. MacKay’s deceptive and underhanded tactics had won in the long term.
Fast forward more than a decade from 2003, and another controversy. See section #9 for more on that.
3. Text Of McKay/Orchard Deal
May 31, 2003 Agreement between Peter MacKay and David Orchard
1) No merger, joint candidates w[ith] Alliance. Maintain 301.
2) Review of FTA/NAFTA – blue ribbon commission with D[avid] O[rchard] w[ith] choice of chair w[ith] P[eter] M[acKay’s] agreement. Rest of members to be jointly agreed upon.
3) Clean up of head office including change of national director in consultation (timing w[ithin] reasonable period in future, pre-election) and some of DO’s people working at head office.
4) Commitment to making environmental protection front and center incl[uding] sustainable agriculture, forestry, reducing pollution through rail.
[Signed by Peter MacKay and David Orchard]
Looks pretty straightforward.
No merger. Fix our party instead.
4. ON Court Challenge By Orchard, Others
Administrative law — Voluntary association — Political parties — Political parties registered under Canada Elections Act — Leaders of Progressive Conservative Party of Canada and Canadian Reform Conservative Alliance reaching agreement for merger of political parties — Common law principles regarding unregulated voluntary associations did not apply to political parties registered under Canada Elections Act — Canada Elections Act governing merger of registered political parties — Canada Elections Act, S.C. 2000, c. 9.
On October 15, 2003, Peter MacKay, leader of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada (“PC Party”), reached an agreement in principle with Steven [page278] Harper, leader of the Canadian Reform Conservative Alliance (“Alliance”), for the establishment of the “Conservative Party of Canada”. PC Party members who were opposed to the agreement applied to the court for several declarations. The premise of these declarations was that the PC Party could not be dissolved or merged with another political party except with the unanimous consent of all its members. The applicants also sought a permanent injunction to prevent anyone from dealing with the party’s assets.
[4] The applicants are PC Party members who are opposed to the merger of the party with the Alliance. They request that the court make a number of declarations, which are all premised on their view that the PC Party cannot be dissolved or merged with another political party, except with the unanimous consent of all of its members. They also seek a permanent injunction to prevent anyone from otherwise dealing with the party’s assets.
[5] I note that several items of the relief set out in the Notice of Application are not pursued before me. Paragraph 1(j) requested a declaration that Mr. MacKay is in breach of his written agreement, dated June 1, 2003, with Mr. Orchard, and sought consequential relief. The request for this relief was withdrawn on the consent of counsel prior to the date set for the hearing. Paragraph 1(e) sought a declaration that the procedures set by the Management Committee of the PC Party for the special meeting scheduled for December 6, 2003 are contrary to the Party’s Constitution and by-laws. Counsel for the applicants indicated they [page280] were not seeking such relief and informed the court the applicants were making no attack on the specific procedures adopted by the Party respecting the special meeting. Counsel also informed the court that the applicants were not requesting the court to deal with the relief sought in para. 1(g) which sought a declaration that the Constitution of the PC Party prohibited its leader from agreeing with the leader of another political party that the PC Party will not nominate candidates in every federal constituency in Canada.
[6] Traditionally, the courts have been reluctant to get involved in supervising the internal affairs of voluntary associations. However, courts do recognize that membership in a voluntary association can give individuals important social rights that are worthy of some protection. Members may request the courts to require that the organization carry out its affairs honestly, in good faith and in accordance with its governing rules.
[7] In this case we are dealing with a political party. The social interest of members in ensuring that the organization’s affairs are conducted in accordance with its governing Constitution is apparent. Citizens exercise important rights in participating in political activity through membership in political parties. However, the court must be careful not to intrude into the political realm. There were submissions and evidence in this case that I considered to be political rhetoric. I have disregarded all such evidence and submissions.
[13] I am satisfied that the situation is sufficiently developed to give rise to an actual dispute between the parties. Both sides have important interests at stake. The leadership of the PC Party has embarked on a path to merge the party. The applicants are opposed to the course of action being taken. Counsel for both sides indicated to the court that it would be of assistance to have a decision before the vote is taken tomorrow. Given their national significance, there is good reason to determine the questions raised by this actual dispute, and I am satisfied that the court’s decision will be of practical effect in resolving the dispute.
[14] I have concluded that this dispute does not fall within the ambit of the internal dispute resolution in Article 13 of the PC Party’s Constitution. I regard the internal process as intended to deal with questions about whether the ongoing affairs of the party are being conducted in compliance with its Constitution and by-laws. This dispute arises in extraordinary circumstances not contemplated by its Constitution, concerns its continued existence, and as will be seen, is in large measure about the proper interpretation and effect of a public statute. In deciding not to defer to the internal arbitration process, I paid no heed to the applicants’ arguments that that process was flawed by relationship and institutional bias. I regard the applicant’s apprehension of bias to be without merit.
[40] In expressing this view, I should not be taken to be declaring the law. In this proceeding I was asked to make declarations that the PC Party cannot merge, transfer its assets, or dissolve without the unanimous consent of every one of its individual members. I have decided, based on the view I take of the law, that it is not appropriate to make such declarations.
[41] A further comment must be made about para. 1(h) of the application. Paragraph 1(h) seeks “a declaration that the resolution [before the December 6 special meeting] does not constitute the resolution required pursuant to s. 400(2)(b) of the Canada Elections Act in order for the PC Party to merge with another registered party under the Act”. Whether the resolution being acted upon tomorrow, or any other resolution, satisfies the requirements of the Act must, in the first instance, be decided by the Chief Electoral Officer. I refuse the relief requested in para. 1(h) on that basis.
[42] The application is dismissed in its entirety. Counsel may make an appointment through my secretary to address costs.
Application dismissed.
In short the Court ruled that the matter should be decided internally. The parties have governing documents (such as constitutions) which set out terms for various issues, including mergers.
One way to look at this would be the “sort out your own business” line of reasoning prevailed. And while members of an organization should expect leaders to behave in a good faith manner, the Court apparently isn’t always the place to demand such a resolution.
While the Judge “could” have intervened, the decision was made not to.
See the next section for the Elections Act (400-403)
5. Canada Elections Act
[34] I set out the provisions in full, underlining the particular phrases that I find helpful in interpreting the provisions. I discuss some of the particular phrases below.
400(1) Two or more registered parties may, at any time other than during the period beginning 30 days before the issue of a writ for an election and ending on polling day, apply to the Chief Electoral Officer to become a single registered party resulting from their merger.
(2) An application to merge two or more registered parties must
(a) be certified by the leaders of the merging parties;
(b) be accompanied by a resolution from each of the merging parties approving the proposed merger; and
(c) contain the information required from a party to be registered, except for the information referred to in paragraph 366(2)(i).
401(1) The Chief Electoral Officer shall amend the registry of parties by replacing the names of the merging parties with the name of the merged party if
(a) the application for the merger was not made in the period referred to in subsection 400(1); and
(b) the Chief Electoral Officer is satisfied that
(i) the merged party is eligible for registration as a political party under this Act, and
(ii) the merging parties have discharged their obligations under this Act, including their obligations to report on their financial transactions and their election expenses and to maintain valid and up-to-date information concerning their registration.
(2) The Chief Electoral Officer shall notify the officers of the merging parties in writing whether the registry of parties is to be amended under subsection (1).
(3) If the Chief Electoral Officer amends the registry of parties, he or she shall cause to be published in the Canada Gazette a notice that the names of the merging parties have been replaced in the registry with the name of the merged party.
402(1) A merger of registered parties takes effect on the day on which the Chief Electoral Officer amends the registry of parties under subsection 401(1). (2) On the merger of two or more registered parties,
(a) the merged party is the successor of each merging party;
(b) the merged party becomes a registered party;
(c) the assets of each merging party belong to the merged party;
(d) the merged party is responsible for the liabilities of each merging party; [page287]
(e) the merged party is responsible for the obligations of each merging party to report on its financial transactions and election expenses for any period before the merger took effect;
(f) the merged party replaces a merging party in any proceedings, whether civil, penal or administrative, by or against the merging party; and
(g) any decision of a judicial or quasi-judicial nature involving a merging party may be enforced by or against the merged party.
403. Within six months after a merger
(a) each of the merging parties shall provide the Chief Electoral Officer with the documents referred to in subsection 424(1) for
(i) the portion of its current fiscal period that ends on the day before the day on which the merger takes effect, and
(ii) any earlier fiscal period for which those documents have not been provided; and
(b) the merged party shall provide the Chief Electoral Officer with
(i) a statement, prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, of its assets and liabilities, including any surplus or deficit, at the date of the merger,
(ii) an auditor’s report, submitted to the chief agent of the merged party, as to whether the statement presents fairly and in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles the information on which it was based, and
(iii) a declaration in the prescribed form by the chief agent of the merged party concerning the statement.
These sections of the Canada Elections Act are cited in both the Provincial and Federal Court rulings. As such, we should know what they actually say. In short, they quite clearly allow for party mergers. Broken promises and backroom deals don’t actually appear anywhere in the text.
6. ON Court Of Appeal (Orchard et al.)
[17] As a preliminary matter, the respondent moves to quash the appeal as now being moot. It argues that there is no longer a live issue affecting the rights of the parties because the merger has happened and the Conservative Party has been registered by the Chief Electoral Officer in place of the PC Party and the Alliance Party.
[18] In my view, the motion must be dismissed. There remains the same real legal issue between the parties that existed before December 6, 2003, namely, whether the PC Party can be dissolved or merged with another political party without the unanimous consent of all of its members. The only difference is that if [page134] they are successful, the appellants must now seek a remedial order undoing what has happened rather than an order to prevent it from occurring. The respondent has not shown that this would be impossible. The underlying legal issues still have an effect on the rights of the parties and hence mootness does not apply.
[19] On the appeal itself, the appellants’ fundamental contention is that the common law requires the PC Party to obtain the unanimous consent of all of its members to merge with the Alliance Party. In making this argument they place significant reliance on Astgen.
[45] By the terms of the constitution this decision is final and binding. Having had the opportunity to participate in that process the appellants are bound to accept it as final and binding, subject to judicial review which they have not sought. This is a corollary to the obligation of an organization like a trade union to give notice of an arbitration to a member whose rights will be affected because the decision of the arbitration board is final and binding. See, for example, Hoogendoorn v. Greening Metal Products and Screening Equipment Co. (1967), 1967 CanLII 20 (SCC), [1968] S.C.R. 30, 65 D.L.R. (2d) 641. It is not open to the appellants to seek a determination by the court that the resolution is of no legal effect because the PC Party failed to comply with the procedures required by its constitution. In this circumstance, that is a matter for the Arbitration Committee.
[46] In summary, therefore, the appellants’ arguments on appeal must be rejected.
[47] The respondent has cross-appealed from the decision of the application judge to award no costs because of the public importance of the issues raised. We did not call on the appellants to respond to the cross-appeal. In our view, it was an entirely appropriate exercise of discretion by the judge of first instance.
[48] As to the costs of the proceedings in this court, success has been divided. The appellants failed on the appeal. The respondent failed to establish mootness and failed on the cross-appeal. Together with the public importance of the questions raised, this makes it appropriate to order that there be no costs in this court. [page141]
[49] I would therefore dismiss the motion to quash and the appeal and the cross-appeal. No costs in this court.
Among other things, the Court of Appeals states that relief should have come in the form of an application for judicial review challenging the Elections Commission.
Beyond that, the Appeals Panel sidesteps the underhanded nature of MacKay’s duplicity. Instead, they point out that the Canada Elections Act explicitly allows for mergers except in very limited cases. Unanimity from all participants is not required.
To sum up, there is nothing new to add here, so appeal dismissed.
7. Stevens v. CPC (Federal Court)
This was not the only case that was launched. There was an Application for Judicial Review started in Federal Court to contest the ruling that allowed the merger.
[76] The Applicant argued that the decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal confirmed the opinion of the application judge that section 401(1)(b)(ii) of the Act vests the CEO not the Court, with the mandate of determining if the merger application met the statutory requirements. However, he also submits that the Court of Appeal recognized that section 400(2)(b) of the Act implicitly requires that a merger resolution be passed in accordance with the constitution of a merging party.
[77] Accordingly, the Applicant argues that this holding supports his contention that the CEO erred in law by rejecting the constitution of the PC Party as being relevant to his decision. The Applicant repeats and relies upon his earlier submissions that the constitution of that party specifically prohibits the merger application that was made.
[78] Further, the Applicant says that the judgment of the Ontario Court of Appeal does not address the argument that the common law rights of voluntary associations include the right to be heard when such association is a political party that is at risk of dissolution.
ii) The Respondent
[79] The Respondent disagrees with the Applicant’s interpretation of the Ontario Court of Appeal’s decision and argues that the Court rejected the arguments that the merger of the PC Party and the Alliance Party attracted application of the common law rule that the unanimous consent of each party member was required for the merger of those parties. Further, the Respondent submits that the Ontario Court of Appeal held that the Act did not require unanimous consent for such merger.
[80] In conclusion, the Respondent relies on the decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal as supporting its view that the decision of the CEO to amend the registry of parties on December 7, 2003, was correct.
[114] A waiting period of sixty days applies when a political party initially applies for registration. In my view, it is reasonable that a waiting period, albeit a reduced one, will also apply when two registered parties apply for merger.
[115] It follows, then, that in my opinion, the CEO erred by amending the registry of parties on the same day that the merger application was made and without waiting for thirty days, to ensure that no election writ would be issued, thereby activating the commencement of the prohibited period.
[116] As noted earlier, the Applicant seeks an order quashing the decision of the CEO and reinstating the PC Party on the registry of parties. Alternatively, the Applicant seeks an order setting aside the decision of December 7, 2003 and referring the matter back to the CEO.
[117] In my opinion, the remedies sought by the Applicant should not be granted. Pursuant to section 18.1(3) of the Federal Courts Act, supra, the Court has discretion in the matter of granting relief upon an application for judicial review. On occasion, relief has been denied and in this regard, I refer to Mobil Oil Canada Ltd. v. Canada-Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Board, 1994 CanLII 114 (SCC), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 202.
[118] In the present case, I take judicial notice of the fact that no writ for an election was issued in the thirty days following December 7, 2003. In the result, the CEO’s action in immediately amending the registry of parties, although contrary to my interpretation of the Act, had no material effect. In the exercise of my discretion, I decline to grant the relief sought.
[119] The application for judicial review is dismissed. However, the Applicant has raised a valid point and is entitled to his assessed costs under Column III.
<center> ORDER</center>
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that:
.
The application for judicial review is dismissed, the Applicant to have his assessed costs under Column III
Much the same as with the Ontario Courts. The Court declines to intervene, and rules the merger allowed under the Canada Elections Act.
8. Stevens v. CPC (Federal Court of Appeal)
[49]I therefore find that the only interpretation that would give a concrete meaning to the texts in question is the one that requires the Chief Electoral Officer to let 30 days expire once the merger application is received before accepting it. If this was not Parliament’s intention, it is free to correct our vision with a more specific legislative text.
Exercising discretionary power for judicial review
[50]Justice Heneghan refused to grant the relief sought despite the fact that the Chief Electoral Officer, by not waiting 30 days before making his decision, violated the Canada Elections Act. Taking judicial notice of the fact that no writ ordering an election was issued in the 30 days following the merger application, she found, at paragraph 118 of her reasons:
In the result, the CEO’s action in immediately amending the registry of parties, although contrary to my interpretation of the Act, had no material effect. In the exercise of my discretion, I decline to grant the relief sought.
[51]Justice Heneghan, in my opinion, judiciously exercised the discretion inherent to the power for judicial review. The existence of this discretion is based both on the text of subsection 18.1(3) [as enacted by S.C. 1990, c. 8, s. 5; 2002, c. 8, s. 27] of the Federal Courts Act [R.S.C., 1985, c. F-7 , s. 1 (as am. by S.C. 2002, c. 8, s. 14)] under which the “Federal Court may” [emphasis added] quash the decision of a federal board, commission or tribunal, and on the principles associated with traditional prerogative writs. In this regard, it would be appropriate to return to this long excerpt from Justice Hugessen’s reasons in Schaaf v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, 1984 CanLII 3622 (FCA), [1984] 2 F.C. 334 (C.A.), at pages 342-344, which summarize the basis of this discretion best, with the adaptations required by the new, more explicit formulation of section 18 [as am. by S.C. 1990, c. 8, s. 4; 2002, c. 8, s. 26]:
In my view, nothing in the words used makes them other than attributive of jurisdiction. They create the power in the Court to set aside decisions which offend in one of the stated ways but do not impose a duty to do so in every case.
More of the same. The Federal Court can use discretion and choose not to intervene.
9. Current CPC Leadership Antics
This is the follow-up to Section #2. Andrew Scheer becomes leader of the Conservative Party of Canada in May 2017, is a surprise (and contested) 13th ballot over Maxime Bernier. However, it soon becomes clear that many people did not want this, and Scheer is undermined within his own party.
Bernier leaves in August 2018 to start his own party, the bizarrely named “People’s Party of Canada”. He claims that the CPC is no longer conservative, and that he will form an alternative. He also starts adopting populist rhetoric, something he previously hadn’t shown. Interestingly, Bernier spends more time attacking Scheer than the Liberal Party, which is currently in government.
Curiously, the People’s Party is missing a lot:
(a) Bernier has never called a leadership campaign
(b) No policies have ever been voted on
(c) There is no party constitution
(d) There are no by-laws, or other governing documents
(e) There is no national council, or senior board
(f) The platform was recycled from Bernier’s 2016/17 leadership run
Critics claim it is a “temporary” party meant to keep the Conservatives from winning, and to get Scheer ejected. Strangely enough, Peter MacKay’s name gets floated as a possible successor should Scheer not become Prime Minister.
Ultimately, Justin Trudeau did win again, but this time a minority. Despite winning the popular vote and increasing the seat total, Scheer was pressured to resign from the CPC leadership.
Could MacKay be at it again? Is this another scheme to undermine the will of conservative party members and select the party’s leader? Was the PPC just a psy-op to get rid of Scheer and install another leader instead?
10. Politics Is Rotten To The Core
This current fiasco has relevance to the 2003 one for a simple reason: some of the same people are involved in both. Now, could Peter MacKay be up to his old tricks of deceit and backstabbing? Choosing who becomes leader?
Actually governing people always seems to take a backseat to the infighting, pettiness, and selfishness of the politicians involved. Public servants appear to be anything but.
Giving your word, even in writing, seems to mean little. Alliances will always give way to self interest.
