TSCE #7: Abuse of S3CA & Coming To Canada Under False Pretenses

CLICK HERE, for previous article on the Canada/US Safe 3rd Country Agreement (signed in 2002)

1. Interesting Cases

(1) CLICK HERE, for a marriage of convenience.
Liang v Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, 2014 CanLII 90636 (CA IRB)

(2) CLICK HERE, for committing identity fraud in order to gain entry to Canada.
Shaikh v Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2018 CanLII 89040 (CA IRB)

(3) CLICK HERE, for an actual terrorist wanting to stay in Canada.
Singh v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 1997 CanLII 5893 (FC)

(4) CLICK HERE, for a failed US asylum seeker, relying on falsified psychological documents.
X (Re), 2016 CanLII 152912 (CA IRB)

(5) CLICK HERE, for a failed US asylum seeker changing his story this time.
X (Re), 2013 CanLII 99499 (CA IRB)

(6) CLICK HERE, for an Indian man claiming to be from Tibet to gain asylum (Mariam Monself, take note).
X (Re), 2014 CanLII 100882 (CA IRB)

(7) CLICK HERE, for a “refugee” who lived illegally in the US for 14 years, then trying to claim asylum in Canada
X (Re), 2015 CanLII 44019 (CA IRB)

(8) CLICK HERE, for a wanted fugitive from China trying to get asylum in Canada.
X (Re), 2015 CanLII 107837 (CA IRB)

These 8 cases are just a small sample of the tidal wave of fraudulent “refugee” claims that have been made over the last several years. Although many get rejected, many still get through. This happens even when adjudicators admit that applicants have been deceptive.

2. UN Promotes Abuse Of S3CA

CLICK HERE, for the UN link.

Exceptions to the Safe Third Country Agreement with Canada

The U.S. and Canada have an agreement preventing people who first enter one country from applying for asylum or refugee status in the other. This means that if you entered the U.S. first and then try to apply for asylum in Canada, you may not be able to. However, there are exceptions to the agreement that may allow you to apply for asylum in Canada, even if you came to the U.S. first. For one thing, this agreement only applies to you if you are planning on arriving at entry ports on the U.S.-Canada land border. It does not apply if you plan on arriving in Canada at air or marine ports.

The following questions will determine whether you meet any of the exceptions that will allow you to apply for asylum in Canada at a U.S.-Canada land border even if you arrived in the U.S. first.

EXCEPTION # 1 Land Border Entry Ports Only

Are you going to arrive in Canada from a land border?

NO ==> You qualify under this exception!

YES ==> You do not qualify under this exception. Check to see if you qualify under any other exception.

EXCEPTION # 2 Family Connections in Canada

Do you have any of the following family members in Canada?

  • A spouse
  • A common-law partner (a common law partner is person of the same or opposite sex with whom you are cohabiting in a conjugal relationship and have cohabited for at least a year.)
  • A legal guardian
  • A child
  • A father or mother
  • A brother or sister
  • A grandfather or grandmother
  • A grandchild
  • An uncle or aunt
  • A nephew or niece

NO ==> You do not qualify under this exception. Check to see if you qualify under any other exception.

YES ==> Is your family member any of the following?

  • A Canadian citizen
  • A permanent resident
  • A protected person (i.e. determined to be a refugee or a person in need of protection)
  • Accepted in principle on humanitarian and compassionate grounds (removal order stayed under Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations 233)
  • 18 years of age or over and is a refugee claimant (and the claim has not been rejected, withdrawn, found abandoned or ineligible)
  • 18 years of age or over and is in Canada on a work permit or study permit (but check the exceptions)
  • YES ==> You qualify under this exception!
    NO ==> You do not qualify under this exception. Check to see if you qualify under any other exception.

    EXCEPTION # 3 Unaccompanied Minor
    Are you under 18?
    NO ==> You do not qualify under the unaccompanied minor exception. Check to see if you qualify under any other exception.
    YES ==> Were you accompanied here by your father, mother, or legal guardian? Are you married? Is your father, mother, or legal guardian in Canada or the United States?

    If NO to all these questions ==> You qualify under this exception!
    If YES to any of these questions ==> You do not qualify under this exception. Check to see if you qualify under any other exception.

    EXCEPTION # 4 Countries to which Canada Does Not Remove

    Are you a national of any of the following countries?

    • Afghanistan
    • Burundi
    • Democratic Republic of Congo
    • Haiti
    • Iraq
    • Liberia
    • Rwanda
    • Zimbabwe

    NO ==> You do not qualify under this exception. Check to see if you qualify under any other exception.

    YES ==> Have you been convicted of any crimes?

    NO ==> You qualify under this exception!

    YES ==> You may not qualify under this exception. Canada does not admit people who have been convicted of certain crimes. Whether you qualify under this exception depends on the type of crime(s) you were convicted of.

    EXCEPTION # 5 Death Penalty

    Have you been charged or convicted of an offence punishable with the death penalty in the country?

    YES ==> You MAY qualify under this exception. Canada does not admit people who have been convicted of certain crimes. Whether you qualify under this exception depends on the type of crime(s) you were convicted of.

    NO ==> You do not qualify under this exception. Check to see if you qualify under any other exception.

    EXCEPTION # 6 Valid Visa Exception

    Do you have a valid visa to enter Canada, other than a transit visa?

    YES ==> You qualify under this exception!

    NO ==> You do not qualify under this exception. Check to see if you qualify under any other exception.

    EXCEPTION # 7 Visa Required in U.S. But Not in Canada

    Are you a national of any of the following countries?

    • Antigua and Barbuda
    • Barbados
    • Botswana
    • Cyprus
    • Greece
    • Malta
    • Mexico
    • Namibia
    • Papua New Guinea
    • Republic of (South) Korea
    • St. Kitts and Nevis
    • St. Lucia
    • St. Vincent
    • Solomon Islands
    • Swaziland
    • Western Samoa

    NO ==> You do not qualify under this exception. Check to see if you qualify under any other exception.

    YES ==> You qualify under this exception!

    From Canadian Website

    CLICK HERE, for Canadian Government website.

    Where the Agreement is in effect
    The Safe Third Country Agreement applies only to refugee claimants who are seeking entry to Canada from the U.S.:
    at Canada-U.S. land border crossings
    by train or
    at airports, only if the person seeking refugee protection in Canada has been refused refugee status in the U.S. and is in transit through Canada after being deported from the U.S.

    Exceptions to the Agreement
    Exceptions to the Agreement consider the importance of family unity, the best interests of children and the public interest.
    There are four types of exceptions:

    1. Family member exceptions
    2. Unaccompanied minors exception
    3. Document holder exceptions
    4. Public interest exceptions

    Even if they qualify for one of these exceptions, refugee claimants must still meet all other eligibility criteria of Canada’s immigration legislation. For example, if a person seeking refugee protection has been found inadmissible in Canada on the grounds of security, for violating human or international rights, or for serious criminality, that person will not be eligible to make a refugee claim.

    Family member exceptions
    Refugee claimants may qualify under this category of exceptions if they have a family member who:

    • is a Canadian citizen
    • is a permanent resident of Canada
    • is a protected person under Canadian immigration legislation
    • has made a claim for refugee status in Canada that has been accepted by the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB)
    • has had his or her removal order stayed on humanitarian and compassionate grounds
    • holds a valid Canadian work permit
    • holds a valid Canadian study permit, or
    • is over 18 years old and has a claim for refugee protection that has been referred to the IRB for determination. (This claim must not have been withdrawn by the family member, declared abandoned or rejected by the IRB or found ineligible for referral to the IRB.)

    Unaccompanied minors exception
    Refugee claimants may qualify under this category of exceptions if they are minors (under the age of 18) who:
    are not accompanied by their mother, father or legal guardian
    have neither a spouse nor a common-law partner, and
    do not have a mother, a father or a legal guardian in Canada or the United States.

    Document holder exceptions
    Refugee claimants may qualify under this category of exceptions if they:
    hold a valid Canadian visa (other than a transit visa)
    hold a valid work permit
    hold a valid study permit
    hold a travel document (for permanent residents or refugees) or other valid admission document issued by Canada, or
    are not required (exempt) to get a temporary resident visa to enter Canada but require a U.S.–issued visa to enter the U.S.

    Public interest exceptions
    Refugee claimants may qualify under this category of exceptions if:
    they have been charged with or convicted of an offence that could subject them to the death penalty in the U.S. or in a third country. However, a refugee claimant is ineligible if he or she has been found inadmissible in Canada on the grounds of security, for violating human or international rights, or for serious criminality, or if the Minister finds the person to be a danger to the public.

    Making a refugee claim under the Safe Third Country Agreement
    For detailed information on making a refugee claim for protection in Canada at the Canada–U.S. border, please refer to the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA).

    There are so many exemptions in this agreement that it’s difficult to find someone who “doesn’t” qualify on one or more grounds.

    4. Canada Admits U.S. A Safe Country

    Factor 3: Human rights record of the United States
    The United States meets a high standard with respect to the protection of human rights. It is an open democracy with independent courts, separation of powers and constitutional guarantees of essential human rights and fundamental freedoms.

    Factor 4: Whether the United States is party to an agreement with Canada for the purpose of sharing responsibility with respect to claims for refugee protection

    The Safe Third Country Agreement between Canada and the United States was signed on December 5, 2002, came into force on December 29, 2004, and remains in force.

    The US is a safe country. That “should” end the discussion on fake refugees coming here.

    After all, simply being in the country illegally isn’t a defense.

    Calgary Fed Court Decision on UN Global Migration Compact


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

    Please sign this: PETITION E-1906 CLICK HERE

    All personal court appearances are under “BLOG
    Challenge to UN Global Migration Compact dismissed in Calgary, however
    Court rules that it is non intended as legally binding contract


    Court Case
    A v. Her Majesty, the Queen
    Court File No: T-2089-18
    Calgary Branch, Federal Court
    300-635 8th Ave SW, Calgary
    Filed: November 6, 2018
    Ruled: February 12, 2019

    The Claim was filed in Calgary Federal Court on December 6, 2018. It asked (among other things), for an injunction against signing the UN Global Migration Compact.

    The Defense filed a motion to strike, claiming that under Federal Courts Act, it should have been an “Application for Judicial Review”, not a claim. However, that doesn’t seem to be the only problem.

    After some back and forth, the Statement of Claim was struck out (without permission to amend), and a $500 cost award was issued against me.

    Here are some quotes from the ruling. The most interesting is possibly the one where the Judge confirms that the UN Global Migration Compact is not intended as a legally-binding agreement.

    So, who won? The goal of the claim was to prevent Canada from joining the UN Compact, and the Judge says that it has no legal weight anyway.

    [2] (Plaintiff) pleads, in the alternative, that if Canada has already signed the UN Compact when the Court rules on her claim, the Court should void the signature and any legal consequences

    In this case, the issue of whether it should have been a 1/ Statement of Claim, or 2/ Application for Judicial Review, is sort of mute, since this alternative “does” fall within the scope of a Claim.

    Court is also correct that seeking to nullify any legal consequences “is” primary function of this action. However, the Judge will go on to say that the UN Global Migration Compact “doesn’t” carry legal weight.

    [8] However, this does not exempt a plaintiff from pleading material facts supporting the claim. Rule 174 states that a Statement of Claim “shall contain a concise statement of the material facts on which the party relies.

    Court finds that the facts plead were not specific enough to be suitable for an action.

    [15] The Supreme Court has substantive content of each Charter right in the case law, and a Plaintiff who relies on the Charter must plead material facts to satisfy the criteria applicable to the provision in question. Charter cases can not be decided in a factual vacuum.

    Interesting to know. General pleading are not enough in this case, and more definitive and substantive arguments must be made.

    [26] As it is plain and obvious that (her) claims based on the Charter and other statutory provisions cannot succeed, the thrust of her claim is simply that Canada should be enjoined from joining the UN Compact, a non-legally binding, cooperative framework agreement because she is of the opinion that it attempts to normalise mass migration to any country, and that the public should have been consulted on this agreement.

    Again, the Judge re-iterates that it is “non-legally binding”. Having rejected the specific constitutional arguments earlier, apparently the only argument left is that the public should have been consulted.

    [27] It is well-established that the conduct of foreign affairs, and international relations, including the decision to conclude or withdraw from a treaty, is part of the Crown’s prerogative powers and falls exclusively under the executive branch of government. In the absence of a Charter challenge, a decision pertaining to such matters is not justifiable.

    There “were” several Charter challenges listed, but the Calgary Court found them too broad to be acceptable.

    [25] Based on my review of the Statement of Claim, it is plain and obvious that the Contract Claim discloses no cause of action and must be struck out. The Statement of Claim quotes lengthy exerps from the UN Compact, including the following statement at Paragraph 54 of the claim, which indicates the UN Compact is not intended as a legally binding contract:

    44(7) “This Global Compact presents a non-legally binding, co-operate framework that builds on the commitments agreed upon by Member States in the New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants. It fosters cooperation among all the relevant actors on migration, acknowledging that no one State can address migration alone, and upholds the sovereignty of States and their obligations under international law.”

    This is possibly the most interesting part of the entire ruling. The Judge states that the UN Global Migration Compact is not intended as a legally binding contract.

    We now have a Federal Court Judge ruling that the UN Compact is “not intended as a legally-binding contract”. This is huge, as this may thwart any attempt by open-borders advocates to use the UN Compact as a “reference point” at a later date.

    Even though the Court threw the case out, the reasons given may be what we need to prevent it from becoming “soft law”.

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

    Mandatory Minimum Sentences: Good, Bad, Or It Depends?

    Suggested Offences With Mandatory Minimums
    CC 46-48 (Treason)
    CC 83.01-83.3 (Terrorism)
    CC 151-154 (child Sex Offences)
    CC 229-239 (Murder, 1st degree)

    The case AGAINST Mandatory Minimums
    -Judges are better able to look at a case and decide what is fair
    -Judges are better able to decide what would be best for the public
    -Judges are not subject to the whims of the population, given their jobs are secure
    -In the event of very poor rulings, they can be appealed
    -Mandatory minimums are very costly to the public
    -Mandatory minimums result in “social costs” to the public
    -There is no general deterrence
    -Politicians in general cannot be trusted to pass good laws
    -Politicians take so much power anyway, a separate judiciary is necessary
    -Government should stay out of people’s lives as much as possible
    -Given fraud and corruption within gov’t it is hypocritical for them to be passing such laws
    -Judges are best able to “make that exception” when needed
    -Mandatory minimums make it hard, if not impossible to make punishment fit the crime. It always must.

    Articles Cited:
    Research At A Glance
    Mandator Minimum Penalties
    Mandatory Minimums Unfair and Expensive
    PBS Special on Mandatory Minimums

    The Case IN FAVOUR OF Mandatory Minimums
    -Politicians can (theoretically) be thrown out, judges cannot
    -Although far from perfect, public input can help draft laws
    -While judges are well intended, different perspectives can lead to widely differing sentences on cases of similar facts
    -Consistency is necessary in applying sentencing principles
    -If bad rulings occur and are not struck down, they can create ”precedent” for future bad rulings. Having set standards eliminates that possibility
    -If not mandatory minimums, then guidelines (as is also the case in US/UK)
    -Some offences are so bad they “require” prison time (as mentioned, it covered offences like murder, terrorism, child sex offences)
    -Of course, this is not to imply that all, or even most offences should carry mandatory minimums
    -The crimes being proposed for mandatory minimums are committed so rarely, that there would be ”no dragnet” of people.
    -For certain offences, the well being of society needs to trump individual rights
    -The Principles of Sentencing (see below) to see a need to balance both individual rights and society’s (the group’s rights)
    -Items (a), (b), (c) put societal interest first, while (d), (e), (f) put individual interest first

    What Does The Law Say?

    Note: the information here is not necessary to prove that mandatory minimums are necessary, but rather to explain when the rationale behind sentencing.

    Also the Bill C-42 was introduced to remove so-called ”conditional sentencing” for certain offences. The rationale being, if house arrest is inadequate, the probation would be even more so. In effect, it would ”create” mandatory jail sentences (though the length not specified).

    Purpose and Principles of Sentencing
    Marginal note:
    Purpose
    718 The fundamental purpose of sentencing is to protect society and to contribute, along with crime prevention initiatives, to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society by imposing just sanctions that have one or more of the following objectives:

    (a) to denounce unlawful conduct and the harm done to victims or to the community that is caused by unlawful conduct;

    (b) to deter the offender and other persons from committing offences;

    (c) to separate offenders from society, where necessary;

    (d) to assist in rehabilitating offenders;

    (e) to provide reparations for harm done to victims or to the community; and

    (f) to promote a sense of responsibility in offenders, and acknowledgment of the harm done to victims or to the community.

    Objectives — offences against children
    718.01 When a court imposes a sentence for an offence that involved the abuse of a person under the age of eighteen years, it shall give primary consideration to the objectives of denunciation and deterrence of such conduct.

    Objectives — offence against peace officer or other justice system participant
    718.02 When a court imposes a sentence for an offence under subsection 270(1), section 270.01 or 270.02 or paragraph 423.1(1)(b), the court shall give primary consideration to the objectives of denunciation and deterrence of the conduct that forms the basis of the offence.

    Objectives — offence against certain animals
    718.03 When a court imposes a sentence for an offence under subsection 445.01(1), the court shall give primary consideration to the objectives of denunciation and deterrence of the conduct that forms the basis of the offence.

    Fundamental principle
    718.1 A sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender.

    Restrictions on Conditional Sentencting, Bill C-42

    R v. Proulx (2003) for conditional sentencing

    “The requirement in s. 742.1 (b) that the judge be satisfied that the safety of the community would not be endangered by the offender serving his or her sentence in the community is a condition precedent to the imposition of a conditional sentence, and not the primary consideration in determining whether a conditional sentence is appropriate. In making this determination, the judge should consider the risk posed by the specific offender, not the broader risk of whether the imposition of a conditional sentence would endanger the safety of the community by providing insufficient general deterrence or undermining general respect for the law. Two factors should be taken into account: (1) the risk of the offender re-offending; and (2) the gravity of the damage that could ensue in the event of re-offence. A consideration of the risk posed by the offender should include the risk of any criminal activity, and not be limited solely to the risk of physical or psychological harm to individuals.

    Once the prerequisites of s. 742.1 are satisfied, the judge should give serious consideration to the possibility of a conditional sentence in all cases by examining whether a conditional sentence is consistent with the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing set out in ss. 718 to 718.2. This follows from Parliament’s clear message to the judiciary to reduce the use of incarceration as a sanction.

    A conditional sentence can provide significant denunciation and deterrence. As a general matter, the more serious the offence, the longer and more onerous the conditional sentence should be. There may be some circumstances, however, where the need for denunciation or deterrence is so pressing that incarceration will be the only suitable way in which to express society’s condemnation of the offender’s conduct or to deter similar conduct in the future.

    Generally, a conditional sentence will be better than incarceration at achieving the restorative objectives of rehabilitation, reparations to the victim and the community, and promotion of a sense of responsibility in the offender and acknowledgment of the harm done to the victim and the community.

    Where a combination of both punitive and restorative objectives may be achieved, a conditional sentence will likely be more appropriate than incarceration. Where objectives such as denunciation and deterrence are particularly pressing, incarceration will generally be the preferable sanction. This may be so notwithstanding the fact that restorative goals might be achieved. However, a conditional sentence may provide sufficient denunciation and deterrence, even in cases in which restorative objectives are of lesser importance, depending on the nature of the conditions imposed, the duration of the sentence, and the circumstances of both the offender and the community in which the conditional sentence is to be served. A conditional sentence may be imposed even where there are aggravating circumstances, although the need for denunciation and deterrence will increase in these circumstances.

    No party is under a burden of proof to establish that a conditional sentence is either appropriate or inappropriate in the circumstances. The judge should consider all relevant evidence, no matter by whom it is adduced. However, it would be in the offender’s best interests to establish elements militating in favour of a conditional sentence.

    Sentencing judges have a wide discretion in the choice of the appropriate sentence. They are entitled to considerable deference from appellate courts. Absent an error in principle, failure to consider a relevant factor, or an overemphasis of the appropriate factors, a court of appeal should only intervene to vary a sentence imposed at trial if the sentence is demonstrably unfit.”

    R v Proulx makes a pretty compelling case in favour of “conditional sentencing” a.k.a. “house arrest”. This case is recognized and relied on when handing down sentences. Many defense lawyers argue that conditional sentencing would better serve everyone (in most cases) than physical prison.

    The restrictions that came from Bill C-42, however, means that certain offences are no longer eligible for conditional sentencing. This means that Judges will have to choose jail sentences, since probation would be considered unfit.

    Overall, a very interesting topic to cover.

    Senator Mike Duffy Can’t Sue Senate Over Suspension

    (“P.E.I” Senator Mike Duffy, textbook case of “pig at the trough”)

    (Pamela Wallin, Patrick Brazeau, Mike Duffy, all temporarily suspended from the Canadian Senate)

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

    Please sign this: PETITION E-1906 CLICK HERE

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

    An Ontario Judge has ruled that Mike Duffy cannot sue the Senate for a decision that caused him to be suspended without pay for almost 2 years.

    CLICK HERE, for the actual ruling from Justice Sally Gomery. (Quotes in bold/italics. Commentary in regular font).

    CLICK HERE, for the original verdict, acquitting Duffy.

    [1] Senator Michael Duffy is suing the Senate of Canada for over $7 million in damages.

    [2] On November 5, 2013, the Senate voted to suspend Senator Duffy based on a report from its standing committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration (the “CIBA”). This CIBA report concluded that he had violated rules on living and travel expenses. Senator Duffy was later criminally charged with breach of trust, fraud and accepting a bribe. On April 21, 2016, after a trial that lasted more than a year, he was acquitted of all charges. Justice Vaillancourt, the judge who heard the criminal trial, concluded that the Prime Minister’s Office (“PMO”) directed one or more senators to interfere with an audit of Senator Duffy’s expenses. 2018 ONSC 7523 (CanLII) He also concluded that, in making living expense claims, Senator Duffy “committed no prohibited act, violated no Senate rules”, and neither engaged in criminal fraud nor intended to do so.

    [3] In his lawsuit, Senator Duffy claims that the CIBA report and the Senate’s decision to suspend him were politically motivated, unconstitutional, procedurally unfair and contrary to his rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms1. Given the judge’s findings when he was acquitted of criminal charges, Senator Duffy argues that actions by various senators and the Senate as a whole were clearly wrong and unlawfully deprived him of salary, allowances and pension contributions. He also says that, since he was acquitted and the suspension was lifted, the Senate has once again unfairly denied him reimbursement for further legitimate expenses. He seeks compensation for the amounts he says he is entitled to as well as compensatory and punitive damages.

    [4] This matter is before me now because the Senate says that Senator Duffy’s action should be dismissed. The Senate contends that the lawsuit cannot proceed because the actions that Senator Duffy seeks to challenge fall squarely within the scope of parliamentary privilege. Determining the questions that arise in Senator Duffy’s lawsuit would accordingly require a court to do exactly what parliamentary privilege is designed to prevent.

    An interesting approach. While Duffy was ultimately acquitted on the criminal charges, the Trial Judge didn’t exactly exonerate him completely. More on that later. And this deflection and projection does not change the fact that there was considerable grounds for the suspension. This reads like an attempt to cash in.

    [7] For the purpose of a motion like this one, I must assume that all of the factual allegations in Senator Duffy’s statement of claim are true. He makes many allegations about the improper motivations of various senators and the denial of any due process. But the core allegation, what he says entitles him to damages, is that the decisions by the CIBA and the Senate to suspend him and to deny his claims for compensation were unlawful and unfair. I must determine whether these decisions are protected by parliamentary privilege and therefore shielded from any review by this court.

    This is an important distinction to make here: the Judge is saying that it must be “assumed” for the purposes of the motion that the factual allegations are true. This is not to claim that they actually are.

    [8] I conclude that they are. The Senate enjoys certain categories of privilege by virtue of the Constitution Act, 1867. 6 Four types of privilege prevent a court from reviewing the actions by the Senate at issue in this case.

    [9] First, parliamentary privilege extends to decisions by the Senate to discipline its own members. The privilege clearly applies to decisions about whether a senator should be suspended or expelled. In some cases, a court may review disciplinary decisions with respect to employees of a legislative body, if the management of such employees does not fall within the scope of what is necessary to protect the independent functioning of that body. There is however no question that the privilege prevents judicial review of discipline or suspension of a member of the legislature itself.

    [10] Second, parliamentary privilege applies to the Senate’s management of its internal affairs, including the allocation and use of parliamentary resources. This privilege extends to decisions on the approval of expenses claimed by senators. I find that the privilege applies to decisions by an internal committee of senators, such as the CIBA, with respect to the allocation or withholding of parliamentary resources to a senator.

    [11] Third, Parliament has exclusive control over, and privilege with respect to, its own debates and proceedings.

    [12] Finally, parliamentary privilege protects freedom of speech in the Senate. Allegations in a statement of claim about what was said in parliament must be struck, because statements in parliament cannot be reviewed by a court. Neither a senator nor a third party can be compelled to testify in court about anything they said or did in the course of Senate proceedings. Transcripts of proceedings, and reports produced by or commissioned for the Senate, can likewise not be produced in court proceedings. The Senate’s failure to object to disclosure of some evidence that might have been subject to privilege during Senator Duffy’s criminal trial does not mean that it has relinquished its right to invoke privilege in this case.

    The Judge is setting out the reasons here: The Senate is allowed under the law to discipline its own members. The ruling will go on to cite many examples and circumstances, but this will suffice for now.

    [13] Senator Duffy contends that the application of parliamentary privilege in this case leaves him without any meaningful remedy. He says that he cannot hope to get justice from the very body that has treated him so badly in the past, and that the courts should not allow Charter violations to go unchecked, particularly in circumstances where those violations arise from interference by one branch of government (the PMO) with another (the Senate).

    [14] I am however obliged to respect constitutional imperatives. Allowing a court to revisit the Senate’s decisions at issue here would interfere with the Senate’s ability to function as an independent legislative body, equal to other branches of government. These decisions, as well as the Senate record relevant to them, are protected by parliamentary privilege and are accordingly immune from judicial review or reconsideration. Since the actions at issue fall within those actions protected by parliamentary privilege, I cannot give any consideration to whether they were wrong or unfair or even contrary to Senator Duffy’s Charter rights. All of these are determinations that the Senate, and the Senate alone, can make. The Senate’s motion to dismiss Senator Duffy’s action against it is therefore granted.

    Interesting, that Duffy has been in the Senate since 2009, but seems to know so little about how it works.

    From the Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure, 21 and 25.11:


    21.01 (1) A party may move before a judge,
    (a) for the determination, before trial, of a question of law raised by a pleading in an action where the determination of the question may dispose of all or part of the action, substantially shorten the trial or result in a substantial saving of costs; or
    (b) to strike out a pleading on the ground that it discloses no reasonable cause of action or defence,
    and the judge may make an order or grant judgment accordingly. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 21.01 (1).

    STRIKING OUT A PLEADING OR OTHER DOCUMENT
    25.11 The court may strike out or expunge all or part of a pleading or other document, with or without leave to amend, on the ground that the pleading or other document,
    (a) may prejudice or delay the fair trial of the action;
    (b) is scandalous, frivolous or vexatious; or
    (c) is an abuse of the process of the court. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 25.11.

    The Senate invokes 2 sections of the Ontario rules, claiming that since Parliamentary privilege applies that the Senate should not be a defendant in the case.

    [25] Over time, the concept of parliamentary privilege was expanded to protect not only speech and procedures, but any action within parliament over which it must necessarily have exclusive control, as an independent and coequal branch of government. Parliamentary privilege is accordingly:
    the necessary immunity that the law provides for Members of Parliament … in order for these legislators to do their legislative work. It is also the necessary immunity that the law provides for anyone while taking part in a proceeding in Parliament … Finally, it is the authority and power of each House of Parliament … to enforce that immunity.

    Section 18 of the 1867 Constitution Act states:


    Privileges, etc., of Houses
    18. The privileges, immunities, and powers to be held, enjoyed, and exercised by the Senate and by the House of Commons, and by the members thereof respectively, shall be such as are from time to time defined by Act of the Parliament of Canada, but so that any Act of the Parliament of Canada defining such privileges, immunities, and powers shall not confer any privileges, immunities, or powers exceeding those at the passing of such Act held, enjoyed, and exercised by the Commons House of Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and by the members thereof

    In one context, it is nice that the Court here does apply and uphold some separation between branches of government.

    However, from a taxpayer who likes accountability from public officials, there is another viewpoint. Many would like to see the truth of the matter fleshed out, something that hasn’t really happened. However, this seems to be a case of “procedure over facts”.

    It will be interesting to see what happens with the RCMP, as they will be all too happy to throw Duffy under the bus to show they acted properly.

    Backstory Events Leading Up to Lawsuit Against RCMP and Senate
    In November 2013, Conservative Senators: 1/ Patrick Brazeau; 2/ Pamela Wallin’ and 3/ Mike Duffy were all suspended from the Canadian Senate for 2 years without pay, over illegal spending.

    Mike Duffy faced 31 criminal charges, including: 15 counts of fraud, 15 counts of breach of trust, and 1 count of bribery, (for allegedly receiving $90,000 gift to pay back expenses).

    Brazeau and Liberal Senator Mac Harb were charged with breach of trust and fraud, (sections 122 and 380 of the criminal code)


    Bribery of judicial officers, etc.
    119 (1) Every one is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years who
    (a) being the holder of a judicial office, or being a member of Parliament or of the legislature of a province, directly or indirectly, corruptly accepts, obtains, agrees to accept or attempts to obtain, for themselves or another person, any money, valuable consideration, office, place or employment in respect of anything done or omitted or to be done or omitted by them in their official capacity, or
    (b) directly or indirectly, corruptly gives or offers to a person mentioned in paragraph (a), or to anyone for the benefit of that person, any money, valuable consideration, office, place or employment in respect of anything done or omitted or to be done or omitted by that person in their official capacity.

    Breach of trust by public officer
    122 Every official who, in connection with the duties of his office, commits fraud or a breach of trust is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years, whether or not the fraud or breach of trust would be an offence if it were committed in relation to a private person.
    R.S., c. C-34, s. 111.

    Fraud
    380 (1) Every one who, by deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means, whether or not it is a false pretence within the meaning of this Act, defrauds the public or any person, whether ascertained or not, of any property, money or valuable security or any service,
    (a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to a term of imprisonment not exceeding fourteen years, where the subject-matter of the offence is a testamentary instrument or the value of the subject-matter of the offence exceeds five thousand dollars; or
    (b) is guilty
    (i) of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or
    (ii) of an offence punishable on summary conviction,
    where the value of the subject-matter of the offence does not exceed five thousand dollars.

    Pamela Wallin was never actually charged, but forced to pay back for her actions, despite over $100,000 in illegal expenses. In a bizarre twist, it cost $127,000 to audit Wallin’s spending.

    Duffy was acquitted in a very bizarre ruling in 2016. More on that later.

    This most likely influenced the decision to drop the charges against Harb in May 2016, and later Brazeau in July 2016.

    Although Duffy was eventually acquitted of criminal wrongdoing, him returning to the Senate has left a bad taste in many people’s mouths.

    Nonsensical Acquittal by Vaillancourt At Trial

    CLICK HERE, for the text of the ruling.

    That is actually its own article, CLICK HERE. It is too long to do properly here.

    Made in Court (Review)

    (Supreme Court Decisions That Shaped Canada, by Richard Pound)

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

    Please sign this: PETITION E-1906 CLICK HERE

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

    This is a case-law book which has a collection of Supreme Court of Canada decisions over the last century.

    Each case is covered in about 5-6 pages. It combines actual quotes from the Court rulings along with commentary on the reasoning. The reviews directly come from the rulings, and are not filtered through media bias.

    Certainly, everyone has their own opinions as to which cases should be included, but Mr. Pound selects 57 cases from a wide cross section of law. Here are a few of them

    Juries decide the Facts, Judge Determines the law,
    R v. Latimer, 2001

    Marital Breakdown, Wives Without Rights
    Murdoch v. Murdoch, 1973

    Fighting For Language Rights
    Attorney General of Quebec v. Blaikie et al, 1979

    The Right to Die: Beginning a Legal Debate
    Rodriguez v. British Columbia, 1993

    Of course, the full text of any of the decisions can be researched using CanLII.

    This is only a handful, but the book contains 57 cases, with a good mix of quote and analysis. Not overwhelming to digest individual cases. All in all, a great reference book.

    Progress In Legal Challenge To UN Global Migration Compact

    (Liberal business sense, much like Liberal immigration policy)

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

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

    Please sign this: PETITION E-1906 CLICK HERE

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

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

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

    Section 18 of Federal Courts Act

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    For more information, see the sections below.

    (1) Statement of Claim

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

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

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

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

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

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

    (2) Motion Record Compiled

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

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

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

    (3) Notice of Constitutional Questions

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

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

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

    (4) Where Things Stand Now

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

    Currently waiting on responses from the Feds and the Provinces.

    The story will be updated as progress is made

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

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

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

    %d bloggers like this: