Category: Lawfare

Posted on

Katherine Ethyl Bagnald: Transferred To Women’s Prison Despite Sexual Assault Allegation

Something that largely went ignored by the media is the case of an inmate named Katherine Ethyl Bagnald. He is a 22 year old man who was sentenced to prison time for multiple robberies, and wants to be sent to a women’s jail.

Despite his age, Bagnald already has a serious criminal record. When Corrections Canada refused to put Bagnald in with women — at least for the time being — he sued the Federal Government.

His intake assessment is disturbing, to put it mildly.

  • His first arrest (at 16) was for pulling a knife on his mother’s boyfriend.
  • He was arrested for threatening to kill his (then) girlfriend’s father.
  • He was previously in a fight at the CNSCF.
  • He was on probation when he committed these 3 robberies.
  • He claimed to have a knife when robbing these 3 gas stations.
  • He was heavily into drugs and alcohol as a minor (so he claims).
  • He was involved in prostitution as a minor (so he claims).

It’s baffling to think that putting this mentally ill biological male with female inmates wouldn’t lead to serious problems. What’s more unsettling is that the responding lawyers don’t cite this danger as the primary reason to refuse him.

Thanks to Ottawa’s new rules on “diverse gender offenders“, men can simply declare that they are women, and are allowed to be transferred. There’s little (if any) consideration for the safety and comfort of the women involved.

Bagnald Accused Of Sexually Assaulting FEMALE Inmate

Now we get to the uglier part. It’s more than just the issue of putting a male inmate in a female prison. Bagnald is also under investigation for sexual assault of another inmate. Although some details are included in these papers, they won’t be published here.

One of the reasons Bagnald cites in being allowed to go to a women’s prison is that the incident had only led to an internal investigations by the jail, and not formal criminal charges. Of course, that may very well change. He also claims the encounter was consensual.

While Bagnald is suing to force the jail to put him at a women’s federal penitentiary, it turns out that was unnecessary. He was later voluntarily transferred, despite the ongoing complaint. Corrections couldn’t be bothered to at least fight the case.

Correction: He was in fact later charged with sexual assault under section 271 of the criminal code. It occurred on September 12th, 2024. However, he wasn’t charged until May 2025.

***Author’s note: because of the publication ban of portions of the evidence, and on identifying the victim, the actual documents will not be published.***

Bagnald Objected To Portions Of Confidentiality Request

As is common in cases of sexual assault, and internal investigative matters, confidentiality requests are made. Bagnald opposed it, however, including sealing information that would have protected the identity of his victim.

Ultimately, the Court did agree to restrict some information.

Timeline Of Major Events In Case

September 12th, 2025: Bagnald, while in custody on robbery charges, sexually assaults a female inmate at the Central Nova Scotia Correctional Facility. However, he would not be charged with this for several months.

January 3rd, 2025: Bagnald receives a Federal (over 2 year) sentence for 3 counts of robbery and breach of probation. He is incarcerated with men, given that he is one.

January 10th, 2025: Bagnald is notified that he would be sent to the Regional Reception Centre (RRC) at Springhill Institution, which is a men’s prison. This is the order that he tries to have set aside, and there is just 30 days to commence proceedings. That would be February 9th.

January 14th, 2025: Bagnald is transferred to the RRC.

February 25th, 2025: Bagnald files a Motion for an extension of Time in Federal Court. As the deadline to challenge the order has lapsed, he needs to convince the Court that he should be allowed to argue it anyway.

February 28th, 2025: Bagnald brings another Motion, this one for an order to compel Corrections Canada to transfer him to a women’s prison.

March 3rd, 2025: The Attorney General responds, objecting to the Motion to compel Bagnald’s transfer to a women’s prison. However, it’s based primarily on procedural grounds, i.e. Statute of Limitations, and not the fact that he would be a danger to the women locked up.

March 3rd, 2025: The Attorney General also responds to the Motion for the extension of time.

March 18th, 2025: The Attorney General brings a Motion to seek (or protect) certain information from being made publicly available. While the assessment was still ongoing, it’s alleged that Bagnald sexually assaulted a female inmate, a real woman. Although no criminal charges had been filed yet, the jail still had to investigate it. There is a PUBLIC version available with redactions, but only the Court has access to the full version.

March 20th, 2025: Bagnald formally objected to most of the redactions sought by the government.

March 20th, 2025: Bagnald files reply submissions in support of getting transferred.

March 24th, 2025: Federal Court agreed to withhold portions of the evidence from public view, citing the need for privacy.

March 25th, 2025: Bagnald files an Application for Judicial Review, trying to force Corrections Canada to let him be transferred to a women’s prison.

April 9th, 2025: Bagnald files an amended Application.

May 14th, 2025: Bagnald is finally charged with sexual assault. The Crown elects to proceed “by indictment”, the more serious option. By this time, he’s already at the Nova Institute for Women, a federal penitentiary.

June 17th, 2025: A publication ban is ordered to protect the sexual assault victim, and witnesses who may be involved in the case.

June 19th, 2025: The Government brings forward a Motion to Strike for the Federal case. The basis is that by now, Bagnald has already been transferred to a women’s prison, and hence, the Application is moot.

June 30th, 2025: Bagnald responds to the Motion to Strike. While he as already been moved, he wants to proceed anyway, in order to create a precedent that can be used later.

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.

There’s nothing “progressive” or “enlightened” about implementing these sorts of policies. Supporters simply hate women, and are indifferent (at best) to the harm that they cause.

MOTION REQUESTING EXTENSION OF TIME (25-T-23):
(1) Bagnald Risk Assessment Corrections Canada (January, 2025)
(2) Bagnald Gender Diverse Inmate Directives
(3) Bagnald Motion Record To Extend Time (February, 2025)
(4) Bagnald Letter To Court Requesting Urgency (February, 2025)
(5) Bagnald Motion Record Requiring Transfer (February, 2025)
(6) Bagnald Responding Motion Record Extension Of Time (March, 2025)
(7) Bagnald PUBLIC Responding Motion Record Transfer (March, 2025)
(8) Bagnald Written Submissions Transfer (March, 2025)
(9) Bagnald Cost Agreement (March, 2025)
(10) Bagnald – Decision Granting Extension Of Time To File Application (March, 2025)

APPLICATION TO REVIEW DECISION (T-982-25):
(1) Bagnald Notice Of Application (March, 2025)
(2) Bagnald Amended Notice Of Application (April, 2025)
(3) Bagnald Motion Record To Strike (June, 2025)
(4) Bagnald Responding Motion Record To Strike (June, 2025)

Posted on

The Pham Case: NGOs Pushed For Foreign Criminals Having More Rights Than Canadians

A disturbing trend has been in the news lately. Recently, a series of cases were published where foreigners received unusually low sentences for criminal convictions, in order to avoid deportation. Since the 2013 Supreme Court ruling in Pham, there has been a requirement to view “immigration consequences” when handing down punishment.

What’s even more unsettling is how this came to happen. A foreign drug trafficker received a 2 year sentence on a Joint Submission (agreement), but seemed to have realized after the fact that it would mean deportation.

For context: under the rules at the time, non-citizens who received a jail sentence of 2 years (or more) were excluded from many appeal options to avoid deportation. Removal was pretty much automatic. However, those convicted and receiving lesser punishment still had more prospects of staying. This was later reduced to a 6 month limit.

Hoang Anh Pham was sentenced to 2 years in prison for drug possession, for the purposes of trafficking. On Appeal, he asked that it be reduced by a day, to avoid deportation. The Court of Appeal, in a split decision, rejected it. However, the Supreme Court of Canada granted Leave (permission) to hear the case, and then did allow it.

What likely tipped the scales was that several Intervenors (interested parties) made submissions to the Supreme Court of Canada. These were:

  • British Columbia Civil Liberties Association (Charity Page)
  • Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers
  • Canadian Civil Liberties Association (Charity Page)
  • Canadian Council for Refugees (Charity Page)
  • Criminal Lawyers’ Association of Ontario

Various groups weighed in, asking the the Supreme Court require that Judges take immigration consequences into account when imposing sentences. How does this benefit actual Canadians? How does special consideration for foreign criminals create a better society?

Hoang Anh Pham Previously Convicted For Drug Trafficking

[2] The facts as disclosed at trial were that the appellant was involved in a three-stage marijuana grow operation consisting of 591 plants at various stages of growth. It was estimated that the value of this crop ranged from $461,718 (if sold by the pound) to $738,750 (if sold by the ounce). An additional 28 grams of marijuana was found in two freezer bags in the freezer compartment to the refrigerator on the main floor.

[3] At the subsequent sentencing hearing, the appellant’s prior criminal record was entered as an exhibit. It disclosed that on December 12, 2000 the appellant had been convicted of one count of failing to attend court (section 145(2)(a) of the Criminal Code), one count of trafficking in a scheduled substance (section 5(1) of the CDSA) and one charge of possession of a scheduled substance for the purpose of trafficking (section 5(2) of the CDSA). At that time, the appellant had received a sentence of one day in gaol on the first count and a three month conditional sentence order, concurrent, on each of the other two charges.

[4] At the sentencing hearing in this case, the appellant’s then counsel and Crown counsel urged upon the sentencing judge, by way of joint submission, a sentence of imprisonment for two years. The Crown cited as aggravating factors that the appellant had benefitted financially and that he had not learned his lesson from his previous encounter with the criminal justice system.

From the Alberta Court of Appeal, we can see that Pham was already a convicted drug trafficker when this sentence was handed down.

Prosecutors Complicit With Sentence Reduction

[32] Returning to the case at bar, the appellant has previously been convicted of three offences. In 2000, he was convicted of failing to attend court, trafficking in a scheduled substance, and possession of a scheduled substance for the purposing of trafficking. For the first offence, he was sentenced to one day in jail; he received a three month conditional sentence for the other two charges. Now there is the more recent drug- related conviction, which resulted in the two year prison term he asks us to reduce. Illegal drugs are a tremendous scourge on our society. The appellant’s repeated contribution to the problem, albeit modest in the large scale of things, would normally disqualify him from leniency. However, as the prosecution has consented to this appeal, I would agree to allow it with the caveat that in future cases, this relief will not be there simply for the asking.

In a dissenting opinion with the ABCA, Justice Martin mentioned that the prosecution had consented to the appeal, which would have reduced the sentence. So, even though he was argued that he “clearly hadn’t learned his lesson”, the Crown is still okay with reducing the sentence to help prevent deportation.

1. B.C. Civil Liberties Association

2. The BCCLA submits that failure to consider the immigration consequences of a sentence would deprive the court of information required to properly consider the relevant sentencing factors, and may result in a sentence which unjustly infringes an offender’s rights and freedoms.

3. Immigration consequences must be taken into account by a sentencing judge in order to ensure that the offender is not punished more than necessary. A permanent resident convicted in Canada and sentenced to two years or more is almost certain to face deportation. For many permanent residents, deportation will be the most punitive impact of their sentence. In order to ensure that sentences are consistent with the principles of proportionality and restraint, the BCCLA submits that immigration consequences are relevant personal circumstances which should be taken into account as part of the individualized sentencing assessment.

2. Canadian Council For Refugees

4. Given that a non-citizen who has been convicted of a criminal offence may face removal from Canada, it is the CCR’s submission that the judge imposing the sentence must take into account the impact that the sentence will have on the availability of remedies for the retention of status in Canada. This is based on the following reasoning:

9. Non-citizens whose human rights will be infringed by removal are entitled to have their interests considered by a competent, independent and impartial decision maker prior to removal. A scheme was created for consideration of such interests under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA). Relevant to this appeal, this obligation is met in the equitable appeal which is available to permanent residents and Convention refugees who face removal because of a criminal conviction but who have received a sentence of less than two years.

17. It is submitted therefore that a judge, exercising a judicial discretion in relation to the imposition of an appropriate sentence for a crime committed, ought to take into account the impact that the sentence will have on the availability to a non-citizen of a hearing which is fully in compliance with the principles of fundamental justice under s. 7 of the Charter in relation to that person’s status in Canada.

Of course, these aren’t anywhere near all of the filed documents. However, they do illustrate what the main concerns being raised are.

The Supreme Court also has the video of the hearing posted on its website, even years later. It’s worth a watch.

51:30: Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers begins, and brings up the possible ineffective assistance of counsel argument.
1:02:00: Criminal Lawyers Association of Ontario begins.
1:08:00: British Columbia Civil Liberties Association begins.
1:13:41: Canadian Council for Refugees begins.
1:19:15: Canadian Civil Liberties Association begins.
1:38:30: Respondent (Government) begins.

While the Government (initially) asked that the case be remitted back to the Court of Appeal, at the hearing, they simply consented to the Appeal being allowed.

This should make Canadians’ blood boil. Registered “charities” are getting significant tax breaks while they try to implement caselaw to give preferential treatment to foreign criminals.

Conservative Bill A Trojan Horse?

At the risk of jumping to conclusions, consider a recent video from Michelle Rempel-Garner. She proposes a Private Member’s Bill to amended the Criminal Code. In her words, Judges “should not” be able to take immigration status into account. It’s at the 2:00 mark.

Should not?

How about cannot? Or must not? Or are prohibited from?

While this may come across as pedantic, this choice of wording would allow Judges to retain discretion as to whether or not they consider immigration status. There would merely be a recommendation against doing so, not an outright ban.

Does she not realize that every lawyer with a foreign convicted criminal for a client will be arguing that their case is exceptional?

We’ll have to see what happens.

COURT RULINGS:
(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abca/doc/2012/2012abca203/2012abca203.html
(2) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc-l/doc/2012/2012canlii68768/2012canlii68768.html
(3) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2013/2013scc15/2013scc15.html

SUPREME COURT OF CANADA:
(1) https://www.scc-csc.ca/cases-dossiers/search-recherche/34897/
(2) Pham Factum Appellants Factum
(3) Pham Factum Respondents
(4) Pham Factum Appellants Reply
(5) Pham Factum BC Civil Liberties Association
(6) Pham Factum Canadian Association Of Refugee Lawyers
(7) Pham Factum Canadian Civil Liberties Association
(8) Pham Factum Canadian Council For Refugees
(9) Pham Factum Criminal Lawyers Association Of Ontario

Posted on

Diagolon Brings Lawsuit In Small Claims Court Over Tour Expenses

Last Summer, Diagolon held their “Road Rage Terror Tour” in various cities across Canada. Plenty of photos were taken, and licence plates recorded. But it seems that the fallout hasn’t ended, and it’s from an unexpected source.

A scheduled stop in Hamilton was cancelled as a result of backlash from the public. This came after expenses were racked up in anticipation of holding the event. That’s when relations really soured, and all over a fairly small amount of money.

What do the saviours of the White race do? Their leader files a lawsuit in Ottawa.

According to the Claim, MacKenzie gave money to McEvoy, who was actually making reservations. Everything was in her name.

When the event ultimately got cancelled, MacKenzie demanded a refund from the organization. He was refused, on the basis that McEvoy was the one who made the payment (via etransfer), and that it would have to be returned to her. This was to comply with anti-money laundering laws.

McEvoy kept the money, so MacKenzie decided to sue her.

McEvoy then countersued, on the basis that the funds MacKenzie had paid her don’t even come close to what she paid out of pocket on other items. Considering that she spent time volunteering for the group, this is a strange way to show appreciation.

Nothing was resolved at the Settlement Conference, so the next step is Trial, assuming MacKenzie pays the fee for it. He backed out of going to Trial against Ezra Levant.

Timeline Of Events

April 7th to June 6th, 2024: McEvoy incurs expenses in anticipation of the “Road Rage Terror Tour” stopping by and having an event.

May 2nd, 2024: MacKenzie transfers $1,188 to McEvoy.

July 4th, 2024: MacKenzie transfers another $366.

July 31st, 2024: The Caledonia venue issues a refund (to McEvoy) of the deposit.

August 1st, 2024: MacKenzie is informed that refunds will have to be issued to McEvoy herself, as she’s the one who they received money from.

August 8th, 2024: MacKenzie files a $1,554 lawsuit in Ottawa Small Claims Court.

August 28th, 2024: McEvoy files a defence against the claim.

September 17th, 2024: McEvoy files a counterclaim for $2,187.23.

January 13th, 2025: Settlement conference is held, and neither claim is resolved.

And that’s where things stand now. If a Trial is ever held, an update will be posted.

Lawsuit Doesn’t Really Help “The Brand”

It’s no wonder that as a movement, Diagolon struggles to gain traction. Aside from being an obvious honeypot, it’s really a bad look to be suing volunteers over small change. This is even more so the case then they spend money out of pocket.

While blaming biased media for declining interest is possible, this will likely hurt more. Nothing turns off potential supporters like seeing others taken advantage of.

It probably doesn’t help that the group had been (allegedly) misrepresenting themselves when attempting to book venues. That led to more cancellations later on.

Did it have to come to this? Surely, CSIS has an expense account that they can reimburse MacKenzie from, so that he’s not preoccupied over the small details.

COURT DOCUMENTS:
(1) Caledonia Plaintiffs Claim
(2) Caledonia Defence
(3) Caledonia Defendants Claim – Counterclaim
(4) Caledonia Settlement Conference

Posted on

Universal Ostrich Farms, Part 3: The Bilinski Affidavit, And Immune Biosolutions

Universal Ostrich Farms (UOF), in British Columbia, has been in the alternative media a lot lately. Specifically, the Canada Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) ordered about 400 birds to be killed after some supposedly tested positive for the H5N1 virus.

UOF filed an Application in Federal Court to challenge the order. A second Application was filed challenging the refusal to grant any sort of exemption. To date, both cases have been dismissed. Barring a successful Appeal, the culling is expected to go ahead.

See Parts 1 and 2 in the Universal Ostrich Farms series for more information.

The first two pieces have interestingly caused quite the backlash. The bulk of it is simply reading from various Court documents, including Affidavits. What people don’t seem to grasp is that when someone asks for money, it becomes public interest litigation. The have GiveSendGo and GoFundMe pages up, among other avenues, soliciting donations.

As such, their case is open to scrutiny, or at least it should be.

Now, let’s see what David Bilinski has to say.

From The Affidavit Of David Bilinski

13. One of the problems we encountered though was there was no good breeding records for ostriches. To starts a recording program, I initiated a DNA fingerprinting program for ostriches in Canada. I worked wit Dr. Kim Cheung, a director of the Avian Research Centre at the University of British Columbia, to develop this program.

14. Unfortunately, shortly after starting the program, the market for breeding ostrich collapsed, and the program was suspended.

19. The antibodies ostriches produce in response to an infection can last several years, and are found in extremely high concentrations in the yolks of their eggs. These antibodies can be used to develop neutralization anitbodies against, among other things, the H5N1 virus. I have attached as Exhibit “B” a true copy of the study published by Dr. Yasuhiro Tsukamoto, Laboratory of Veterinary Anatomy, Graduate School of Biology and Environmental Sciences, Osaka Prefecture University.

34. When the COVID-19 pandemic hit in March 2020, it essentially shut down our business. Processing plants closed, breeder sales plummeted, and farms downsized.

35. We then became familiar with the work of Dr. Tsukamoto, who was studing the IgY Immune Globin Yolk) antibodies in ostrich eggs.

36. Based on Dr. Tsukamoto’s and others’ research, we learned that ostrich eggs are uniquely situated for developing antibodies because of the size of the yolk, and the concentration of the antibodies produced.

39. As a result, we began working with [Immune] Biosolutions Inc. (“Biosolutions”) in Quebec, which was working on protocols to produce antibodies for Covid-19, due to a $13,000,000 grant from the Government of Canada.

40. In or around 2021, Biosolutions provided antigens to the UOF, which then allowed us to produce antibodies using the ostrich eggs.

42. Then, in about 2022, UOF began a venture with Struthio BioScience Inc. (“Struthio”) and entered into a contract wherein UOF must provide Struthio with ostrich eggs, failing which UOF would be in breach of contract.

43. In summary, since 2020 UOF has been entirely dedicated to the production of antibody IgY.

44. To be clear, UOF is not a commercial poultry facility, and it does not produce any ostrich meat or eggs for human consumption.

It would be nice to know more about this DNA fingerprinting program, even if it was ultimately cancelled. Perhaps a later piece can cover that.

Bilinski tries to portray to the Court there being a “contract” between Universal Ostrich Farms and Struthio BioScience Inc. This is apparently to fulfill business obligations. However, Karen Espersen is both the owner (and president) of UOF, and a co-owner of Struthio. This connection is obvious when looking at her LinkedIn page, but isn’t clear in the Court documents.

Defenders of the farm have pointed to the fact that Immune Biosolutions is the one that got the contract from the ISED, not the farm. While true, it misses the point. Espersen and Bilinski are working with them, and using their antigens, giving it to the ostriches, and creating antibodies in return.

In turn, it then raises all kinds of questions as to what exactly these birds are infected with, and what the risks are to humans. This apparently isn’t explained in any Affidavit.

Despite howls about “protecting the food supply”, Bilinski’s Affidavit makes it clear that these animals aren’t intended for any sort of human consumption. This ostrich farm really is an open-air biolab.

The irony also seems lost on these litigants. They’re challenging the findings that some of the birds are infected with a virus, claiming that these tests are unreliable. Fair enough. But then, the birds are used to generate antibodies to fight another virus. In fact, they stand to make a fortune if they’re able to sell their work.

Oh well. Live by the shady “science”, die by the shady “science”.

Now, let’s find out a little more about their partner.

Taxpayer Money Funneled Through ISED For Grants

The Government of Canada, or more specifically, Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada, announced a few years ago various projects would be funded. Taxpayers would foot a $2.3 billion bill for 41 different grants, all across the country.

Immune Biosolutions, of Sherbrooke, Quebec, was just one company.

March 16, 2021: Up to $13.44 million to help through the Strategic Innovation Fund (SIF) to develop and advance its therapeutic candidate from pre-clinical studies up to Phase II clinical trials.

Perhaps it would be more accurate to describe groups it partners with as “subcontractors”.

Who Is Immune Biosolutions?

A partnership in antibody development
Our antibody discovery platform is available mainly to pharmaceutical and biotech companies seeking to develop custom novel antibodies against targets of interest with unmet needs. Whether the desired antibody is for therapeutic or diagnostic purposes, our avian platform opens up the accessibility to new antibody paratopes of great affinity against highly conserved mammal proteins or molecules.

Immune Biosolutions is a Quebec company that “partners” with other people or companies in their antibody development. This is the research and development end, while the others are the ones who receive and do the live testing.

Immunization:

  • Spatial Peptide design and synthesis for antigen presentation
  • Chicken Immunization by vaccination (Peptides, Spatial Peptides, Proteins, Nucleic Acids, Cells, other molecules)
  • Chicken Immunization by transcutaneous electroporation (Protein expression DNA plasmid)

Screening:

  • Phage-Display Antibody Candidate Screening:
  • Chicken Single B Cell Antibody Candidate Screening
  • Avian Antibody Sequence Determination
  • Next Generation Sequencing (NGS) Antibody Library Analysis

Engineering and Production:

  • Avian Antibody Optimization & Humanization
  • Bi-Specific and Multi-Specific Antibody Engineering
  • Antibody Production & Purification
  • Stable Cell Line Development

Validation (Antibody Validation):

  • Affinity Assays
  • Functional Assays
  • Flow Cytometry
  • Biolayer Interferometry
  • Surface Plasmon Resonance
  • Static Light Scattering/Dynamic Light Scattering

Immune Biosolutions Has Lobbying Registry Profile

Application Form for COVID-19 Advancement of Vaccines and Therapeutics (SIF Program) Immune Biosolutions and collaborators are developing an immunotherapy based on newly identified antibodies to treat and possibly prevent the SARS-CoV-2 infection (COVID-19). This new accelerated discovery process, aiming at providing Canadians with a treatment for COVID-19 discovered and bio-manufactured in Canada, will be applied to future infections and other diseases, such as cancer.

It shouldn’t really surprise anyone that this company is set up to lobby members of the Federal Government for funding. Their name wasn’t picked randomly.

SOURCE OF FUNDING DATE AMOUNT
Canexport April, 2020 $22,754.38
Canexport April, 2021 $22,754.38
Canexport April, 2023 $22,754.38
Canexport April, 2024 $27,500.00
Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada April, 2023 $5,496,072.00
Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada April, 2024 $2,082,706.00
Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada April, 2024 $5,496,072.00
National Research Council April, 2020 $33,108.69
National Research Council April, 2021 $33,108.69
National Research Council April, 2023 $33,108.69
National Research Council April, 2023 $212,219.00
National Research Council April, 2024 $212,219.00
National Research Council April, 2024 $222,880.00
SIF – Strategic Innovation Fund April, 2024 $5,496,072.00

Note: while there appear to be duplicate entries, the notes from the Lobbying Registry suggest that a few agencies made multiple payments in the same fiscal year.

Immune Biosolutions Received Wage Subsidies

As an aside, Immune Biosolutions received CEWS (the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy) in 2020/2021. In fairness though, it doesn’t specify the amounts.

Now, there has been a lot of noise about how it was Immune Biosolutions that got the Government grant, not Universal Ostrich Farms itself. This misses the point. While the tech company may have gotten it directly, what was UOF using to pay its bills in the meantime?

2 scenarios are possible. Either: (a) UOF got a cut of the money directly from IBio, or; (b) UOF would make money from selling the research, thus profiting from taxpayer subsidies. While the grant went to the firm, this seems to be a distinction without a difference.

People need to be asking the hard questions.

(1) https://ised-isde.canada.ca/site/biomanufacturing/en/biomanufacturing-projects-underway
(2) https://immunebiosolutions.com/en
(3) https://immunebiosolutions.com/en/partnerships/
(4) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=368226&regId=914362#regStart
(5) https://apps.cra-arc.gc.ca/ebci/habs/cews/srch/pub/bscSrch
(6) https://unlockalberta.substack.com/p/christine-massey-david-dickson-pat

FEDERAL COURT DOCUMENTS:
(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 2: The Pelech Affidavit, $48,000 Per Egg

A segment of the public has been following the case of a British Columbia farm that was ordered cull approximately 400 of its ostriches. The order came from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (or CFIA) and was challenged in the Federal Court. It was unsuccessful, but an Appeal is likely. The coverage that the “alternative” media has shared would lead people to believe this is simply an attack on the local food supply.

However, looking a little deeper into the case, it seems that these animals had other purposes. This included being used to generate “antibodies” for the so-called “SARS-CoV-2” virus. Or rather, their eggs would be. What else have these animals been treated with?

See Part 1 in the Universal Ostrich Farms series for more information.

This digging for the truth — while pleasing to some — has angered others. However, this site doesn’t “bend the knee”, just because people get annoyed.

Also, this isn’t Liberty Talk, so don’t expect some “feel good” speech or interview.

Now we get to the main Affidavit of Steven Pelech, the expert witness. He’s a professor at the University of British Columbia (UBC), and has an interesting research specialty. He also makes it abundantly clear he believes virology is a legitimate science.

Pelech Clarifies Ostriches Used For Biomedical Research

Pelech’s Affidavit makes it clear that there may be perceived problems with his objectivity. He states that has been involved in developing antibodies against SARS-CoV-2. He’s been doing this kind of work for years. This is also the same purpose that the ostriches in question are being used for.

These birds weren’t destined to be food (hopefully), but were used for biological testing.

Pelech Believes PCR Testing Is Legitimate

Since 2020, many, MANY people have been speaking up about the legitimate concerns of PCR (or Polymerase Chain Reaction) testing. Pelech isn’t one of them. Instead, he speaks glowingly about this “technology”. His only real objection seems to be in how it’s applied. Specifically, the number of times it’s cycled through is apparently too high.

Pelech apparently doesn’t object to this? And why would he? His entire livelihood centers around the idea that these sort of tests are legitimate, and that samples can be treated with other things he creates.

It’s unclear how exactly he would help. It these ostriches were wrongfully diagnosed with H5N1 (or anything), Pelech isn’t making any convincing argument about it.

Further down in the Affidavit is a main point in Pelech’s “expert” evidence. He’s not sure what the cycle count of the PCR testing was, and that it’s unreliable at the higher ones. At no point does he state, or imply, that the test itself is faulty.

58. The main issue is whether the remaining ostriches represent a health hazard to each other, the staff and visitors to the UOF, and wild birds and animals that come to the farm. In view of the information that there has been no deaths from infectious disease on the farm for over two weeks, and all of the ostriches appear to be healthy, it is highly likely that the herd immunity has been achieved in the flock. It is extremely unlikely that they would be shedding virus to each other, their caretakers, and to other birds and animals. The longer that these birds remain healthy, the lower the risk of potential transmission of the virus.

Pelech again never challenges the “positive test” in any meaningful way. He shifts from speculating that PCR testing may have been done at too high a cycle, to speculating about herd immunity.

Pelech On Economic Benefits Of This: $48,000/Egg

We get to the heart of the matter: these ostriches are a gold mine. Pelech steps out of his role as a “scientific expert” to make an economic case for why these birds should be spared.

  • Antibodies derives from animals are worth a lot of money
  • A rabbit can produce 1.5 mg of antibody, at $6,000 each
  • An ostrich egg can produce 12 mg of antibody, at $48,000 each
  • An ostrich can lay eggs for decades

Does it make sense now? The people at Universal Ostrich Farms are sitting on a gold mine. Assume each bird lays one egg per year, just for the sake of argument, we get this:

400 birds * ($48,000/egg) = $19.2 million

This flock of birds has the potential to generate tens of millions of dollars, per year, for this farm. That’s why they’re so against the cull.

“Freedom Movement” Duped Into Financing Legal Challenge

The GoFundMe account has raised $51,000 so far. GiveSendGo is at nearly $39,000. This doesn’t include etransfer, cash, or cheques being mailed in. Altogether, there’s a lot of money coming in.

Well meaning donors are giving money they likely don’t have to a farm which performs the kind of testing they’d be ideologically opposed to. And the Court case is being brought to protect their multi-million dollar project.

Does anyone feel suckered yet?

Pelech was part of the Canadian Covid Care Alliance, or CCCA. He’s also been featured on Librti, What’s Up Canada?, and the NCI. Seriously, did no one vet him in any way?

Kinetek Pharmaceuticals: Pelech Founder, Former CEO

In his Affidavit, Pelech gives his employment record, and it’s quite interesting. He founded 2 companies in the 1990s

  1. Kinetek Pharmaceuticals, which he departed in 1997
  2. Kinexus Bioinformatics Corp, which he is still presently part of

It appears that Kinetek was discontinued as a corporation in 2004.

Kinexus Bioinformatics: Pelech Founder, Director, Scientific Officer

According to the information provided, Pelech is still involved with Kinexus. On their products page, they list the following:

Quality antibodies, peptides and other reagents at reasonable prices with fair representation and extensive validation.

In other words, there’s a financial interest in seeing this kind of work continue. Antibodies is specifically listed as a product that the company sells.

With all of this in mind, one could view Pelech’s Affidavit in an entirely different light. He has direct financial interests with the antibody industry. He also acknowledges that these ostrich eggs could be worth $48,000 each, assuming they’re of good quality. While he may be honest and forthright in his Affidavit, all of this is too much to ignore.

This isn’t about protecting the food supply.

That’s all emotional blackmail and misdirection.

FEDERAL COURT DOCUMENTS:
(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

Bill C-63 (Online Harms Act) Revisited: A More Nuanced View On It

Last year, this site covered Bill C-63, the Online Harms Act. Critics denounced it immediately as a draconian attack on free speech and free expression. There are certainly reasons to be concerned.

***Now, before someone starts posting in the comments that it died with when Parliament was dissolved, I know. But the point is, a similar version can always be brought back. Considering that hearings already taken place, it’s worth looking at what happened.

Bill C-63 was eventually split into 2 different sections: (a) child exploitation and abuse; and (b) the more “free speech” elements of it. Who knows what will happen in the next iteration.

In December 2024, the House of Commons held their hearings on the legislation. A total of 22 different witnesses testified, with a range of different ideas.

Despite all of the warning signs surrounding Bill C-63, there are some provisions that most people can actually get on board with. As always, readers are encouraged to check for themselves.

Filed Submissions From Humane Canada

Animal sexual abuse (bestiality) is illegal under section 160 of the Criminal Code, which recognizes that child sexual assault and animal sexual assault are linked crimes, however there is no legislation that prohibits possessing or sharing online content that features animal sexual abuse. Closing this “bestiality loophole” would fulfill the initial promises of Bill C-84 in 2019 to strengthen protections for children, other vulnerable individuals, and animals. Animals are often used as part of the child sexual abuse grooming process. A 2018 report by the Canadian Centre for Child Protection analyzing case law found that 82% of bestiality cases in Canada have involved the sexual abuse of a child.

Considering the upward trend in police-reported child sexual exploitation where most offences include a cyber component, with 79% of incidents of child pornography and 20% of sexual violations against children recorded as cybercrimes by police, we urge the government to explicitly include animal sexual abuse images and videos, as well as material that depicts harming or killing an animal, in their definition of content that sexually victimizes a child or revictimizes a survivor and harmful content.

Proposed Amendments
Include the explicit mention of animal sexual abuse images and content under the definition of ‘content that sexually victimizes a child or revictimizes a survivor’ and animal harms under the definition of ‘harmful content’, using similar wording to the United Kingdom’s recently passed Online Safety Act:

In their filings, Humane Canada asked that Bill C-63 be amended to include content aimed at harming animals. This would be worded in a similar way to laws prohibited such content involving children.

Filed Submissions From International Justice Mission

We agree with and uphold MP Virani’s decision to split the Bill, prioritizing Section 1 and 4 to address online child sexual exploitation and abuse. Bill C-63 is a critical and long-awaited piece of legislation that will help ensure children, both in Canada and abroad, are protected offline and online, and that penalties for in-person and online offenders of child sexual abuse and exploitation are aligned.

IJM commends the Honourable Arif Virani, Minister of Justice, for the years of detailed policy work and public consultation to create this bill. The Online Harms Act has the potential to strengthen the responsibility of technology companies to prevent child sexual abuse (CSA) and exploitation from happening on their platforms and to prevent the spread of child sexual exploitation material (CSEM) online. If passed, Bill C-63 will position Canada as one of the leading countries in preventing online sexual exploitation of children, alongside its Five Eyes peers, Australia and the United Kingdom.

International Justice Mission included several recommendations for Bill C-63.

1. Ensure livestreaming child sexual abuse is specifically included in the legislation.
2. Take a preventive and safety by design approach.
3. Take into account victim and survivor voice when developing regulations.
4. Include offender deterrence in addition to protecting Canadian children.
5. Include private messaging and video-chat platforms and features.

There’s nothing in their filing that’s objectionable. People can agree that content that abuses children should be removed from the internet.

The testimony from the witnesses (over 3 days) is freely available.

The Canadian Centre for Child Protection Inc met with MP Mona Fortier in early 2025 to discuss:

“…access to justice, criminal justice, and social policy issues related to online child sexual abuse and online violence against children and possible legislative or policy initiatives that could reduce victimization and/or improve victim recovery.”

The group also met with Michelle Rempel-Garner and Craig Oldham.

Foreign Groups At The Heart Of Censorship Laws

While there were commendable aspects to Bill C-63, or at least the first parts, the latter ones raise real questions about the stifling of free speech. Interestingly, the most powerful groups behind it aren’t actually Canadian. They represent foreign lobbies.

Part of the problem is that terms are so poorly defined — and probably on purpose — that they can be selectively applied, depending on the politics involved. This is not good at all.

1. Centre For Israel And Jewish Affairs (CIJA)

CIJA, the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, has lobbied the Canadian Parliament over 2,000 times since the year 2000. They’ve been pushing for censorship and a variety of hate speech laws (antisemitism) the entire time.

CIJA also arranges for Canadian politicians to go abroad for free trips to Israel each year. This is similar to how AIPAC functions in the United States. This is not limited to Liberals or Conservatives, but seems to involve all parties.

The group also gets funding from the “conservative” administration in Ontario.

2. B’Nai Brith National Organization Of Canada

B’nai Brith describes its activities as such: “The Organization’s purpose is to relieve poverty, prevent discrimination and antisemitism, improve the moral and ethical development of the community, provide assistance to victims of human rights abuses, relieve conditions associated with the elderly.” Bill C-63 is specifically listed.

3. National Council Of Canadian Muslims (NCCM)

NCCM, the National Council of Canadian Muslims, has been similarly involved in pushing for censorship and hate speech laws in the name of Islamophobia. This isn’t limited to one group or ideology. And like their Jewish counterparts, NCCM also gets large tax subsidies.

4. Canadian Medical Association (CMA)

The Canadian Medical Association takes this view:

Support the passage of Bill C-63, an Act to enact the Online Harms Act, to address the escalation of online harassment, intimidation, and threats of violence targeting physicians, other health workers, and anyone seeking health care treatment, including measures to strengthen the Criminal Code of Canada and the Canadian Human Rights Act.

Keep in mind, the CMA supported lockdowns and vaccine passports in recent years. It’s quite understandable that large segments of society don’t trust them.

It’s also worth mentioning that a number of non-ideological groups are concerned with Bill C-63. This is likely because it will impact their businesses.

  1. American Chamber of Commerce
  2. Google (which owns YouTube)
  3. Rumble
  4. X (formerly Twitter)
  5. Facebook
  6. Pinterest
  7. LinkedIn

To be clear, there is a genuine public interest in removing content that involves abuse of children or animals. No decent person would argue otherwise.

However, the rest of the Bill seems designed to crack down on free speech and certain political views. And it appears to be driven primarily be foreign interest groups. We’ll have to see what happens next.

Unfortunately, even legislation that’s (reasonably) well written can cause problems. While politicians vote on the bills themselves, the details are typically implemented by regulation. This means that unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats will be making important decisions.

(1) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Committees/en/JUST/StudyActivity?studyActivityId=13035098
(2) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Committee/441/JUST/Brief/BR13487005/br-external/HumaneCanada-e.pdf
(3) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Committee/441/JUST/Brief/BR13531934/br-external/InternationalJusticeMission-e.pdf
(4) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/cmmLgPblcVw?comlogId=632025
(5) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/cmmLgPblcVw?comlogId=631668
(6) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/cmmLgPblcVw?comlogId=632024
(7) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=111&regId=937469
(8) https://ciec-ccie.parl.gc.ca/en/publications/Pages/SponsoredTravel-DeplParraines.aspx
(9) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=378700&regId=964738
(10) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=358918&regId=946132&blnk=1
(11) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=372582&regId=951907

*Disclaimers, Ethics* Proudly powered by WordPress