Category: Canada

Posted on

Universal Ostrich Farms, Part 7: CFIA Responds To Motion To Delay Culling

Ever heard the expression that there’s no cure for stupidity?

At this point, it would seem that the most intelligent beings at Universal Ostrich Farms in Edgewood, B.C. are the birds themselves. Unfortunately, this isn’t entirely sarcasm.

See Parts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 in the series for more information.

In this specific Motion, the farm owners are asking the Federal Court of Appeal to stay (defer) culling their animals until the overall Appeal can be ruled on. They say there’s strong grounds for appeal against the Canada Food Inspection Agency (CFIA). They state that aside from the financial costs, the proceedings become “moot”, since the animals would be dead anyway. Sounds reasonable, doesn’t it?

Part of their plea is based on the claim that they can manage and quarantine the animals effectively, and at their own cost. In essence, they take the matter seriously, and won’t endanger the public. Now, if they want the Justice (whoever decides) to be sympathetic, it stands to reason that they would act responsibly.

But the Affidavit of Cathy Furness changes things. And the arguments are harsh. See parts 1 and 2 of the full Record.

The CFIA has been putting their social media postings into evidence.

Espersen Apparently Sleeps In A Truck In Quarantined Area

121. In addition to the above, I have viewed social media posts shared by the owners of UOF indicating that Karen Espersen has been sleeping in a vehicle within the quarantined premises, which contravenes the quarantine requirements. Members of the public have also posted images on social media platforms which demonstrate that they are in very close proximity to ostriches and within the quarantined area. Attached as Exhibit “PP” is a May 14, 2025 Facebook post from Karen Esperson.

One could argue that there’s nothing inherently wrong with farmers spending time with their animals, even on this scale. That may be true in general. But when the owners are trying to convince the Federal Courts that they’re serious about respecting quarantine rules, this is moronic.

Photos Of Farm Visitors Went Into Evidence

[para 121 continued] … Attached as Exhibit “QQ” are three photographs posted to Facebook by a member of the public on May 25, 2025 showing supporters of UOF, including Karen Esperson’s daughter Katie Pasitney, standing in close proximity to the ostriches inside the quarantined area.

Thanks to Colin Bigbear’s Facebook page, the CFIA now has photographs that visitors (including children) routinely visit the farm. Again, all of this went into evidence for the Motion. It’s to show that quarantine isn’t being taken seriously.

Pasitney’s Interviews Were Downloaded By CFIA

149. Finally, although the risk of transmission of HPAI to humans is generally considered low, the information described above suggests that the farm owners are not taking the necessary precautions to prevent transmission of the virus to people. Katie Pasitney has also publicly stated that she and others have tested positive for H5N1 antibodies. I have reviewed an episode of the “Shadoe Davis Show” posted to Save Our Ostriches’ website on May 12, 2025, in which Katie Pasitney states at 00:25:16 that “we’ve all had our blood tested … and I came back positive for our strain of H5N1 … So we have antibodies”. Katie Pasitney goes on to state that “we have not fallen ill, we’re not sick, but we need to start dispelling the fear mongering because people get hospitalized all the time from just the regular flu, right?” This episode is available online https://saveourostriches.com/podcasts/25-05-12-katie-pasitney-shadoe-davis-show/. Also attached as Exhibit “VV” is an article from the Western Standard reporting that Katie Pasitney and her family tested positive for H5N1 after exposure to the UOF flock.

In Furness’ Affidavit, she states that Katie Pasitney has stated at least twice to testing positive for antibodies. Once was on the Shadoe Davis Show, and another was with Western Standard.

This is dumb for another reason. Instead of trying to challenge the validity of the tests, they just claim that they’re protected. It shuts down a potential defence.

Farm Music Festival Coming Up In July?

Farm Aid Canada? When this was first forwarded, it seemed to be a joke. This wasn’t included with the Furness Affidavit, likely because the site just went up. Still, it’s inevitable that the CFIA will bring it up with the Court at some point.

Additionally, if this Facebook post is to be believed, there’s going to be some camping in the area to help raise money for their legal costs.

While this may help raise money, it won’t help where it really matters: Court. Events such as these make everyone look clownish and unserious.

CFIA Tells Court They’ve Received Threats

100. No in person site visits have occurred since February 26, 2025 due to the risks to staff associated with entering an infected premises where robust disease control and biosecurity measures are not in place, and due to safety concerns associated with the presence of protesters. The basis for these safety concerns include numerous threats against CFIA employees made by members of the public on social media who oppose the presence of CFIA oversight at the premises and the destruction of the ostriches, including protesters currently residing on the premises. I have also reviewed emails, text messages and voice mails received by me and other CFIA employees containing threats and/or suggested threats of violence, including against CFIA employees in the Western region that have previously conducted site visits. Attached as Exhibit “KK” is a May 26, 2025 CBC News article regarding safety concerns raised by the union that represents CFIA workers, including because of online death threats.

Even worse, it makes everyone seem disingenuous. The inspectors state that they cannot return because of threats against staff. Meanwhile, members of the public come and go freely. Now, none of the threats are included, just a CBC article about it. Again, this is from Furness’ Affidavit.

Why Are They Still Asking For Donations?

Universal Ostrich Pharm – the real story – THIS IS ALL ABOUT MONEY – NO MATTER THE COST TO PEOPLE OR BIRDS.

500 Million JPY ($4.7 million CDN) to be paid to Tsukamoto in April 2024 by Struthio Bio… but now they need a GoFundMe to save the birds…

Where did all the investors go?
Surely, Dr. Lyle Oberg and his $3 billion investment company could pitch in to save his golden egg.

What happened to the 60 MILLION COVID MASKS (at $0.30 a mask)?

And what about the COVID nasal sprays?

What really happened to the Ostrich COVID vaccine before Immune Bio changed hands?

Where did they get antigens from?
We have seen so many places that they are saying the ‘DEAD’ COVID virus was obtained…

And Universal Ostrich Pharm had a contract to sell the eggs for $500 to Struthio – SO THAT WAS ALL THEY COULD BE WORTH TO THEM.

Yet Universal Ostrich Pharm’s expert, who had reviewed all the material, said each egg could be worth $48K to the farm… Not according to the EXCLUSIVE contract they had with Struthio Bio.

LINKED HERE:
https://canucklaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/UOF-APPEAL-Bilinski-Affidavit-To-Stay-Culling.pdf

Remember to donate and attend the Concert at the Bio Lab to save the lab animals.

Source: David Dickson

Some Final Thoughts

Questions posed in the previous section are worth asking. What has happened to the numerous business ventures that Universal Ostrich Farms was connected to? Why can’t those investors put up the money here?

The CFIA argues here that while Justice Battista did stay the cull order back in January, the circumstances are not the same. In particular, they were forced to respond to a Motion on less than a full day’s notice. However, they can now answer more fully.

Even if they succeed in getting another stay of the culling (which is possible) this is far from the end. Although Appeals typically don’t allow new evidence, the CFIA may try to add the social media posts anyway. It’s hard to underscore just how damaging this can be.

The responding arguments mention that the issue of “financial conflict of interest” of former counsel isn’t expanded upon in this Motion. There’s an allegation, but without details or evidence attached. It would be nice to know exactly what that was about.

There comes a point where it’s impossible to feel sympathy for someone. Keep in mind: while they have regular visitors, and shrug off supposed “infection”, these people are telling the Courts that they are serious about their animals and public safety.

And this happens all while they ask for donations.

Perhaps, once Dan returns from Bilderberg, Liberty Talk and Press For Truth can follow up.

COURT OF APPEAL (CHALLENGING JUSTICE ZINN’S ORDER)
(1) Ostrich APPEAL Notice Of Appeal (May, 2025)
(2) UOF APPEAL Notice Of Appearance (May, 2025)

COURT OF APPEAL (MOTION TO STAY CULL ORDER)
(1) UOF APPEAL Motion Record To Stay Culling (June, 2025)
(2) UOF APPEAL Notice Of Motion To Stay Culling (June, 2025)
(3) UOF APPEAL Bilinski Affidavit To Stay Culling (June, 2025)
(4) UOF APPEAL Bilinski Affidavit Exhibit E June, 2025)
(5) UOF APPEAL Espersen Affidavit To Stay Culling (June, 2025)
(6) UOF APPEAL Moving Party Submissions To Stay Culling (June, 2025)
(7) UOF APPEAL Responding Motion Record Volume 1
(8) UOF APPEAL Responding Motion Record Volume 2 (June, 2025)
(9) UOF APPEAL Responding Submissions To Stay Culling (June, 2025)

COURT OF APPEAL (JUSTICE BATTISTA STAYING CULL ORDER):
(1) UOF Order To Stay Culling (January, 2025)
(2) UOF Notice Of Appeal (February, 2025)
(3) UOF Notice Of Appearance (February, 2025)
(4) UOF Agreement Appeal Book Contents (March, 2025)
(5) UOF Joint Appeal Book (April, 2025)
(6) UOF Consent To Extend Time (May, 2025)
(7) UOF Notice Of Discontinuance (May, 2025)

FEDERAL COURT DOCUMENTS (CFIA):
(1) Ostrich Notice Of Application Certified (January, 2025)
(2) Ostrich Notice Of Application (January, 2025)
(3) Ostrich Notice Of Motion (January, 2025)
(4) Ostrich Bilinski Affidavit (January, 2025)
(5) Ostrich Espersen Affidavit (January, 2025)
(6) Ostrich Pelech Affidavit (January, 2025)
(7) Ostrich Jones Affidavit (January, 2025)
(8) Ostrich Responding Motion Record (January, 2025)
(9) Ostrich Responding Motion Record Expedited (February, 2025)
(10) Ostrich Motion Record Ex-Parte (February, 2025)
(11) Ostrich Exemption Notice Of Application (February, 2025)
(12) Ostrich Exemption Motion Record (February, 2025)
(13) Ostrich Ruling Of Justice Zinn (May, 2025)

MONEY:
(1) https://bcrising.ca/save-our-ostriches/
(2) https://www.gofundme.com/f/help-ostrich-farmers-fight-to-save-herd-from-avian-flu?attribution_id=sl%3A80e09934-7413-429b-acfb-2f7015cc19d3&lang=en_CA
(3) https://www.givesendgo.com/save-our-ostriches
(4) https://www.kinexus.ca/

Posted on

Universal Ostrich Farms, Part 6: A Look Into The Motion Staying Cull Order

We’re back to covering the ongoing saga of Universal Ostrich Farms, and the CFIA’s attempt to cull (kill) approximately 400 birds on a B.C. farm. The story keeps getting stranger. An Appeal is underway to challenge a Federal Court ruling, permitting it to go ahead.

See Parts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 in the series for more information.

The Appeal was initiated in late May to set aside Justice Zinn’s ruling, which upheld the Canada Food Inspection Agency’s (CFIA’s) cull order as “reasonable”. The last article mentioned the sort of concerns that will be raised at the hearing.

But before that, there’s another more immediate problem. Unless otherwise halted, the current cull order is set to go into effect. A Motion was recently filed in order to prevent that, at least for the time being.

The Motion includes Affidavits from Karen Espersen and David Bilinski, in addition to the Notice, and the written arguments.

Such a Motion would likely not involve a hearing. Instead, a single Judge would consider all the filings and issue a decision behind closed doors.

Beyond simply requesting that the culling be deferred, the Motion reveals a lot about the operation that wasn’t previously public (or at least well known).

Motion To Stay Culling Is Well Written

To be more balanced, the filings submitted here are of better quality than what is usually covered on this website. At the end of January, 2025, Justice Battista did temporarily stay the killing of the ostriches. It’s reasonable to assume that the Court of Appeal may as well. While not guaranteed, it’s quite possible.

UOF’s argument to postpone the culling amounts to the following:

  • This appeal is neither frivolous nor vexatious
  • UOF will suffer irreparable harm if its ostriches are slaughtered
  • UOF will suffer the greater harm if a stay is denied

The full Motion Record is available, and includes all the documents. The Notice of Appeal outlines a number of serious errors, such as Justice Zinn not fully understanding the arguments that were before him. It’s stated that he deferred far too much to the CFIA, instead of diving more into the evidence himself. Beyond that, there are allegations (albeit not fleshed out) of financial conflicts of interest with prior counsel.

The Motion further requests that additional testing be done on the birds to see if there are illnesses that may have spread. It’s offered that the Appellants would cover such expenses.

The Motion points out the obvious: if the stay isn’t granted, and the birds are culled anyway, then the entire Appeal becomes moot. There would be no birds left to save.

In fairness though, the CFIA did appeal the Order of Justice Battista at the end of January. It was dropped for being “moot” after Justice Zinn upheld the CFIA order as reasonable. It’s fair to assume that the CFIA will be opposing such a Motion this time around as well.

Bilinski Affidavit Sheds New Light On Business Operations

The Affidavit of David Bilinski is very interesting. It outlines in considerable detail where he and Karen anticipated taking the business to, and whom they would be partnering with. Exhibit “E” is the business plan that was submitted.

An important detail is that the agreement with Breathe Medical fell through when the company declared bankruptcy. The partnership with the Quebec-based Immune Biosolutions appears to have not fared well either. However, there were apparently other options available.

19. By December 2020, UOF’s operations became entirely dedicated to scientific research through antibody production.

20. In Early 2021, Breathe Medical Manufacturing declared bankruptcy and our exclusive supply agreement and corresponding revenue expectations were not realized.

21. In 2022, Karen and I incorporated Struthio Bio Science Inc. (“Struthio”) to, in partnership with UOF, engage in manufacturing and marketing of ostrich egg IgY antibodies and related products. As of the date of this Affidavit, Struthio is wholly owned by Karen and I with each of us holding a 50% share.

22. In April 2024, Karen and I negotiated and entered into agreements which would, inter alia, implement a new ownership structure for Struthio. Under this proposed restructuring, an majority interest in Struthio would be transferred to new principals and governed by a board of directors, including Dr. Tsukamoto – in exchange for investment and the licensing of certain patents necessary for commercialization of IgY antibodies and related products.

23. Exhibit “E” to this affidavit is a true copy of the Struthio BioScience Business Plan dated December 5, 2023 (“Struthio Business Plan”) and accompanying PowerPoint presentation. The Struthio Business Plan is a detailed roadmap for Struthio’s venture to develop and commercialize biomedical products derived from ostrich eggs, and it identifies UOF as a crucial partner supplying the necessary ostrich eggs. Among other things, the plan describes Struthio’s proposed proprietary research into antibodies from ostrich egg yolks, new corporate and governance structure and projects the financial returns from this research over the next several years (in the order of millions of dollars annually). Karen and I would retain 25% each interest in Struthio BioScience Inc.

24. I do not put this forward to assert that those revenue projections will in fact be realized or that the science will succeed. Rather, I rely on the Struthio Business Plan to show the existence of Struthio’s business model and the expectations that UOF and Struthio had at the time: namely, that UOF’s ostrich flock would be used to produce a continuous supply of eggs enabling Struthio’s venture to move forward. The very inclusion of UOF as a key supplier in this plan, and the magnitude of the projected benefits, demonstrate how integral our ostrich flock is to UOF’s commercial strategy with Struthio. The plan provides important context for UOF’s anticipated growth – context which will be completely upended if the flock is destroyed. Any statements or figures in the business plan are being referenced here only to illustrate what Struthio anticipated and the scale of the opportunity UOF stood to gain, not as proof that those outcomes are guaranteed.

25. Exhibit “F” to this affidavit is a true copy of the terms of Struthio and Ostrich Pharma KK (“OPKK”) Agreement (“OPKK Agreement”) which was executed On April 11, 2024.

26. The OPKK Agreement sets out the principal terms of a proposed investment and partnership whereby OPKK agreed in principle to partner with Struthio’s egg-based biotech venture. The OPKK Agreement references anticipated investment, exclusive patent licencing, technology transfer and a revised corporate structure for Struthio. This reflects that OPKK’s confidence in Struthio’s business which was inextricably predicated on UOF’s ostrich flock and egg production.

Do read Bilinski’s Affidavit, especially the business plan which was attached as Exhibit “E”.

BOARD OF DIRECTORS:

  • Chairman – Dr. Yasuhiro Tsukamoto- President of Kyoto University, Founder and Scientist of Ostrich IgY patents
  • CEO – Interm – Dave Bilinski – Presently recruiting for full time position – Production Expert for Ostrich, 31 Years experience
  • VP – IgY Egg Production – Karen Espersen -, IgY Egg Production Expert for Ostrich, Director Alberta Ostrich Association, 33 Years experience
  • VP Product Development – Dr. Stu Greenberg –, CEO Ostrich Pharma USA
  • Board Member – Dr. Lyle Oberg – Presently Chariman of Alberta Health Services
  • CF0 – Actively recruiting for position
  • CMO – Carol Epstein, M.D. .Dr. Epstein has been in the biopharmaceutical industry for over 25 years. She has served as Chief Medical Officer of IRX Therapeutics, Inc
  • Board Member – To be chosen by investor

ADVISORY BOARD:

  • Dr. Alessio Fasano- Director of Center for Celiac Research & Treatment at MassGeneral Hospital. Director of the Mucosal Immunology and Biology Research Center at MassGeneral Hospital for Children (50 scientists and staff). Founder of Zonulin
  • Dr. Meer Janjua – BioNektar Inc. Founder and Chief Medical Officer, International Distribution management through Doctors network
  • Dr. Willian Bithoney MD, FAAP – Dr. William Bithoney is an experienced healthcare professional with more than 35 years of experience in the healthcare sector having served as a physician executive in diverse academic and hospital systems
  • Dr. Elma Hawkins, Ph.D. – Dr. Hawkins’s 30-year career encompasses pioneering efforts in biotechnology and drug development, and executive roles in corporate development, strategy, fundraising, and general management
  • Hassan Hassan = Business Development – CEO of Aim-X Canada. Dedicated International Entrepreneur in Natural Resource Exploration & Sustainable Development
  • Ken Davidson , CPA, CA, CFP, ICD.D -Ken Davidson is an accomplished corporate director, consultant, entrepreneur, Chartered Professional Accountant (CPA) and certified Corporate Director (ICD.D) with over 30 years of experience in a diverse range of industries across Canada, the US and the Caribbean

Currently, Espersen and Bilinski co-own Struthio BioSciences, holding 50% each. The proposed new structure would see that reduced to 25% each, and a more corporate format. Bilinski would become the CEO, at least on an interim basis. Espersen would be a Vice President. This is a far cry from the “family farm” that had been portrayed by media outlets.

Wasn’t this supposed to be about protecting the food supply?

Considering the disdain that the Freedom Movement has for “public health” in general, it seems odd to be supporting the expansion of an enterprise that would see the Chairman of Alberta Health Services become one of the Directors.

In other words, donors are contributing to these legal proceedings in order to protect the expansion of a company engaged in scientific research. These ostriches are test subjects, plain and simple.

At this point, one should ask what benefit donors are getting from contributing to this case. Consider that Bilinski and Espersen were willing to give outsiders a 50% stake in the new company. What would be fair to people contributing to these legal proceedings? Should larger donations merit equity, or dividends?

Silence From “Alternative Media” Outlets

Espersen and Bilinski have every right to earn a living. However, when donations are solicited, there’s an expectation that there will be transparency. While this Motion does shed a lot of light on their business model, it seems unlikely that contributors were fully aware of it.

It’s a fair question to ask if Universal Ostrich Farms will even exist a few years from now, regardless of what the CFIA does. Espersen doesn’t own the land, and the Quigleys are trying to kick them out. Yes, it’s still being disputed in Court in B.C., but still worth asking.

Would people be protesting around the farm’s perimeter if they knew these details? Would they (or their children) feel safe around animals injected with experimental antigens? People need to know what else — if anything — these birds were exposed to.

Druthers, among others, did cover the story, and report on these birds being the solution for “natural immunity”. Covid doesn’t exist, but that’s beside the point here. While Kyoto University was mentioned, there was nothing about where the parties planned to take their relationship.

The proposed trajectory is open-ended pharmaceutical testing, where ostriches will be little more than guinea pigs. Again, this is the kind of thing many in the Freedom Movement are against.

A follow-up from Connie would also be nice.

COURT OF APPEAL (CHALLENGING JUSTICE ZINN’S ORDER)
(1) Ostrich APPEAL Notice Of Appeal (May, 2025)
(2) UOF APPEAL Notice Of Appearance (May, 2025)

COURT OF APPEAL (MOTION TO STAY CULL ORDER)
(1) UOF APPEAL Motion Record To Stay Culling (June, 2025)
(2) UOF APPEAL Notice Of Motion To Stay Culling (June, 2025)
(3) UOF APPEAL Bilinski Affidavit To Stay Culling (June, 2025)
(4) UOF APPEAL Bilinski Affidavit Exhibit E June, 2025)
(5) UOF APPEAL Espersen Affidavit To Stay Culling (June, 2025)
(6) UOF APPEAL Moving Party Submissions To Stay Culling (June, 2025)

COURT OF APPEAL (JUSTICE BATTISTA STAYING CULL ORDER):
(1) UOF Order To Stay Culling (January, 2025)
(2) UOF Notice Of Appeal (February, 2025)
(3) UOF Notice Of Appearance (February, 2025)
(4) UOF Agreement Appeal Book Contents (March, 2025)
(5) UOF Joint Appeal Book (April, 2025)
(6) UOF Consent To Extend Time (May, 2025)
(7) UOF Notice Of Discontinuance (May, 2025)

FEDERAL COURT DOCUMENTS (CFIA):
(1) Ostrich Notice Of Application Certified (January, 2025)
(2) Ostrich Notice Of Application (January, 2025)
(3) Ostrich Notice Of Motion (January, 2025)
(4) Ostrich Bilinski Affidavit (January, 2025)
(5) Ostrich Espersen Affidavit (January, 2025)
(6) Ostrich Pelech Affidavit (January, 2025)
(7) Ostrich Jones Affidavit (January, 2025)
(8) Ostrich Responding Motion Record (January, 2025)
(9) Ostrich Responding Motion Record Expedited (February, 2025)
(10) Ostrich Motion Record Ex-Parte (February, 2025)
(11) Ostrich Exemption Notice Of Application (February, 2025)
(12) Ostrich Exemption Motion Record (February, 2025)
(13) Ostrich Ruling Of Justice Zinn (May, 2025)

MONEY:
(1) https://bcrising.ca/save-our-ostriches/
(2) https://www.gofundme.com/f/help-ostrich-farmers-fight-to-save-herd-from-avian-flu?attribution_id=sl%3A80e09934-7413-429b-acfb-2f7015cc19d3&lang=en_CA
(3) https://www.givesendgo.com/save-our-ostriches
(4) https://www.kinexus.ca/

Posted on

The Gleason Directive: Is It Time To Start Filing Malpractice Lawsuits?

This is a follow-up to the military vaccine passport case of some 330 soldiers. See parts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 for background on the litigation.

In the last article, Catherine Christensen was scolded by Justice Locke at the Federal Court of Appeal. She pulled the “improper and high handed” stunt of filing a Notice of Discontinuance on behalf of about 50 clients, without their knowledge or consent. Supposedly, this was over unpaid fees. This was instead of the accepted method of filing a Motion to withdraw. One Appellant, Mark Lolacher, filed a Motion on his own behalf for reinstatement, and was successful.

Rather than simply take the loss, Christensen attempted to file a Notice of Appeal to the same Court. There was also a half hearted attempt to file a Motion to withdraw.

Since the Notice of Appeal was never actually filed, it’s impossible for the average citizen to pull it, or the Motion materials. Nonetheless, we can still deduce a lot from the notes, and the ruling.

Instead of simply complaining, let’s explore a practical solution at the end.

True, the overall Appeal is still ongoing. That being said, it’s beyond obvious at this point the case will never get to Trial. Heck, the first Notice of Appeal doesn’t even challenge Justice Manson’s decision to refuse an extension of time.

Christensen Has Been A Trainwreck Since Day One

(1) Associate Justice Coughlan: Struck the case originally because the pleadings fell far, FAR below what was necessary to make out a case. Even worse, the Federal Court had no jurisdiction because s.29 of the National Defence Act mandated a grievance scheme for everyone to follow.

(2) Justice Manson: Refused an extension of time for a Rule 51 Appeal. The 10 day time limit to file was missed, with no explanation of why. The Motion to extend time also failed to explain, or even hint at, what such an Appeal would look like anyway. The rulings states that, “The interests of justice do not justify the Court allowing poorly prosecuted litigation to proceed forward when there is no likelihood of success.”

(3) Justice Rennie: Had to unnecessarily respond to a Motion to determine the contents of the Appeal Book. Christensen tried to improperly include content that the previous Judge (Manson) had not see. This is generally not allowed, and the parties should have been able to agree on their own.

(4) Justice Locke: Chewed out Christensen for unilaterally filing a Notice of Discontinuance with respect to dozens of her (ex?)-clients, rather than following protocol. Normally, counsel is supposed to file a Motion to Withdraw. Worse, she even opposed a subsequent Motion from Mark Lolacher to be reinstated.

(5) Justice Gleason: Refused attempts to both, (a) file a Notice of Appeal within the same Court, and (b) file a Motion to Withdraw that doesn’t name appropriate parties. The materials weren’t served to everyone anyway, which is another violation of procedure.

Christensen knew in advance that this lawsuit would be (or was at least very likely to be) thrown out due to lack of jurisdiction. The Neri ruling of December, 2021 explained the requirement to follow the grievance scheme, and to not simply sue.

Christensen also knew in advance that failure to abide by the Statute of Limitations would likely see the Rule 51 Appeal being time barred. September, 2024, another of her cases, Tondreau, was tossed for commencing an Application well after the deadline.

Justice Gleason Rules NONE Of The Material Can Be Filed

The amended appeal book may be filed and will replace the appeal book originally filed. The appellants’ memorandum of fact and law and proofs of service, submitted May 30, 2025 may also be filed.

The Registry has also sought direction pursuant to Rule 72 of the Federal Courts Rules, S.O.R./98-106 (the Rules) regarding a Notice of Appeal submitted on behalf of the appellants and Ms. Christensen, counsel of record for the appellants, which names the appellant, Mark Andrew Lolacher, as a respondent. This document has not been filed. The Notice of Appeal purports to appeal to this Court the Order of the Court issued by Justice Locke on May 7, 2025. In the Notice of Appeal, the appellants also seek an order removing Ms. Christensen as counsel of record for 51 of the appellants. The Notice of Appeal was signed by another solicitor, Bath-Shéba van den Berg of the firm Ergonomy Law.

The Notice of Appeal may not be filed. It is wholly irregular because this Court has no jurisdiction to sit in appeal from one of its orders. An appeal lies from an order of this Court, with leave, only to the Supreme Court of Canada. The Notice of Appeal is also irregular in that it substitutes someone else as solicitor of record, names one of the appellants, Mark Andrew Lolacher, as a respondent and counsel of record as an appellant without any order from the Court changing the style of cause or replacing counsel of record.

As was noted in the Reasons for this Court’s Order of May 7, 2025, the proper procedure when counsel wishes to get off the record is for the solicitor to bring a motion under Rule 125 of the Rules. Counsel other than the counsel of record may act on behalf of the counsel of record in such a motion. Indeed, Rule 82 of the Rules provides that a solicitor shall not depose an affidavit and present arguments to the Court in respect of their affidavit, except with leave. Thus, if Ms. Christensen wishes to bring a motion under Rule 125 and files an affidavit in support of the motion, she should either be represented by another solicitor, such as Bath-Shéba van den Berg, or seek leave of the Court under Rule 82 to file the affidavit and present the motion. Her motion record in support of any such motion must be served on all parties for whom she formerly acted, as provided in Rule 125(2). In addition, in accordance with Rule 369.2(1), such motion should be brought in writing or request an oral hearing in accordance with Rule 369.2(2).

As also noted in the Reasons for this Court’s Order of May 7, 2025, Mr. Lolacher, on his own volition, may take steps to no longer be represented in this appeal by Ms. Christensen. He may either file a notice under Rule 124 to appoint a new solicitor (using Form 124A) if he hires new counsel or a notice to act in person (using Form 124C). These steps may also be taken by any of the appellants.

The Registry has also sought direction regarding several documents submitted subsequent to the Notice of Appeal, none of which have been filed.

The first of these is a motion record submitted on behalf of Ms. Christensen by Bath-Shéba van den Berg to remove Ms. Christensen as counsel of record on behalf of 51 of the appellants, to set aside and stay this Court’s Order of May 7, 2025, and to “sever” the appellant, Mark Andrew Lolacher, from the other appellants. It is unclear who the respondents and appellants are on this motion as the style of cause in the Notice of Motion lists only one appellant and respondent and then uses “et al.”. It appears from the affidavit of service that this motion record was served only on counsel from the Department of Justice (who appeared on behalf of the governmental respondents) and Mr. Lolacher, but not on the other 50 appellants for whom Ms. Christensen no longer acts. This motion record may not be filed as it is wholly irregular. To the extent it seeks to appeal this Court’s Order of May 7, 2025, as noted, this Court has no jurisdiction to hear an appeal from one of its orders. To the extent it seeks an order removing Ms. Christensen as counsel of record for Mr. Lolacher and 51 other respondents, the motion record has not been properly served. The stay application appears to be ancillary to the other relief sought.

The remaining documents in respect of which the Registry seeks direction were submitted in response to the foregoing motion or in reply to the responding motion records. None of them may be filed as there is nothing to respond or reply to given that the motion record discussed in the preceding paragraph cannot be filed.

So long as this appeal is outstanding, unless and until a motion is properly brought under Rule 125 and the Court removes Ms. Christensen as counsel of record for some of the appellants or until, one, some or all of them file notice(s) under Rule 124, Ms. Christensen continues to be the solicitor of record for all the above listed appellants unless she or they die, she is appointed to public office, incompatible with the solicitor’s profession, or is suspended or disbarred as a solicitor. To the extent that Mr. Lolacher wishes to make a complaint about Ms. Christensen, his remedy lies with the Law Society of Alberta and not with this Court. Indeed, all the foregoing should have been abundantly clear from the Reasons for this Court’s Order of May 7, 2025.

***Note: one exception is that the Court did permit an amended Appeal Book, for the overall proceeding, to be filed. Everything else was disallowed.

According to Justice Gleason, the Notice of Appeal cannot be filed because it lacks jurisdiction. The Federal Court of Appeal cannot hear an Appeal from one of its own decisions. The only path forward is the Supreme Court of Canada, and Leave (permission) is needed for that. It’s stunning that neither Christensen, nor her “counsel” know this.

The Notice of Appeal also names new counsel, and has new parties, and the Court has signed off on NONE of this.

Christensen has apparently tried to file a Motion to withdraw as counsel for some 50 or so clients. However, she needed to include everyone as named parties, and had to serve everyone. Again, shocking that these basics are not followed.

Justice Gleason was also critical of Mark Lolacher for continuing to complain about Christensen’s conduct. She says that the proper venue about misconduct is the Law Society of Alberta. While true, the LSA isn’t going to handle a complaint when the underlying litigation is still open.

A Practical Solution: Look Into Malpractice Lawsuits

While it may seem daunting, suing former counsel for professional malpractice is an option. It’s not necessary to establish any malice or dishonesty, which makes it easier. This site covered recent examples, here and here, including a Class Action. Here are a few ideas.

TORT OF NEGLIGENCE:

  • Establish duty of care exists between the parties
  • Establish that the duty of care has been breached
  • Establish that the breach of the duty of care resulted in damages

TORT OF BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY:

  • Establish a fiduciary duty (obligation) exists between the parties
  • Establish that the fiduciary duty has been breached
  • Establish that the breach of fiduciary duty resulted in damages

TORT OF BREACH OF CONTRACT:

  • Establish the existence of a valid contract
  • Establish that the contract has been breached
  • Establish that the breach of contract resulted in damages

As is pretty obvious, although these torts are framed differently, the requirements are much the same. The first element can be established by filing the retainer agreements, or other contracts. The second element can be proven with the assistance of the various rulings, showing unprofessional conduct. Lastly, Plaintiffs would have to give some evidence of damages, whether financial, or otherwise.

Neri and Tondreau happened prior to the mistakes here, meaning that Christensen should have been well aware of what was going on. Whether this is intentional, or just incompetence and negligence, Plaintiffs have been let down every step of the way.

Lawyers are required to have insurance to practice. However, that doesn’t mean that the money is there to pay out victims. Commonly, money is used to hire lawyers to fight against justice. Still, it can be overcome, if there is a strong enough case.

If there is a path to justice, it’s through Christensen’s insurance money.

FEDERAL COURT/CLAIM STRUCK:
(1) Qualizza Statement Of Claim (June 2023)
(2) Qualizza Amended Statement Of Claim (July 2023)
(3) Qualizza Statement Of Defence (September 2023
(4) Qualizza Reply To Statement Of Defence (September 2023)
(5) Qualizza Defendants Motion To Dismiss Claim (July 2024)
(6) Qualizza Plaintiff Motion To Strike Written Submissions (August 2024)
(7) Qualizza Order Striking Statement Of Claim Without Leave (November 2024)

FEDERAL COURT/RULE 8 MOTION TO EXTEND TIME/RULE 51 APPEAL:
(1) Qualizza Plaintiffs Motion To Extend Time To Appeal (December 2024)
(2) Qualizza Defendants Respond To Motion To Extend Time To Appeal (December 2024)
(3) Qualizza Order Denying Extension Of Time (January 2025)
(4) Qualizza Federal Court Notes

FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL/CONTENTS OF APPEAL BOOK:
(1) Qualizza Notice Of Appeal (January 2025)
(2) Qualizza Motion Record Contents Of Appeal Book (February 2025)
(3) Qualizza Responding Motion Record Contents Of Appeal Book (March 2025)
(4) Qualizza Order Contents Of Appeal Book (April 2025)

FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL/MARK LOLACHER REINSTATEMENT:
(1) Qualizza Notice Of Discontinuance (January 2025)
(2) Qualizza Lolacher Motion Record (March 2025)
(3) Qualizza Lolacher A.G. Responding Motion Record (March 2025)
(4) Qualizza Lolacher Christensen Responding Motion Record (March 2025)
(5) Qualizza Lolacher Order For Reinstatement (May 2025)
(6) Qualizza Lolacher Reasons For Reinstatement (May 2025)

FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL/VENDETTA AGAINST LOLACHER:
(1) Qualizza Lolacher Letter To Court (May 2025)
(2) Qualizza Federal Court Notes FCA
(3) Qualizza Order Justice Gleason Refusing Filing Of Materials (June, 2025)

SUPREME COURT OF CANADA, APPLICATION FOR LEAVE:
(1) Qualizza SCC Notice Of Application For Leave To Appeal
(2) Qualizza SCC Application For Leave To Appeal
(3) Qualizza SCC Certificate File Access
(4) Qualizza SCC Response From AG Opposing Application
(5) Qualizza SCC Responding Certificate

Posted on

Universal Ostrich Farms, Part 5: Notice Of Appeal Alleges Incompetent & Conflicted Counsel

The proceedings with Universal Ostrich Farms didn’t end when Justice Zinn ruled that the Canada Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) had acted reasonably. It’s being challenged again. It’s heading back to the Federal Court of Appeal, in order to overturn that decision.

See Parts 1, 2, 3 and 4 in the series for more information.

A Notice of Appeal has been filed with the Federal Court of Appeal, attempting to overturn the decision of Justice Zinn. It challenges a number of issues both with the ruling, and the previous representation. This isn’t to reargue the case, but to demonstrate that the findings were flawed. An initial response has been filed, although more documents are still coming in.

  • The Federal Court erred in determining the scope of the CFIA mandate
  • The Federal Court applied the test wrong in reviewing administrative decisions
  • The Federal Court erred in assessing the available evidence
  • The Federal Court misunderstood several key arguments
  • Previous counsel was ineffective at doing their job
  • Previous counsel had (presumably undisclosed) conflict of interest

Also noteworthy: there’s a Motion filed to again stay the cull order, pending resolution of the larger proceeding. At the time of writing this, the Appellants have sent in their Motion Record, but the CFIA has not yet responded.

Appeal Claims Previous Counsel Had Conflict Of Interest

13. In addition and/or in the further alternative, the Appellant submits that the order of Zinn J. be set aside given the ineffective assistance of Appellant’s counsel at the application for judicial review. The Appellant’s prior counsel’s acts and omissions at that hearing fell well outside the range of reasonable professional assistance, amounted to incompetence, and resulted in a miscarriage of justice. Notably, the Appellant’s prior counsel had a financial stake in the destruction of the Appellant’s ostriches, resulting in a blatant conflict of interest that adversely affected counsel’s representation of the Appellant’s interests.

The Notice of Appeal alleges ineffective assistance of counsel at the previous proceeding. Worse, it claims that there were a financial conflict of interests that would work against good representation. Now, it’s not spelled out what this conflict(s) was, but hopefully it will be in later documents.

Appeal Of Justice Battista’s Stay Discontinued

January 31st, 2025, Justice Battista of the Federal Court stayed the CFIA cull order, at least until the broader challenge could be heard. The Government appealed it, although it was eventually dropped. Presumably, Justice Zinn’s ruling made it moot.

The rest of the documents are linked below.

Timeline Of Major Events In Proceedings

For clarity, this hasn’t gone ahead in a linear manner. There have been multiple, overlapping proceedings along the way. Hopefully, this helps somewhat.

January 30th, 2025: Universal Ostrich Farms filed Application to challenge the CFIA “cull order” of their ostriches.

January 30th, 2025: UOF brings Motion to temporarily block culling.

January 31st, 2025: CFIA files a Responding Motion Record to the Stay sought.

January 31st, 2025: Justice Battista issues a temporary stay of the CFIA cull order.

February 7th, 2025: UOF brings a second Application, this time challenging the refusal of the CFIA to issue an exemption for their birds.

February 10th, 2025: CFIA begins Appeal against the staying of the cull order.

February 11th, 2025: UOF files Motion Record in support of request for exemption.

February 20th, 2025: UOF files that it intends to respond at the Appeal.

March 12th, 2025: Parties send their agreement as to the contents of the Appeal Book.

April 11th, 2025: Appeal Book is filed, in challenge to Justice Battista’s ruling.

May 13th, 2025: Justice Zinn denies both Applications. Those were (a) to challenge cull order, and (b) to challenge the exemption refusal.

May 23rd, 2025: A Notice of Discontinuance is filed in the Appeal against Justice Battista’s stay. Since Justice Zinn ruled on the overall case, it would be considered moot.

May 26th, 2025: Notice of Appeal is filed against Justice Zinn’s decision.

May 28th, 2025: CFIA files a Notice of Appearance.

June 2nd, 2025: UOF files its Motion Record to stay the culling.

Note: All of the dates listed can be confirmed by searching the respective cases on the Federal Court website. It keeps a detailed listing of all significant events.

Anyhow, readers will be updated with whatever twists and turns emerge. But it’s clear that these people won’t go down without a fight.

Regardless of what ultimately happens in Court, Universal Ostrich Farms is still operating what amounts to a bio-lab on their land. Or rather, the Quigleys’ land. Judging by the response that earlier articles have received, and the work of David Dickson, it seems many people didn’t know this.

COURT OF APPEAL (CHALLENGING JUSTICE ZINN’S ORDER)
(1) Ostrich APPEAL Notice Of Appeal (May, 2025)

COURT OF APPEAL (JUSTICE BATTISTA STAYING CULL ORDER):
(1) UOF Order To Stay Culling (January, 2025)
(2) UOF Notice Of Appeal (February, 2025)
(3) UOF Notice Of Appearance (February, 2025)
(4) UOF Agreement Appeal Book Contents (March, 2025)
(5) UOF Joint Appeal Book (April, 2025)
(6) UOF Consent To Extend Time (May, 2025)
(7) UOF Notice Of Discontinuance (May, 2025)

FEDERAL COURT DOCUMENTS (CFIA):
(1) Ostrich Notice Of Application Certified (January, 2025)
(2) Ostrich Notice Of Application (January, 2025)
(3) Ostrich Notice Of Motion (January, 2025)
(4) Ostrich Bilinski Affidavit (January, 2025)
(5) Ostrich Espersen Affidavit (January, 2025)
(6) Ostrich Pelech Affidavit (January, 2025)
(7) Ostrich Jones Affidavit (January, 2025)
(8) Ostrich Responding Motion Record (January, 2025)
(9) Ostrich Responding Motion Record Expedited (February, 2025)
(10) Ostrich Motion Record Ex-Parte (February, 2025)
(11) Ostrich Exemption Notice Of Application (February, 2025)
(12) Ostrich Exemption Motion Record (February, 2025)
(13) Ostrich Ruling Of Justice Zinn (May, 2025)

MONEY:
(1) https://bcrising.ca/save-our-ostriches/
(2) https://www.gofundme.com/f/help-ostrich-farmers-fight-to-save-herd-from-avian-flu?attribution_id=sl%3A80e09934-7413-429b-acfb-2f7015cc19d3&lang=en_CA
(3) https://www.givesendgo.com/save-our-ostriches
(4) https://www.kinexus.ca/

Posted on

Universal Ostrich Farms, Part 4: Foreclosures Worth Looking Into

The memes write themselves: the Espersens are the “undocumented owners”.

The short explanation is that they previously owned the land, but lost it when RBC foreclosed for non-payment. They’ve been trying to get at least a portion of it back, but things have gotten complicated. More on that later.

Universal Ostrich Farms has been busy fundraising as of late, under the guise of fighting a Canada Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) cull order. Among other options, the organization has GoFundMe and GiveSendGo pages up, soliciting donations. Money can also be sent via etransfer or cheque.

See Parts 1, 2 and 3 in the series for more information.

A reasonable question is this: how will donor money be spent? Keep in mind, once payment is made, it’s virtually impossible to ensure any sort of accountability for how it’s used. And there certainly are concerns here.

Looking through the British Columbia Court Services Online (BC CSO) system, there’s a lot that donors aren’t being told. For starters, the number of mortgage defaults is troubling. The topic definitely requires follow-up, but here are some notable civil cases.

Farm Foreclosure To RBC => Sold To Quigleys

November 2012, RBC filed a Petition against Karen Espersen over a default in their mortgage, located in Section 12 Township 69 of Kootenay District. They were unable to pay their bills, so the bank came for their property.

RBC refers to the property as Kootenay District. The other parties, in subsequent litigation, list it as Langille Road in Edgewood, B.C.

On October 29th, 2014, the Nelson Court certified an order which saw Catherine and Thomas (Owen) Quigley become the new owners. They paid $320,000 for it, and it was to be effective on November 8th, 2014.

Oddly, an “interested party” was seeking documents in 2023. And no, it wasn’t me.

Espersens Sue Quigleys To Regain Ownership

After the foreclosure, that wasn’t the end of it.

The Espersens made an agreement with the Quigleys. It was to see the land subdivided, and eventually, they would regain at least a piece of what they had lost. However, things didn’t work out as planned.

June 2021, the Espersens filed a Notice of Civil Claim against the Quigleys. They claim that they’ve fulfilled their obligations, and ask that a portion of the land be transferred to them. They listed in detail the expenses they had contributed overall. It’s also stated that they were paying rent on the property. From 2015 to 2018, it was $1,300 per month. Since then, the amounts were $1,200 per month.

In their Response, at paragraph 12, it’s stated that the proposed subdivision of the property was denied. Afterwards, the Espersens allegedly demanded the entire property back. In their Amended Response, their clarify that this problem with splitting the property is largely (although not entirely) why things soured.

In 2024, because so much time had lapsed, the Quigleys had to seek permission to file a Counterclaim against the Esperens. It was granted. In it, they demanded that the Court they are the sole owners. One of the problems is that the Espersens allowed the Bilinskis to move into a second house on the property, which presumably wasn’t part of the agreement.

One of the other allegations in the Counterclaim is that the ostrich farm has obstructed the ability of the Quigleys to do their own hay farming. In their Response, the Espersens invoke the Statute of Limitations, implying that it was too late anyway.

Now, the Trial was supposed to begin in April 2025. Unsurprisingly, it has been postponed until April 2026. It seems that a lot was going on with the CFIA.

Do the people donating to this farm know that they’re not the owners? Are they aware that there’s a very real possibility that they could be kicked out anyway? One has to wonder if all of this money will be used to fight the CFIA, or if some will end up going to Trial costs.

Espersen/Bilinski Have Joint Foreclosure In 2024

October 2022, Espersen and Bilinski were hit with another Petition, this time in Section 13 Township 69 of Kootenay District. The Court approved the sale in the Summer of 2024.

David Bilinski Has History Of Foreclosures

According to Court Services Online (CSO), David Michael Bilinski has been involved in dozens of lawsuits, including several other foreclosures. This doesn’t come across as being particularly responsible.

  • February 1999 in Vancouver (H990228)
  • March 2010 in Kelowna (86857)
  • May 2010 in Kamloops (44287)
  • May 2012 in Kelowna (95163)
  • January 2013 in Vernon (50615)
  • September 2013 in Vernon (51343)
  • December 2015 in Nelson (19101)
  • February 2016 in Kelowna (110087)
  • October 2022 in Nelson (22450)

Worth noting: Nelson, Kamloops, Kelowna and Vernon are all within driving distance of each other. It’s roughly the same area in B.C.

Unless this is a bizarre coincidence, and it’s some other David Bilinski, there are questions about how productively donation money will be used. And where it will be going.

Writs Against Rocky Mountain Ostrich Enterprises Ltd.

According to paragraph 6 of Karen Espersen’s Affidavit in the CFIA cases:

“In 1995 my husband and I began managing quarantines for Rocky Mountain Ostrich. Subsequent to that we operated a farm with 200 breeding ostriches. We focused on the benefits of ostrich farming, and studied the psychology and physiology of the ostrich.”

It seems the company wasn’t all that well managed, because there were 2 certificates filed in Federal Court years ago, seeking seizure of assets to pay debts.

ITA-8475-96: Writ of Fieri Facias issued to Sheriff of Alberta
ITA-12258-02: Writ of Seizure and Sale issued to Sheriff of British Columbia

For reference, a Writ of Fieri Facias is the same as an order to seize and sell a debtor’s property in order to satisfy a Court judgement for debt or damages. A request has been made to obtain the actual documents.

Note: All of the dates listed can be confirmed by searching the respective cases on the Federal Court website. It keeps a detailed listing of all significant events.

Similarly: British Columbia also has an extensive online system, although most of it is paywalled. Still, determined sleuths can find information for minimal costs.

Now, with all the attention centered around protecting ostriches, it seems that few have bothered to look into the people asking for money. All of this is public record, and easy enough to find. But for some reason, leading figures in the “alternative media” haven’t. Why aren’t: (a) Viva Frei; (b) Juno/True North; (c) Press For Truth; (d) Rebel; (e) Liberty Talk, and others, asking such questions?

If you want hard truth, contact your local Twitter troll.

Or, perhaps David Dickson.

ESPERSEN/RBC FORECLOSURE:
(1) Espersen RBC Petition (November 2012)
(2) Espersen RBC Requisition (February 2013)
(3) Espersen RBC Notice Of Hearing (February 2013)
(4) Espersen RBC Requisition By Interested Party (August 2023)

QUIGLEY/ESPERSEN COURT DOCUMENTS:
(1) Espersen Notice Of Civil Claim (November 2021)
(2) Espersen Response To Civil Claim (November 2021)
(3) Espersen Amended Response To Civil Claim (April 2023)
(4) Espersen Notice Of Application To Extend Time Counterclaim (February 2024)
(5) Espersen Order For Extension To File (March 2024)
(6) Espersen Counterclaim (March 2024)
(7) Espersen Response To Counterclaim (March 2024)
(8) Espersen Notice Of Trial (May 2024)
(9) Espersen Requisition To Adjourn (April 2025)
(10) Espersen Notice Of Trial (April 2025)
(11) Espersen Consent To New Trial Date (May 2025)

BILINSKI/ESPERSEN/0752063 B.C. LTD FORECLOSURE:
(1) Espersen 0752063 Petition October 2022
(2) Espersen 0752063 Consent Order For Foreclosure (June 2023)
(3) Espersen 0752063 Notice Of Application (November 2023)
(4) Espersen 0752063 Order (November 2023)
(5) Espersen 0752063 Notice Of Application (July 2024)
(6) Espersen 0752063 Application Response (August 2024)
(7) Espersen 0752063 Requisition August 2024
(8) Espersen 0752063 Requisition GENERAL August 2024

FEDERAL COURT WRITS: $61,134 in 1996 and $24,310 in 2002
(1) Rocky Mountain Ostrich AB Certificate (1996)
(2) Rocky Mountain Ostrich AB Request (1996)
(3) Rocky Mountain Ostrich AB Writ of Fieri Facias (1996)
(4) Rocky Mountain Ostrich BC Certificate (2002)
(5) Rocky Mountain Ostrich BC Requisition (2002)
(6) Rocky Mountain Ostrich BC Writ Of Seizure And Sale (2002)

FEDERAL COURT DOCUMENTS (CFIA):
(1) Ostrich Notice Of Application Certified (January, 2025)
(2) Ostrich Notice Of Application (January, 2025)
(3) Ostrich Notice Of Motion (January, 2025)
(4) Ostrich Bilinski Affidavit (January, 2025)
(5) Ostrich Espersen Affidavit (January, 2025)
(6) Ostrich Pelech Affidavit (January, 2025)
(7) Ostrich Jones Affidavit (January, 2025)
(8) Ostrich Responding Motion Record (January, 2025)
(9) Ostrich Responding Motion Record Expedited (February, 2025)
(10) Ostrich Motion Record Ex-Parte (February, 2025)
(11) Ostrich Exemption Notice Of Application (February, 2025)
(12) Ostrich Exemption Motion Record (February, 2025)
(13) Ostrich Ruling Of Justice Zinn (May, 2025)

MONEY:
(1) https://bcrising.ca/save-our-ostriches/
(2) https://www.gofundme.com/f/help-ostrich-farmers-fight-to-save-herd-from-avian-flu?attribution_id=sl%3A80e09934-7413-429b-acfb-2f7015cc19d3&lang=en_CA
(3) https://www.givesendgo.com/save-our-ostriches
(4) https://www.kinexus.ca/

Posted on

Quebec “National Integration Act” Just Dressed Up Multiculturalism

The Quebec public has been sold a fake bill of goods. Again.

The Provinces’s “National” Assembly has passed Bill 84, titled, “An Act Respecting National Integration”. While this is being promoted as some major accomplishment, the reality is something different.

To begin with, this isn’t any sort of attempt at limiting or restricting immigration. Besides the French language, the text makes it hard to tell how this “national integration” piece is any different than full-blown multiculturalism.

Beyond that, there’s a noticeable shift from culture, which it’s being sold as, to values.

“AS the National Assembly recognizes the right of the First Nations and the Inuit in Québec, descendants of the first inhabitants of this land, to preserve and develop their original language and culture;” (Page 5)

“AS the law applies in a manner that is respectful of the institutions of the English-speaking community of Québec;” (Page 5)

“AS immigrants from all over the world contribute to the Québec nation;” (Page 5)

“AS Québec culture is where all Quebecers can be brought together and where they can express diversity while embracing a common cultural horizon;” (Page 5)

Of course, there won’t be any real protection for Anglos, despite the lip service. It also won’t apply to First Nations and Inuit. How long until the lawsuits are filed to carve out more exemptions?

7. All Quebecers are expected to
(1) adhere to democratic values and Québec values expressed, in particular, by the Charter of human rights and freedoms (chapter C-12), recognize that French, Québec’s official and common language, lies at the heart of Québec culture and respect the fact that the State of Québec is a lay State;
(2) collaborate in the welcoming of immigrants and foster their integration into the Québec nation, in particular by encouraging their full participation, in French, in Québec society; and
(3) foster closer ties between persons identifying with the French-speaking majority and persons identifying with cultural minorities, in order to contribute to the vitality and preservation of Québec culture and the French language.

There are references to a “Quebec culture” in the Bill, but it’s completely undefined as to what would be included. Other than learning the French language, and some bits about “values of democracy and equality”, nothing is explained.

Quebec also has its own Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms. The Act would also change a single word in Section 43. “Ethnic” would be replaced by “cultural”.

43. Persons belonging to ethnic minorities have a right to maintain and develop their own cultural interests with the other members of their group.

Regardless of the wording, the Quebec Charter allows minorities (whether it’s framed as ethnic or cultural) to “develop and maintain” their own cultural interests. In practice, it means either enclaves, or parallel societies. While perhaps not as flamboyant as official multiculturalism, it’s effectively the same thing.

While the style is considerably more toned down than something Trudeau would put out, the substance is not. In fact, it’s hard to see any real difference.

Now, part 5(6) of the Bill does say this:

(6) recognition of the paramountcy of laws over the various cultures, whether minority or majority, since the laws are drawn up by the democratic institutions that govern the Québec nation.

In theory, Canadian multiculturalism also wouldn’t put one group’s interest over society’s (in general), but it does all the time. Also, considering that rapid demographic change is still ongoing, how long until there are democratic changes to those so-called “Quebec values”?

Admittedly, LeGault is a better salesman than most liberals.

(1) https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/quebec-immigrants-integration-law-1.7546079
(2) https://www.assnat.qc.ca/en/travaux-parlementaires/projets-loi/projets-loi-43-1.html
(3) Quebec Bill 84 National Integration Act
(4) https://www.legisquebec.gouv.qc.ca/en/document/cs/C-12
(5) https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/video/9.6630144

*Disclaimers, Ethics* Proudly powered by WordPress