Category: Military/Police

Posted on

Military Veterans’ Injection Pass Case Thrown Out Over Grievance Requirement, Poor Pleadings

Recently, Associate Judge Coughlan of the Federal Court of Canada struck a lawsuit brought by over 300 current and former members of the military. This case had to do with the injection requirements that came into effect in late 2021. This is yet another one that would never be heard on its merits.

To be fair, the Statement of Claim does plead some facts and background information about each Plaintiff, including position, rank, length of service, and duties. It also listed who took the shots, and who tried to get exemptions. Information about family situations are given, and each Plaintiff states whether or not they’re still with the military.

Many cases don’t even give this data, so it’s a step up.

A variety of Charter violations are alleged, including:

  • Section 2(a) – Freedom of Religion
  • Section 2(d) – Freedom of Association
  • Section 7 – Security of the Person
  • Section 8 – Privacy, Search and Seizure
  • Section 15(1) – Equality

Problem is, while a variety of Charter violations are listed, none of them are properly pleaded. The requirements for each are very specific, but it doesn’t seem to have happened — for ANY Plaintiff.

The Judge also took issue with material being filed late, and some Affidavits being sworn before the proceedings commenced.

However, the most damning problem was that counsel filed the case in the wrong venue. The military is governed by the National Defence Act, or NDA, which covers legal affairs within the Canadian Armed Forces. The process for grieving is outlined in Section 29. Notably, it gives everyone the right to grieve, but not the right to sue.

Even worse, counsel Catherine M. Christensen had been warned about all of this previously.

National Defence Act, S.29: Grievance The Required Option

Like so many “vaccine passport” lawsuits covered on this site, jurisdiction is a serious issue. Why here? It’s because Section 29 of the National Defence Act specifies that there is a grievance process that members of the Canadian Armed Forces are expected to follow. There’s nothing listed that allows for a lawsuit to be filed.

Right to grieve
29(1) An officer or non-commissioned member who has been aggrieved by any decision, act or omission in the administration of the affairs of the Canadian Forces for which no other process for redress is provided under this Act is entitled to submit a grievance.

No penalty for grievance
29(4) An officer or non-commissioned member may not be penalized for exercising the right to submit a grievance

Authorities for determination of grievances
29.1 (1) The initial authority and subsequent authorities who may consider and determine grievances are the authorities designated in regulations made by the Governor in Council.

Final authority
29.11 The Chief of the Defence Staff is the final authority in the grievance process and shall deal with all matters as informally and expeditiously as the circumstances and the considerations of fairness permit.

Decision is final
29.15 A decision of a final authority in the grievance process is final and binding and, except for judicial review under the Federal Courts Act, is not subject to appeal or to review by any court.

In fairness, s.29.15 does allow for a Judicial Review to be filed if the grievance process is unsatisfactory. This would be analogous to appealing. But it’s not the same thing as filing a Statement of Claim.

Why is this important? It’s because Christensen, counsel for the Plaintiffs, didn’t follow the National Defence Act. She filed a lawsuit, instead of using the pathway available. And it’s not the first time the Federal Court has had to explain it to her.

Previous Case Saw Interlocutory Injunction Application Denied

An Application filed in late 2021 sought to prevent several members of the Canadian Armed Forces from facing consequences for refusing the injections. An Interlocutory Injunction was sought, with the plan to get a permanent one later.

November 29th, 2021 – Notice of Application is filed in Federal Court.

December 1st, 2021 – Notice of Appearance is filed by the Government.

December 6th, 2021 – Motion is filed for Interlocutory (temporary) Injunction to prevent members of the Armed Forces from having to take the injections.

December 12, 2021 – Federal Court books hearing on the 15th.

December 15th, 2021 – Court has hearing on the Application.

December 16th, 2021 – Court denies the Application for Injunction, but does so without costs.

January 9th, 2022 – Case is discontinued altogether.

In the reasons released on December 17th, Justice Fuhrer outlines the reasons the Application was denied. He notes that this wasn’t the proper forum to bring the challenge anyway.

[40] Under the NDA s 29(1) and chapter 7 of the Queen’s Regulations and Orders Volume 1 – Administration [QR&O], a CAF member can grieve the denial of an accommodation request, the initiation of a remedial measure or a release decision resulting from the application of the CAF Vaccination Policy, among other decisions, acts or omissions in the administration of the affairs of the CAF. According to the affidavit of Gordon Prieur, a senior policy analyst with DND, the grievance must be submitted within three months after the day when the grievor knew or reasonably ought to have known of the decision, act or omission for which the grievance is submitted. Grievances submitted after this period nonetheless may be considered if it is in the interests of justice to do so.

[41] The CAF grievance process consists of two levels of authority, the Initial Authority [IA] and the Final Authority [FA]. The IA can be the grievor’s commanding officer or next superior officer, while the FA is the CDS, who can delegate this role in certain circumstances. In addition, certain grievances are to be referred to the Military Grievance External Review Committee [MGERC], an independent, arm’s-length entity that reviews grievances and makes recommendations to the CDS. The CDS is not bound, however, by MGERC’s recommendations but he must provide reasons if he does not act on them.

[42] As noted above, Charter claims can be considered in the grievance process.

While the Interlocutory Injunction Application had been denied, litigants could (in theory) go ahead trying to get a permanent one. But they decided not to. The fact that this should have been grieved in the first place likely influenced this decision.

There were also concerns that counsel didn’t plead the case properly.

This 2021 ruling is important because Christensen makes the same mistakes again, but with a much larger case. Her next one would involve over 300 Plaintiffs.

Current Lawsuit Thrown Out Over Jurisdiction, Pleadings

This case was an Action, which is initiated by filing a Statement of Claim. The procedures are different than those for filing an Application, but the same problems came up.

June 20th, 2023 – Statement of Claim is filed in Federal Court on behalf of 330 Plaintiffs.

July 28th 2023 – Amended Statement of Claim is filed.

August 7th, 2023 – Notice of Intention to Respond is filed by the Government.

September 11th, 2023 – Statement of Defence is filed by the Government.

September 22nd, 2023 – Reply to the Statement of Defence is filed.

January 30th, 2024 – Court compels Defence to file their Affidavit of Documents.

March 3rd, 2024 – Court orders case management for the lawsuit.

April 29th, 2024 – Court gives a schedule of events to unfold.

  • Defendants shall serve and file their motion to strike by July 12th, 2024.
  • The Plaintiffs shall serve and file their motion in response by August 9th, 2024.
  • Hearing of motion to strike to be in-person at the Federal Court August 20th, 2024.

June 26th, 2024 – Plaintiffs contact Court, ask for hybrid setup so that Plaintiffs can attend the proceedings remotely.

July 11th, 2024 – Government files Motion to Strike the case.

August 12th, 2024 – Court contacted to request permission to file materials.

August 14th, 2024 – Court allows Plaintiff Motion materials to be filed, despite them not complying with the rules and procedure laid out.

August 14th, 2024 – Motion Record with 35 Affidavits filed by Plaintiffs

August 20th, 2024 – Court adjourns Motion to Strike hearing until September 19th.

September 19th, 2024 – Motion to Strike heard in Court.

November 12th, 2024 – Statement of Claim is struck without Leave to Amend. $5,040 in costs ordered.

The initial filing was covered by the National Post, but it doesn’t appear that there was any follow up done afterward.

Anyhow, the ruling was pretty brutal. It cited a variety of errors, including: (a) failure to properly plead Charter violations; (b) failing to comply with rules when submitting evidence; and (c) lack of jurisdiction, given the grievance scheme available.

[58] Given my conclusion that the action should be struck without leave to amend, there is no need for me to consider whether the Court should exercise its discretion to take jurisdiction over the proceeding. However, for the sake of completeness, I will address that issue briefly.

[59] In support of its motion, Canada filed the affidavit of Ann-Marie De Araujo Viana (the “Viana affidavit”), Manager Professional Policies–Grievances, Canadian Armed Forces Grievance Authority. The Viana affidavit sets out the statutory and regulatory framework for the CAF grievance process established by sections 29-29.15 of the National Defence Act [NDA] and regulations. That framework is supplemented by the DAOD, specifically, DAOD 2017-0 Military Grievances and DAOD 2017-1 Military Grievance Process.

[60] Pursuant to subsection 29 of the NDA, CAF members who are aggrieved by any decision, act, or omission in the administration of the affairs of the CAF, for which no other process for redress is provided under the NDA, may submit a grievance. As set out in the Viana affidavit, the CAF grievance process has two levels of authority, the Initial Authority [IA] and the Final Authority [FA]. The CDS is the FA. In some circumstances there may be an independent review of the grievance by the Military Grievance External Review Committee [MGERC]. However, the CDS remains the final authority and is not bound by any findings or recommendation of the MGERC.

[61] Following a decision of the FA, dissatisfied CAF members may seek judicial review of the decision in this Court, including any appeal rights deriving therefrom.

[62] As this Court has noted on a number of occasions, the grievance process available under the NDA is broadly worded and comprehensive, capturing a wide range of issues and allowing members to seek redress for virtually any issues arising during the course of their service: Jones v Canada, (1994) 87 FTR 190 at paras 9-10 (TD); Fortin v Canada (Attorney General), 2021 FC 1061 at paras 25-26; Jones v Canada (Chief of Defence Staff), 2022 FC 1106 at para 21.

Christensen had been warned by the Federal Court about exactly this issue, just a few years ago. But she filed this lawsuit anyway.

The Court noted that she hadn’t come anywhere close to convincing that the grievance scheme was corrupted or unworkable. And it would be a very tough sell indeed.

The Judge noted at paragraph 67 that over 100 of the Plaintiffs had filed grievances anyway. This is yet another problem that would derail this case. Parallel or simultaneous proceedings are not allowed. Considering the grieving was the correct option, this lawsuit would have been stayed.

The Statement of Claim had other serious errors. Specifically, none of the Charter violations were pleaded sufficiently. It’s not enough to simply list the different sections. Paragraphs 18 to 41 outlined exactly what was wrong.

Serious question: While it’s nice to see people standing up for their rights, what good is it when counsel can’t follow basic directions on how to proceed? If they can’t understand grievance rights, or how to plead a claim, how does this help anyone?

Of course, Christensen still probably got paid for her “work”.

No matter how much, or how often, a lawyer screws up a case, it’s the clients who pay.

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.

COURT DOCUMENTS:
(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

OTHER:
(1) https://www.laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/n-5/
(2) https://www.laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/n-5/page-3.html#h-374837
(3) https://www.fct-cf.gc.ca/en/court-files-and-decisions/court-files#cont
(4) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2021/2021fc1443/2021fc1443.html
(5) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2024/2024fc1801/2024fc1801.html
(6) https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/hundreds-of-military-part-of-lawsuit-over-mandatory-covid-vaccine
(7) https://valourlegalactioncentre.org/
(8) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hifDPBW4r0w

Posted on

HateGate, Part 3: Why The Final Report Is Misleading

This continues the series on “Diagolon”. This is a so-called “meme” organization that shows the signs of being a honeypot run by either law enforcement or intelligence. Even if the members themselves aren’t connected directly, they function as “useful idiots” for the Government.

Parts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the Schill gun grab are here.
Parts 1 and 2 of the HateGate Scam are available as well.

Back in the Fall of 2023, this 85 page document was written by Caryma Sa’d and Elisa Hategan, and released by Crier Media. It supposedly proved the Emergencies Act had been invoked because of shoddy intelligence and poor research. Authorities engaged in a clownish series of acts and panicked over an edgy podcast.

This is in no way an attempt to justify the loss of freedoms that had been going on since 2020. That said, there are questions to ask about this report.

The strongest evidence is said to be the 1,802 page FOIPIP document. It’s comprised of emails, letters and memos between Government officials and law enforcement.

Interestingly, the massive FOIPIP released from the RCMP is quoted, but never linked. Nor was it included by any of the “media” outlets who covered the expose. Was was this receipt left out?

Here are just a few points to consider:

What Data Did FOIPIP Request Actually Ask For?

Any and All records, files (etc), documents, memos, e-mails, communication records, and reports on the subject of “Diagolon” or in relation or reference to the subject of Diagolon. Search term: Diagolon Also referred to as the Diagolon Network or Diagolon Militia.
Timeframe: January 01 2021 to August 15 2022

From this, Sa’d and Hategan went on to draw the conclusion that police are taking their information primarily from the media. After that, the police would feed this data — primarily from the Canadian Anti-Hate Network — to politicians, who (among other things) invoked the Emergencies Act. They apparently all fed off of each other, which was referred to many times as the “circle jerk”.

However, Sa’d and Hategan — in their FOIPIP request — didn’t ask for all “records, files (etc), documents, memos, e-mails, communication records, and reports” that resulted in the EA being invoked. Instead, the request was specific to the group, Diagolon. They then decided that these records were sufficient. It’s worth noting that the FOIPIP didn’t inquire about any other (alleged) extremists.

Nor did the FOIPIP request to obtain any “records, files (etc), documents, memos, e-mails, communication records, and reports” about how so-called violent extremists groups are defined, surveilled and dealt with.

Nor did the FOIPIP request to obtain any “records, files (etc), documents, memos, e-mails, communication records, and reports” about what information and evidence had been gathered on Diagolon. They didn’t ask to see anything from law enforcement directly. Granted, this would likely have been withheld, if investigations were ongoing.

The documents included here do have significant redactions, so there’s a lot of information that’s being withheld. Nonetheless, Sa’d and Hategan can apparently still piece together what was going on.

Point is, a lot of conclusions were drawn on a very incomplete record.

Authors Interviewed No Witnesses To Draw Conclusions

Pages 57 to 62 of the HateGate report quote some emails between various law enforcement and Government. From this, the authors conclude that the RCMP was working blindly to fulfill demands to dig up dirt on various extremist groups.

Problem is: going through their report, it doesn’t look like they interviewed a single witness, or even attempted to. Since the FOIPIP only asked about “Diagolon”, most likely there are many other emails not included. Given the gaps in the record (see previous section), one would think they would try to contact at least a few of the officers involved. After all, their email addresses were listed.

This isn’t to justify — in any way — the heavy handed approach that was used on peaceful protesters. Far from it. But these are very serious allegations to make, and it’s very speculative.

RCMP Expressed Doubt About Reliability Of CAHN Articles

Pages 16 through 26 of the 2nd FOIPIP package are worth a read. The RCMP does discuss Diagolon at length, and admits that a lot of the information they get came from CAHN. However, they also admit that it’s almost impossible to verify any of it, and that it’s unclear how CAHN can make these assertions with any level of confidence.

The RCMP also expresses doubts about a University of New Brunswick Professor named David Hofmann. They don’t know how he can state that Diagolon is an “American-style militia movement”.

They conclude that “operational information” would be needed to build any profile, since none of the open source claims can be verified.

Is this self serving? Maybe, but these are the same FOIPIP documents that are being used to make them look incompetent and dishonest. Yes, the RCMP does monitor the content CAHN puts out — that’s obvious — but they have doubts about its reliability.

MacKenzie’s Stream From February 15th, 2022

Starting at page 47 of the 6th FOIPIP package, MacKenzie’s video is mentioned, along with several quotes. He refers to himself (presumably sarcastically) as the Neo-Nazi Militia Commander. He mentions the patches that were found in Coutts, but suggests they were planted. He also goes on about the “country” being a meme.

It’s baffling to understand what kind of idiot would post a video with such a title. If authorities aren’t understanding what’s satire v.s. reality, why give them this kind of bait? And it’s hardly the first time he’s done something like this.

MacKenzie either doesn’t know — or pretends not to know — that posting this content can have serious consequences. Hard to claim he’s being smeared by CAHN when this is how he describes himself.

There are also remarks in various streams about “hunting circs”, which police take to mean “hunting circulons”, or people who subscribe to different ideologies. While this is likely in jest, authorities take them at their word.

Part of the reason authorities had such difficulty understanding what Diagolon was likely had to do with the endless mixed messages. MacKenzie and his friends routinely said things that would be considered fed-posting, only to follow it up with “it’s all just a joke”. Comments about “gun or rope” and the like are also just jokes.

Yeah. The majority of the content was – especially considering the time, it was very anti-COVID, anti-vaccine, anti-government material. There was a lot of conspiracy theory material in that. There was a lot of what I would define as White nationalists, White supremacy ideology existing within that space. There was also a lot of what I would define as militia-type discussions. There was a lot of talk of acquiring weaponry, body armour, ammunition, planning meet-ups, organizing community events, and then also articulating the purpose of these events beyond simply….

Going back to the Schill gun grab of May 2024, Carmichael testified that there were meet-ups in person. There were also conversations around weapons, ammnition, and body armour.

He also testified that the in-person meetings were surveilled.

One has to wonder how long this has been going on for. How extensive it the information that has been gathered? This is another reason to think that more information should have been asked for with the FOIPIP request.

Are MacKenzie, Harrison, Vriend and the others completely oblivious to what’s being set in motion? All of this talk about being a militia, going shooting, etc… is being taken at face value. And now with the hard anti-immigration push, it looks even worse.

RCMP Has Their “Talking Points” Available For The Media

Back in April 2022, the RCMP had their “talking points” ready for media inquiries. This is from the beginning of the 1st FOIPIP package. In essence, there were scripts already prepared, including what to say if pressed further.

Page 31 of the 9th FOIPIP package has a similar script, dated February 20th, 2022. No specifics can be given, but there’s a “trust us” response.

Far from being unique, it seems likely that most (or all) press conferences are structured this way. There’s the set script, and then the “extra information” to be released if there’s any pushback.

Diagolon is mentioned in the context that body armour from Coutts, AB had their markings on it. Yes, it is labelled a “militia” in this memo. Can’t figure out why.

Authors Insert Themselves Greatly Into Report

The HateGate report is 85 pages, or less, if covers, table of contents, etc… are removed. Pages 10 and 11 are about Caryma Sa’d, and 31 to 44 are about Elisa Hategan. 16 pages, or approximately 20% of the report’s content is information on the authors and their experiences. There’s about as much detail on them as there is on MacKenzie. And that leads to another concern….

Other Agendas From The Authors?

As an aside, it’s comical how the “independent” media who broke HateGate never bothered to do the slightest bit of due diligence into the people writing the report.

Part 1 of this series covered Elisa Hategan, one of the co-authors. She had been involved with a group called Heritage Front back in the 1990’s. She later acted as an “asset” for the Ontario Provincial Police, helping to bring them down. Hategan’s story is widely available, and she even published a book titled: “Race Traitor”.

Heritage Front turned out to be a CSIS operation, quite literally. It was co-founded by Grant Bristow, who was at one point the second-in-command of the group. This means the group was created, at least in part, by CSIS. Who’s to say that Diagolon isn’t the next iteration?

Part 2 covered Hategan’s lawfare against Bernie Farber, and Elizabeth (Moore) Frederiksen. Justice Ferguson found that Hategan had engaged in doxing, stalking, harassment, and invading privacy. Not content to lose in Court, she kept it going in Appellate Court for another 2 years.

Hategan’s involvement in writing the HateGate report is suspicious because: (a) she glosses over the “honeypot” possibility; and (b) given her recent history with Farber, this looks like revenge.

Thoughts On The FOIPIP And HateGate Report?

The claim has been going around since September 2023 that this was “proof” that an intelligence failure around Diagolon and MacKenzie led to the EA being invoked. But the request only asks for information on Diagolon, and is structured in a way that ensures such proof won’t be included. It would have been far more productive to request all records related to the declaration of emergency in the first place.

Alternatively, multiple FOIPIP requests could have been made, even if there would be overlap in the disclosure.

While the FOIPIP package is over 1,000 pages, there’s very little in there. Many of the emails are chains, so the same content keeps coming up. A lot of pages have little to no content on them.

Sa’d and Hategan fill in the blanks with their own assumptions. Without talking to witnesses, they speculate and give their views about what was going on. If this was clearly explained to be opinion, that would be one thing, but people interpret this as fact.

Taking the FOIPIP documents at face value, it’s clear that the RCMP (and presumably CSIS too) do in fact monitor the news in general. They also have looked at what CAHN has said about others, including Diagolon. However, while these articles are quoted, and shared, there’s no hard proof that it led to anything, let alone the invocation of the Emergencies Act.

Yes, other countries (such as New Zealand) have been contacted about Diagolon. However, given the kinds of comments MacKenzie and his followers routinely make, this doesn’t seem outrageous.

The HateGate report comes across much more as an advocacy piece that something objective. MacKenzie’s take on things is always given deference. People like Bernie Farber are always pushing ideological agendas. The authors (in particular Hategan) use their own experiences as material and for reference points.

Overall, this is nowhere near the “breaking story” that had been portrayed.

It’s interesting, but that’s about it.

Again, this is in no way to justify the declaration of emergency, or the crackdown on protesters, or the freezing of bank accounts. None of that was called for.

HATEGATE FOIPIP PACKAGE (FULL RELEASE):
(0) Previously Published Documents
(1) A-2022-06987 Release Package Part 1
(2) A-2022-06987 Release Package Part 2
(3) A-2022-06987 Release Package Part 3
(4) A-2022-06987 Release Package Part 4
(5) A-2022-06987 Release Package Part 5
(6) A-2022-06987 Release package Part 6
(7) A-2022-06987 Release Package Part 7
(8) A-2022-06987 Release Package Part 8
(9) A-2022-06987 Release Package Part 9
(10) A-2022-06987 Release Package Part 10
(11) A-2022-06987 Release Package Part 11
(12) A-2022-06987 Release Package Part 12
(13) A-2022-06987 Release Package Part 13
(14) A-2022-06987 Release package Part 14
(15) A-2022-06987 Release Package Part 15
(16) A-2022-06987 Release Package Part 16
(17) A-2022-06987 Release Package Part 17
(18) A-2022-06987 Release Package Part 18
(19) A-2022-06987 Release Package Part 19
(20) A-2022-06987 Release Package Part 20
(21) A-2022-06987 Release package Part 21

SCHILL HEARING:
(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/oncj/doc/2024/2024oncj249/2024oncj249.html
(2) Evidence Of Officer Ernest Carmichael, Day 1
(3) Evidence Of Officer Ernest Carmichael, Day 2, Cross Examination

HERITAGE FRONT/CSIS:
(1) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8CQ6pjKaJ8
(2) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gy7U8AOXhuw
(3) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1cBOmr3pWg
(4) https://crier.co/the-hategate-affair-unmasking-canadas-hate-industry/
(5) Full Text Of HateGate Report (85 Pages)
(6) https://www.amazon.com/Race-Traitor-Canadian-Intelligence-Services-ebook/dp/B00JA05FYM
(7) https://open.canada.ca/en/search/ati
(8) https://open.canada.ca/en/search/ati/reference/0deb7fad4bfd4546cfd5e016c1667454
(9) https://x.com/elisahategan/status/1709587192715124829
(10) https://x.com/elisahategan/status/1757851798147117192
(11) https://x.com/elisahategan/status/1758258494740832409
(12) https://x.com/elisahategan/status/1762255316429803597/
(13) https://x.com/elisahategan/status/1798395395887997146
(14) https://x.com/elisahategan/status/1797682910516195560
(15) https://x.com/elisahategan/status/1734060656960090558
(16) https://x.com/elisahategan/status/1783193060005818703

HATEGAN STALKING CIVIL CASE:
(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2021/2021onsc874/2021onsc874.html
(2) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2022/2022onca217/2022onca217.html
(3) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2022/2022onca715/2022onca715.html
(4) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2023/2023onca57/2023onca57.html

Posted on

HateGate, Part 1: Report’s Co-Author Involved With “Heritage Front”, A CSIS Operation

This continues the series on “Diagolon”. This is a so-called “meme” organization that shows the signs of being a honeypot run by either law enforcement or intelligence.

Parts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the series relate to the Schill gun grab. There’s a lot more to get into, all of it ignored by so-called “alternative” media.

Viewers of my last video weren’t too happy. Included were various video clips, along with references to the Zaugg and Schill incidents. Apparently, that wasn’t enough, and it was necessary to research HateGate to have an informed opinion.

The gist of it was (supposedly) that Diagolon and Jeremy MacKenzie (a.k.a. Raging Dissident) were being wrongfully smeared by the hate industry in Canada. The allegations were all baseless, and all founded on distortions of a podcast-based community. The investigative reporting had cleared them of any wrongdoing — beyond being loud, crude and obnoxious.

A quick search led to an article on Crier Media, with an 85 page report attached. It was co-authored by Caryma Sa’d and Elisa Hategan. To be fair, the report itself is quite interesting, and is heavily sourced. This isn’t merely rambling on their part, but the result of considerable work.

But a few things immediately stood out.

Quotes From HateGate Report

Taking Down the Heritage Front
In the early 90s, sixteen-year-old Romanian immigrant Elisa Hategan (then Elisse) was held up as the innocent young face of an Ontario neo-Nazi, white supremacist group known as the Heritage Front. With over 200 members, including violent skinheads with convictions for aggravated assault, kidnapping and attempted murder, and implicated in firebombings, it was considered the most dangerous white supremacist group in modern Canadian history. Elisa was groomed as a media spokesperson to soften the image of violent skinheads, even appearing on The Montel Williams Show at age seventeen to repeat scripted talking points that concealed the group’s hateful ideology.

It was a cynical, yet effective strategy. But the adult puppeteers failed to account for personal agency, nor for Elisa’s identity as a closeted lesbian with Jewish roots, later confirmed through DNA tests. Elisa began to secretly provide information to anti-racist activists, at great personal risk, revealing details about illegal weapons and the identity of a Toronto police officer who was a group member. At age eighteen, she defected from the group, stealing part of Holocaust denier Ernst Zundel’s membership list. Months later, her courtroom testimony was instrumental in securing the convictions of three Heritage Front leaders—a fatal blow that triggered the group’s decline and eventual demise.

While the leaders were serving jail time, co-founder and second-in-command leader Grant Bristow was exposed as an undercover CSIS operative by Toronto Sun reporter Bill Dunphy, in part due to scrutiny that arose after Hategan’s affidavits and testimony pointed to Bristow being an agent provocateur who directed criminal activity such as the It Campaign, a brutal harassment campaign directing Indigenous community leaders and anti-racist activists.

Despite having incurred serious death threats, including being questioned at knifepoint by Front members the day before her defection, Elisa was inexplicably denied entry into the RCMP’s Witness Protection Program. Grant Bristow, however, was promptly relocated to Alberta, given a home, cars and a generous monthly paycheck for years afterwards, despite the fact that his five years of work in Operation Governor had not led to the arrest and conviction of a single Canadian neo-Nazi.

Forced to live in hiding across Canada for more than two years, relying on kind strangers, homeless shelters, and dumpster-diving to survive, Elisa, a ninth-grade high-school dropout with a history of familial abuse and foster care, managed to earn a Nova Scotia GED and was accepted into the University of Ottawa’s prestigious criminology program.

Motivated to understand how extremists target youth for radicalization, Elisa made the best of her second chance, engaging in volunteer work inside prison and youth detention centres, while working two jobs and relying on student loans to stay afloat. In 1999, aged 25, she graduated magna cum laude with a double major in criminology and psychology.

Starting on page 31, the report talks about Hategan’s backstory, including how she had been groomed as a “spokesperson” for Heritage Front, a white supremacist gang. It turned out that Grant Bristow, a co-founder of the group, was in fact a CSIS agent. Of course, this raises the obvious question of whether (and to what degree) the group was created at the behest of authorities in Canada.

Granted, the 1980’s and early 90’s didn’t have internet culture, so it’s not the same as today. But there are many things to be asked.

Hategan isn’t shy about her involvement with Heritage Front. She has a video on her YouTube channel, which is still accessible today. She also has a book for sale called Race Traitor.

All of this said, the HateGate report seems to avoid addressing the elephant in the room: was CSIS doing the same thing with Diagolon that they were with Heritage Front? Could MacKenzie, Harrison and/or Vriend really be working for the Government? Could they (alternatively) be considered assets?

Hategan Counselled To Commit Crimes — As A Minor

Critics who distrust CAHN’s claim of expertise on far-right extremism will cite a noticeable double standard—the penchant to reserve the brunt of condemnations for political opponents, while overlooking and even forgiving misconduct by peers and members of their devoted fanbase. They point to situations where CAHN implies they are selective when choosing who gets publicly denounced as a bigot or extremist, and who is ignored.

For instance, relative unknowns get spotlighted and called heroes, even when there is no evidence to suggest they did anything to earn the accolades. To our knowledge, none of the former white supremacists promotes by CAHN has provided evidence of assistance to law enforcement organizations while still inside their hate groups. None testified against former comrades to help secure convictions.

There is arguably no better example to underscore concerns over CAHN’s personal biases affecting what is purported to be expert research, than the enduring friendship between Bernie Farber and Grant Bristow, the undisputed co-founder and self-appointed “Intelligence Chief” of the Heritage Front.

Prior to her defection from the Heritage Front, Elisa Hategan submitted approximately 30 affidavits to the Ontario Provincial Police. Several involved situations where Bristow purportedly counseled Elisa—initially still a minor—to engage in criminal activity, such as giving her instructions on how to anonymously harass and intimidate left-wing activists, hack into answering machines to collect data, and spy on the Irish Freedom Association of Toronto.

She, along with scores of neo-Nazi skinheads and white supremacists, were given names, addresses and telephone numbers and taught how to use voter registry information to gather details about individuals on the target list, such as the names of everyone residing at that domicile.

Bristow also boasted about his intention to drive a lesbian Anti-Racist Action (ARA) activist to mental breakdown and suicide. “I want to pound Ruth’s head in. I want to give her a facial massage with a sledgehammer,” he is described as saying in one of Elisa’s 1994 affidavits. He enlisted Elisa specifically because he needed a woman’s voice for that particular job—to record messages on adult personal ads while passing as Ruth, and give out her address and telephone number.

Beginning on page 48, Hategan outlines how she had been pushed to commit crimes, while still being a minor. She describes conduct that can best be described as harassment, stalking and doxxing. She mentions her extensive cooperation with the Ontario Provincial Police.

She also claims that Bernie Farber — the infamous head of CAHN, the Canadian Anti-Hate Network — had a long lasting friendship with Bristow. If this is true, then groups like Heritage Front are presumably in bed with the “anti-hate” and “anti-fascist” organizations that oppose them.

With this knowledge in mind, it again raises the obvious question: why didn’t the HateGate report seem to explore the possibility that Diagolon was a Government front? Hategan, more than nearly anyone, should have been aware of this.

Why Get Involved With These People At All?

Looking through Hategan’s many online postings, she quite proudly boasts of her Jewish heritage, and of being a lesbian.

That being said, the streams of “Raging Dissident” are filled with endless insults and comments about “the Jews”, and “faggots”. It’s baffling that Hategan would put in the work to try to clear them. Of course, this could just be an idealistic take on free speech.

Taking a look through her Twitter feed, it seems that relations between Hategan and Diagolon have collapsed. She’s even threatened lawsuits based on the content of Harrison’s book: Meme Kampf. Gee, who could foreseen such a possibility?

Full Posting Of 1,082 Page FOIPIP Release

(1) A-2022-06987 Release Package Part 1
(2) A-2022-06987 Release Package Part 2
(3) A-2022-06987 Release Package Part 3
(4) A-2022-06987 Release Package Part 4
(5) A-2022-06987 Release Package Part 5
(6) A-2022-06987 Release package Part 6
(7) A-2022-06987 Release Package Part 7
(8) A-2022-06987 Release Package Part 8
(9) A-2022-06987 Release Package Part 9
(10) A-2022-06987 Release Package Part 10
(11) A-2022-06987 Release Package Part 11
(12) A-2022-06987 Release Package Part 12
(13) A-2022-06987 Release Package Part 13
(14) A-2022-06987 Release package Part 14
(15) A-2022-06987 Release Package Part 15
(16) A-2022-06987 Release Package Part 16
(17) A-2022-06987 Release Package Part 17
(18) A-2022-06987 Release Package Part 18
(19) A-2022-06987 Release Package Part 19
(20) A-2022-06987 Release Package Part 20
(21) A-2022-06987 Release package Part 21

Most people are likely unaware of this, but when someone makes a freedom of information request, there’s an archive generated. From the Government’s perspective, it prevents duplication, in the event that someone else asks for the same (or similar) data. It wasn’t hard to find this specific one.

It’s unclear why the full summaries weren’t released along with the other citations. None of the media outlets that covered the story did either. Therefore, this site contacted the RCMP and requested a copy of the results.

This will be covered in a future article, but the results of the FOIPIP request don’t really support the conclusions that are drawn. Yes, there are accurate quotes pulled. However, the package — when read in full — leads toward other findings.

Probably the biggest misconception is that authorities panicked jumped to conclusions to justify invoking the Emergencies Act. The “Diagolon” group promotes this narrative non-stop. That isn’t justified though.

Is Diagolon An Intelligence Gathering Operation?

The recent “Road Rage Terror Tour” has concluded, with this group coming to towns across Canada. But it’s worth asking what exactly was the point? Was selling merchandise the goal? Or was it to gather names, photos and contact information of people to monitor?

Recently, the so-called Queen of Diagolon posted this tweet. Who makes comments — even as a joke — about recording people’s licence plates? Keep in mind, one of the things Hategan did for police was take down plate numbers.

Considering the content of these streams, doxxing is a legitimate concern.

Given that a few “Diagolon” patches found in Coutts was allegedly a smoking gun connection of a murder conspiracy, why the push to keep selling merch? Is it about extra money? Ego? Or is the goal to spread enough of it around that a connection can always be found?

Regular people would have been charged for saying a fraction of the things that are common on these livestreams. For some reason, Government goes out of its way to signal boost, rather than get it shut down. Remember:

There is arguably no better example to underscore concerns over CAHN’s personal biases affecting what is purported to be expert research, than the enduring friendship between Bernie Farber and Grant Bristow, the undisputed co-founder and self-appointed “Intelligence Chief” of the Heritage Front. (HateGate, Page 48)

This is directly from their text. According to the HateGate report, Bernie Farber and Grant Bristow were able to remain friends despite them being ideological enemies. It suggests the entire conflict was manufactured. Fast forward to today, could something similar happen again?

Could Evan Balgord and Alex Vriend secretly be friends? Is Diagolon really just Heritage Front 2.0?

As they say, history doesn’t repeat itself, but it does often rhyme.

SCHILL HEARING:
(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/oncj/doc/2024/2024oncj249/2024oncj249.html
(2) Evidence Of Officer Ernest Carmichael, Day 1
(3) Evidence Of Officer Ernest Carmichael, Day 2, Cross Examination

CARMICHAEL ASSAULTING A PRISONER:
(1) Ernest Carmichael Disciplinary Hearing Penalty Decision 25.07.2014
(2) https://toronto.ctvnews.ca/siu-lays-assault-charge-against-york-region-police-officer-1.1392108
(3) https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/york-police-officer-charged-with-assault/article_d1b43f97-a077-59b4-8603-747a94b76170.html

HERITAGE FRONT/CSIS:
(1) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8CQ6pjKaJ8
(2) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gy7U8AOXhuw
(3) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1cBOmr3pWg
(4) https://crier.co/the-hategate-affair-unmasking-canadas-hate-industry/
(5) Full Text Of HateGate Report (85 Pages)
(6) https://www.amazon.com/Race-Traitor-Canadian-Intelligence-Services-ebook/dp/B00JA05FYM
(7) https://open.canada.ca/en/search/ati
(8) https://open.canada.ca/en/search/ati/reference/0deb7fad4bfd4546cfd5e016c1667454
(9) https://x.com/elisahategan/status/1709587192715124829
(10) https://x.com/elisahategan/status/1757851798147117192
(11) https://x.com/elisahategan/status/1758258494740832409
(12) https://x.com/elisahategan/status/1762255316429803597/
(13) https://x.com/elisahategan/status/1798395395887997146
(14) https://x.com/elisahategan/status/1797682910516195560
(15) https://x.com/elisahategan/status/1734060656960090558
(16) https://x.com/elisahategan/status/1783193060005818703

POEC HEARINGS:
(1) https://publicorderemergencycommission.ca/
(2) PEOC Report, Volume 1: Overview
(3) Public Order Emergency Report Volume 1 Overview
(4) PEOC Report, Volume 2: Analysis (Part 1)
(5) Public Order Emergency Report Volume 2 Analysis Part 1
(6) PEOC Report, Volume 3: Analysis (Part 2)
(7) Public Order Emergency Report Volume 3 Analysis Part 2 Recommendations
(8) PEOC Report, Volume 4: Process and Appendices
(9) Public Order Emergency Report Volume 4 Process And Appendices
(10) PEOC Report, Part 5: Policy Papers
(11) Public Order Emergency Report Volume 5 Policy Papers

MOSLEY DECISION:
(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2024/2024fc42/2024fc42.html#par41

CASELAW ON REVOKING FIREARMS PERMITS:
(1) R. v. Zeolkowski, 1989 CanLII 72 (SCC), [1989] S.C.J. No. 50, at para 12, 16, 17, 18
(2) British Columbia (Chief Firearms Officer) v. Fahlman, 2004 BCCA 343, at para 25.
(3) R. v. Christiansen, 2006 BCCA 189, at para 7.
(4) R. v. Bokhari, 2009 ONCJ 691, at para 10, relying on R. v. Day, [2006] O.J. No. 3187 (S.C.J.) and R. v. Morgan, [1995] O.J. No. 18 (Ont.Ct.(Prov.Div.)).
(5) R. v. Peacock-McDonald, 2007 ONCA 128, at para 40
(6) R. v. Douglas, 2013 ONCJ 649, at paras 45, 57.
(7) R. v. Mourtzis, 2015 ONCJ 74, at para 25.
(8) R. v. Roman, 2018 ONCJ 344, at para 89.
(9) R. v. Hurrell, 2002 CanLII 45007 (ON CA), [2002] O.J. No. 2819, at para 48.
(10) R. v. Christiansen, supra, at para 7.
(11) Fahlman, supra, at para 25.
(12) R. v. Peacock-Macdonald, supra, at para 40.
(13) R. v. Roman, supra, at para 89.
(14) R. v. Wiles, 2005 SCC 84, at para 9.

Posted on

Diagolon Gun Grab, Part 5: Carmichael’s 2013 Incident Of Assaulting A Prisoner

The recent focus on this site has been the Gary Schill case, dubbed the “Diagolon Gun Grab”. However, some information about the officer involved, Ernest Carmichael, needs to be shared as well. Back in 2013, the Special Investigations Unit was called over allegations of a police officer committing assault.

On the criminal end of things, Carmichael pleaded guilty to assault and received a conditional discharge. He was placed on probation for a year, meaning that he won’t have a record afterwrds.

As for the administrative side, Carmichael faced a count of “unnecessary force against a prisoner”. Now, this was an internal complaint within the police itself. This means that despite the guilty plea, he didn’t even lose his job. He admitted to kicking a prisoner in the head “2 or 3 times”, but wasn’t fired.

What ultimately happened to him was a 9 month demotion from 1st Class Constable to 2nd Class Constable, and 100 hours of community service.

This demonstrates that Carmichael has shown very poor judgement, but was allowed to keep his job which is considered a “position of trust”. Yes, it was a long time ago, but worth mentioning.

The case doesn’t seem to be cited on CanLII, but the decision is available nonetheless.

The agreed set of facts:

  1. Constable Ernest Carmichael #1950 has been a member of the York Regional Police since April of 2009. He has held the rank of First Class Constable since August of 2012.
  2. On April 21, 2013 at approximately 9:45 p.m., members of York Regional Police attended the public complainant’s residence to investigate an impaired driving complaint regarding her son. Her son had pulled into the driveway a few minutes earlier.
  3. The public complainant’s husband went to his front door and saw two uniformed police officers talking to his son. Mr. Horsak stepped outside and told the officers he wanted them off his property, as he believed they did not have cause to be there.
  4. The officers told Mr. Horsak that his son was under arrest and was going to be charged with impaired driving. Mr. Horsak replied that his son had just come home and was not impaired, and again told the officers to get off his property.
  5. While this conversation was taking place, the son ran inside the house. The two officers followed the public complainant’s son inside the home. The son then ran upstairs and locked himself inside a bathroom. The officers remained just inside the entrance of the house.
  6. Mr. Horsak told the officers to get out of his house and again to get off his property. The police did not leave the home and instead used their portable radios to request the attendance of more officers at the scene.
  7. Four more police officers, including PC Carmichael, arrived at the home a short while later and also entered the residence. Mr. Horsak pushed one of the officers, not PC Carmichael, on the chest to try to keep him from moving further into the house. A struggle ensued and two officers, PC Ron Peever #696 and PC Mark Kowalchuk #1823, took Mr. Horsak to the floor.
  8. Mr. Horsak ended up face-down on the floor in a prone position. One officer attempted to gain control of Mr. Horsak’s left arm while another officer attempted to gain control of his right arm, which were both under his body, in an attempt to handcuff him. According to Mr. Horsak, his arms are chronically susceptible to being dislocated, and he was trying to prevent this from occurring. However, he did not tell this to the police officers.
  9. While the two officers were attempting to subdue Mr. Horsak on the floor, PC Carmichael approached him and kicked him in the head two or three times. The officers were eventually able to place Mr. Horsak in handcuffs, then escorted him out of the house and placed him in the back of a police cruiser.
  10. On May, 20 2014, PC Carmichael appeared before the Honourable Justice Armstrong in the Ontario Court of Justice (Criminal Court). At that time, he entered a plea of guilty to the charge of assault contrary to section 255 of the Criminal Code of Canada. PC Carmichael received a conditional discharge and was placed on probation for a period of 12 months subject to terms, including.

(a) That he not associate or communicate directly or indirectly with Mr. Horsak except as may be required in the course of his duties as a police officer; and
(b) That he perform 100 hours of community service by April 15, 2015

The terms of Carmichael’s probation still allowed him to associate with the victim as long as it was “required in the course of his duties as a police officer”.

Disposition:
.
In light of the seriousness of these allegations and bearing in mind all the evidence placed before me, Constable Ernest Carmichael #1950 will be demoted from his position of First Class Constable to Second Class Constable immediately for a period of nine (9) months and will return to First Class Constable upon the completion of the nine months at the Second Class Constable level pursuant to Section 85 (1) (c) of the Police Services Act.

Further, you will receive remedial training with the Policies of the York Regional Police Service as it relates to Use of Force and any other Policies as required and deemed necessary by your immediate supervisor in consultation with Senior Command of the York Regional Police Service.

In reading through the submissions on sentencing, it appears that these sort of complaints often bring fairly lax consequences.

I have considered the five (5) cases presented to me by Counsel. As I communicated earlier in this disposition the cases presented to me are not on point, however they were instructive for disposition considerations.

In Schofield vs. Metro Toronto Police (1994) the Commission stated:

“Consistency in the discipline process is often the earmark of fairness. The penalty must be consistent with the facts and consistent with similar cases that have been dealt with in earlier occasions. “

It’s rather disturbing to see the Adjudicator go on and on about the public needing to have confidence in law enforcement. But this decision, and the overall pattern, seem to do anything but inspire confidence.

Despite not being convicted of a crime, Carmichael was able to have Schill’s firearms taken away for things he posted online, homemade ammunition crafting, and largely speculative claims about a “militia”. Meanwhile, Carmichael admits to assaulting a prisoner, and gets to keep his service revolver (a restricted weapon), and his job (a position of trust). Interesting standards.

Final fun fact: Carmichael was successful in the Application to get Schill’s gun licence suspended (in large part) because of his association with Jeremy MacKenzie. At his hearing for excessive force, Carmichael’s Defence Counsel was named William MacKenzie. Small world, it seems.

Parts 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the series are available as well.

Thank you to the reader who forwarded this decision. It does give some much needed balance and context for what’s been going on.

SCHILL HEARING:
(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/oncj/doc/2024/2024oncj249/2024oncj249.html
(2) Evidence Of Officer Ernest Carmichael, Day 1
(3) Evidence Of Officer Ernest Carmichael, Day 2, Cross Examination

CARMICHAEL ASSAULTING A PRISONER:
(1) Ernest Carmichael Disciplinary Hearing Penalty Decision 25.07.2014
(2) https://toronto.ctvnews.ca/siu-lays-assault-charge-against-york-region-police-officer-1.1392108
(3) https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/york-police-officer-charged-with-assault/article_d1b43f97-a077-59b4-8603-747a94b76170.html

POEC HEARINGS:
(1) https://publicorderemergencycommission.ca/
(2) POEC Report, Volume 1: Overview
(3) Public Order Emergency Report Volume 1 Overview
(4) POEC Report, Volume 2: Analysis (Part 1)
(5) Public Order Emergency Report Volume 2 Analysis Part 1
(6) POEC Report, Volume 3: Analysis (Part 2)
(7) Public Order Emergency Report Volume 3 Analysis Part 2 Recommendations
(8) POEC Report, Volume 4: Process and Appendices
(9) Public Order Emergency Report Volume 4 Process And Appendices
(10) POEC Report, Part 5: Policy Papers
(11) Public Order Emergency Report Volume 5 Policy Papers

MOSLEY DECISION:
(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2024/2024fc42/2024fc42.html#par41

CASELAW ON REVOKING FIREARMS PERMITS:
(1) R. v. Zeolkowski, 1989 CanLII 72 (SCC), [1989] S.C.J. No. 50, at para 12, 16, 17, 18
(2) British Columbia (Chief Firearms Officer) v. Fahlman, 2004 BCCA 343, at para 25.
(3) R. v. Christiansen, 2006 BCCA 189, at para 7.
(4) R. v. Bokhari, 2009 ONCJ 691, at para 10, relying on R. v. Day, [2006] O.J. No. 3187 (S.C.J.) and R. v. Morgan, [1995] O.J. No. 18 (Ont.Ct.(Prov.Div.)).
(5) R. v. Peacock-McDonald, 2007 ONCA 128, at para 40
(6) R. v. Douglas, 2013 ONCJ 649, at paras 45, 57.
(7) R. v. Mourtzis, 2015 ONCJ 74, at para 25.
(8) R. v. Roman, 2018 ONCJ 344, at para 89.
(9) R. v. Hurrell, 2002 CanLII 45007 (ON CA), [2002] O.J. No. 2819, at para 48.
(10) R. v. Christiansen, supra, at para 7.
(11) Fahlman, supra, at para 25.
(12) R. v. Peacock-Macdonald, supra, at para 40.
(13) R. v. Roman, supra, at para 89.
(14) R. v. Wiles, 2005 SCC 84, at para 9.

Posted on

Diagolon Gun Grab, Part 4: Caselaw Makes It Surprisingly Easy To Do

This continues the series on the “meme group” Diagolon, and the threat that it poses to gun ownership in Canada. Part 1 focused on the ruling of Gary Schill, which saw his privileges suspended for 5 years. Part 2 and Part 3 covered the testimony given by Detective Constable Ernest Carmichael.

The short version is that an Ontario Judge decided it was in the public interest to suspend Schill’s licence because of what he might do. This wasn’t because of a criminal conviction, or ties to terrorism or sedition. He was an administrator of the Diagolon Telegrams, and his posting came to police attention.

Yes, he was arrested for assault, and it was dropped. But it was the content he had posted online, his associations, his views, and making ammunition at home which led to the ban.

The hearsay evidence of his then-wife was also considered at the hearing, despite her not testifying at all. She had told police that a militia was being formed.

Now, how easy is it to suspend or revoke gun rights (or privileges) in Canada? Looking at the cases cited in the Schill decision, it’s actually pretty straightforward. Cases cited are listed at the bottom of the article, although not all are available on CanLII.

Starting with the Supreme Court of Canada:

(1) R. v. Wiles, 2005 SCC 84 (CanLII), [2005] 3 SCR 895

[9] I agree with the Court of Appeal. Mr. Wiles has not established that the imposition of the mandatory weapons prohibition orders constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. As noted by the Court of Appeal, the prohibition has a legitimate connection to s. 7 offences. The mandatory prohibition relates to a recognized sentencing goal — the protection of the public, and in particular, the protection of police officers engaged in the enforcement of drug offences. The state interest in reducing the misuse of weapons is valid and important. The sentencing judge gave insufficient weight to the fact that possession and use of firearms is not a right or freedom guaranteed under the Charter, but a privilege. It is also a heavily regulated activity, requiring potential gun-owners to obtain a licence before they can legally purchase one. In Reference re Firearms Act (Can.), [2000] 1 S.C.R. 783, 2000 SCC 31, this Court held that requiring the licensing and registration of firearms was a valid exercise of the federal criminal law power. If Parliament can legitimately impose restrictions on the possession of firearms by general legislation that applies to all, it follows that it can prohibit their possession upon conviction of certain criminal offences where it deems it in the public interest to do so. It is sufficient that Mr. Wiles falls within a category of offenders targeted for the risk that they may pose. The sentencing judge’s insistence upon specific violence, actual or apprehended, in relation to the particular offence and the individual offender takes too narrow a view of the rationale underlying the mandatory weapons prohibition orders.

To state the obvious: the above case dealt with a mandatory prohibition following a criminal conviction, whereas Schill had his charge dropped. So there is a difference.

Nonetheless, there are strong parallels in the reasoning. The Supreme Court ruled that owning firearms is not a right, but a privilege. There’s a valid principle of public safety at stake, and Parliament has the right to regulate firearm use and possession. Now, many people would take issue with this, but that is what was said.

By stating the firearm ownership is a privilege and not a right, it means there will always be the possibility of having them seized.

(2) R. v. Zeolkowski, 1989 CanLII 72 (SCC), [1989] 1 SCR 1378

A police officer made application in provincial court, pursuant to s. 98(4) of the Criminal Code, for an order prohibiting respondent from possessing any firearms or ammunition or explosive substances. Prior to the calling of any evidence, counsel for the respondent requested a general ruling as to the admission of hearsay evidence. The “custom” in Manitoba provincial courts had been to permit hearsay testimony at hearings on applications for a firearm prohibition. When the judge ruled that evidence at a firearm prohibition hearing was to be limited to what would be admissible at a criminal trial, counsel for the Crown, who had intended to rely on hearsay evidence as to threats made by respondent, called no evidence and the application was dismissed. The ruling as to admissibility was upheld on appeal by the Crown, first by the Court of Queen’s Bench, and then by a majority of the Court of Appeal.

However, the Supreme Court would decide otherwise and allow the Appeal.

Hearsay evidence is admissible at a firearm prohibition hearing under s. 98(6) unless such a result is precluded by the words “all relevant evidence”. The provincial court judge’s role in such hearings is to confirm the existence of the reasonable grounds which led the peace officer to launch the application, as proved on a balance of probabilities. It was not intended that the provincial court judge strictly apply the rules of evidence.

The expression “all relevant evidence” means all facts which are logically probative of the issue. The rules of evidence as to admissibility signify that the fact is relevant and that it satisfies auxiliary tests and extrinsic policies. Parliament, by using the phrase “all relevant evidence”, required only that the evidence at the firearm prohibition hearing be relevant; it did not address the question of exclusionary rules. The effect of the exclusionary rules is left to the provincial court judge as part of the whole body of evidence on which the provincial court judge determines whether reasonable grounds exist. Frailties in the evidence are a matter of weight.

When an Application is filed to revoke someone’s guns and licence, the standards are nowhere near as stringent as in a criminal trial. Yes, the basis for the Application is based on the Criminal Code of Canada, but it follows different rules.

Specifically, the standard of “proof beyond a reasonable doubt” has been replaced by “on the balance of probabilities”, which would be the civil test. Additionally, hearsay evidence which would typically be excluded in criminal cases is permitted here, but with the Judge typically giving less weight to it.

This is a 1989 case, so it’s been around for a very long time.

(3) B.C. (Chief Firearms Officer) v. Fahlman, 2004 BCCA 343 (CanLII)

[25] I read s. 5 differently. Section 5(1) creates a broad safety standard for eligibility to hold a firearms licence or to continue to hold one following a revocation inquiry. Section 5(2) requires a firearms officer or a Provincial Court judge on a reference to “have regard to” certain conduct by the applicant or licence holder. I do not read s. 5(2) as being exhaustive of the matters to be considered as affecting safety concerns under s. 5(1). There are many other things a firearms officer or a judge might consider that do not fit into s. 5(2) and that might logically and reasonably give rise to valid safety concerns. I agree with the appellant’s submission that there is no statutory obligation to decide the safety issue in favour of the applicant or licence holder when none of the criteria in s. 5(2) is present; and that there is no obligation to refuse a licence or order a revocation if one or more of those criteria are present. A plain reading of the section by itself evinces no such intention by Parliament. The firearms officer and the judge are entitled to consider anything about the background or conduct of the applicant or licence holder that is relevant to public safety.

The Court of Appeal for British Columbia had held that the Firearms Officer and the Judge are allowed to consider anything about the licence holder. The only question is whether their decisions are seen as “reasonable”.

(4) R. v. Christiansen, 2006 BCCA 189 (CanLII)

[7] After reviewing these statutory provisions and the authorities cited on this appeal (other than Fahlman, which supports his reasoning and conclusion), the appeal court judge found (at paras. 35 – 37) that s. 111 of the Code does not “exclusively deal with behaviour that could be characterized as involving criminal conduct or acts of violence against others.” Nor do the three criteria set out in the Firearms Act operate as “exhaustive criteria” for the application of s. 5 of that Act. Thus, a provincial court judge conducting a hearing under s. 111 of the Code is not confined to a determination of whether the three criteria set out in s. 5(2) of the Firearms Act are met in order to impose a prohibition. He concluded that the provincial court judge had made no error “in holding that there can be a firearms prohibition without criminal conduct, a history of real or threatened violent behaviour or a documented mental disorder that leads to violence.”

This is also from the Court of Appeal for British Columbia. Firearms prohibitions can happen even without a history of violent behaviour or a documented mental disorder. It’s very subjective.

(5) R. v. Hurrell, 2002 CanLII 45007 (ON CA)

[48] Applying that reasoning to this case, I am satisfied that when the words “not desirable”, which in my view simply mean “not advisable”, are read in context, they can hardly be described as so subjective, vague and amorphous that they fail to provide an adequate basis for legal debate. The fact that language may be open to judicial interpretation does not render it impermissibly vague. Flexibility and vagueness are not synonymous: see Reference re Criminal Code, Sections 193 & 195.1(1)(c), 1990 CanLII 105 (SCC), [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1123 at p. 1156, 56 C.C.C. (3d) 65 at p. 89 and French Estate v. Ontario (Attorney General) (1998), 1998 CanLII 1771 (ON CA), 38 O.R. (3d) 347 at p. 361, 157 D.L.R. (4th) 144 (C.A.); application for leave to appeal dismissed, [1998] S.C.C.A. No. 139). Moreover, because s. 117.04(1) is procedural and does not carry with it the threat of a criminal record or imprisonment, the need for precision is diminished: see French, supra, at p. 363 O.R. Finally, to the extent that the police or the issuing justice need a framework within which to assess the “non-desirability/public interest” component of s. 117.04(1), Parliament itself has provided guidance in ss. 5(1) and (2) of the Firearms Act, S.C. 1995, c. 39. These provisions deal with the eligibility for holding a firearms licence and read as follows:

The Court of Appeal for Ontario ruled that the language used was not unconstitutionally vague. The Court does go on to explain what examples are provided, but they are not exhaustive.

These are just a few of the cases that were used as a basis to have Schill’s guns taken away. The list is provided below, though some rulings aren’t published online. The short version of this is that it can happen for nearly any reason, hearsay evidence may be used, and it’s a low burden of proof.

Schill may be the first person to have his firearms taken away because of his “association” with Jeremy MacKenzie and Diagolon. But he won’t be the last.

Next up: the Public Emergency Order Commission (PEOC) hearings.

SCHILL HEARING:
(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/oncj/doc/2024/2024oncj249/2024oncj249.html
(2) Evidence Of Officer Ernest Carmichael, Day 1
(3) Evidence Of Officer Ernest Carmichael, Day 2, Cross Examination

POEC HEARINGS:
(1) https://publicorderemergencycommission.ca/
(2) POEC Report, Volume 1: Overview
(3) Public Order Emergency Report Volume 1 Overview
(4) POEC Report, Volume 2: Analysis (Part 1)
(5) Public Order Emergency Report Volume 2 Analysis Part 1
(6) POEC Report, Volume 3: Analysis (Part 2)
(7) Public Order Emergency Report Volume 3 Analysis Part 2 Recommendations
(8) POEC Report, Volume 4: Process and Appendices
(9) Public Order Emergency Report Volume 4 Process And Appendices
(10) POEC Report, Part 5: Policy Papers
(11) Public Order Emergency Report Volume 5 Policy Papers

MOSLEY DECISION:
(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2024/2024fc42/2024fc42.html#par41

CASELAW ON REVOKING FIREARMS PERMITS:
(1) R. v. Zeolkowski, 1989 CanLII 72 (SCC), [1989] S.C.J. No. 50, at para 12, 16, 17, 18
(2) British Columbia (Chief Firearms Officer) v. Fahlman, 2004 BCCA 343, at para 25.
(3) R. v. Christiansen, 2006 BCCA 189, at para 7.
(4) R. v. Bokhari, 2009 ONCJ 691, at para 10, relying on R. v. Day, [2006] O.J. No. 3187 (S.C.J.) and R. v. Morgan, [1995] O.J. No. 18 (Ont.Ct.(Prov.Div.)).
(5) R. v. Peacock-McDonald, 2007 ONCA 128, at para 40
(6) R. v. Douglas, 2013 ONCJ 649, at paras 45, 57.
(7) R. v. Mourtzis, 2015 ONCJ 74, at para 25.
(8) R. v. Roman, 2018 ONCJ 344, at para 89.
(9) R. v. Hurrell, 2002 CanLII 45007 (ON CA), [2002] O.J. No. 2819, at para 48.
(10) R. v. Christiansen, supra, at para 7.
(11) Fahlman, supra, at para 25.
(12) R. v. Peacock-Macdonald, supra, at para 40.
(13) R. v. Roman, supra, at para 89.
(14) R. v. Wiles, 2005 SCC 84, at para 9.

Posted on

Diagolon Gun Grab, Part 3: The Carmichael Testimony (Cont’d)

This continues the testimony of Detective Constable Ernest Carmichael. Both Day 1 and Day 2 of the hearings are available, along with the ruling itself.

Why does this matter? Because police were successful back in May 2024 for an Application to have Gary Schill’s firearms and licence suspended for 5 years. See Part 1 and Part 2 for more background information. It was largely (though not entirely) due to his association with Jeremy MacKenzie and Diagolon.

Schill had faced a charge of assault causing bodily harm against his then wife, Jennifer McNeil. She was also charged with a lesser count against him. Both were eventually dropped. Nonetheless, the police were still able to get a firearms suspension for Schill.

It’s immediately obvious that the standards for an Application to suspend or revoke a gun permit are far lower than when someone faces a criminal charge. Speculation and hearsay are permitted a lot more. Instead of “beyond a reasonable doubt”, the police must only demonstrate “on a balance of probabilities”. The Judge also has wide discretion to deem such a ban to be “in the public interest”.

Carmichael entered into evidence a document which he claims (or speculates) shows a plot to steal fuel during the trucker convoy. He says this is likely to circumvent the fuel shortages that had been intentionally imposed.

As for hearsay being admitted into the hearing, this is noteworthy:

Carmichael testifed that Jennifer McNeil, Schill’s wife at the time, provided other information to law enforcement during her victim statement. Specifically, she said that Schill was part of Diagolon, part of a militia, and targeting military and law enforcement members for recruitment.

Interestingly, McNeil herself didn’t testify at the hearing. Only Carmichael did. In a regular Court proceeding, her statements would have been considered “hearsay” and deemed inadmissible. The Judge allowed this in, and it doesn’t appear to have been challenged.

Carmichael continues (on page 8).

In the very beginning, we weren’t 100 percent sure. The Freedom Convoy was quite organic and it, it began in Western Canada and transitioned across the, the country to Ottawa. As we understood it, there was going to be a convergence of vehicles, large trucks, arriving in Ottawa. I was involved in the project team that monitored the number of vehicles who would be attending, what the dynamic of the crowd would be, and trying to get an intelligence assessment of what the Freedom Convoy would look like once it arrived in Ottawa. Of concern to us was the presence and interest of most of Diagolon. Most members, because our investigation actually started prior to the Freedom Convoy.

We had the benefit of, of monitoring a lot of the individuals we were interested in, leading up to the Freedom Convoy and, subsequently, their travel to Ottawa. Our concern was obviously Diagolon had made their ideology quite well-known, from our perspective. They were preparing for a civil war. They had an appetite to overthrow the government and force the government to change their policies relating to the COVID-19 response. So our concern was that what had the potential to be a peaceful protest in Ottawa could evolve into a violent confrontation because of the extremist elements we knew of that would also be attending.

We had, we had a lot of examples of conversations that was happening leading up to the Freedom Convoy. The organizers themselves stated that they intended to stay in Ottawa until the government changed their position on the COVID-19 response. MacKenzie himself has spoken of civil war and encouraged his members to prepare for it.

They use a phrase often, which is, “Gun or rope.” And this implies that when civil war occurs, it’s going to be a Diagolon versus everybody response. And Diagolon’s – the way they, they would treat their enemies during this uprising or civil war would be – they, they would be afforded the option to be executed by firing squad or hung. So that was what the, the, “Gun or rope,” phrase often referred to. So there was a lot of examples of, of rhetoric like that leading up to the Freedom Convoy that, that indicated to us that these individuals had an appetite to arm themselves, prepare themselves and had an appetite for violent confrontation. In fact, I, I believe I quoted yesterday, one of the Ticker Tape messages on Jeremy MacKenzie’s podcast where he says, “You want blood, come and get it,” and then it was the, “Fuck you, make me.”

Remember all of those edgy podcast jokes and memes? Guess what? They’re being entered into evidence as legitimate threats to public safety. The police are actually doing it, and the Judge is taking it all seriously.

Here’s a thought: maybe rampant fed-posting wasn’t such a good idea.

Carmichael testifies that it wasn’t necessary to conduct direct surveillance on Diagolon itself during the trucker convoy. This was because so many people simply posted photos, videos and details online, police could simply monitor it.

He then references a video which he calls a “Diagolon meet up”, which include Schill, MacKenzie and several others.

Carmichael eventually gets into the arrests at Coutts, Alberta. One of them was Chris Lysak. It was apparently a joke that he was the “Head of Security for Diagolon”, given his size.

One of the ballistic vests seized apparently had 2 Diagolon flags on them.

Carmichael then goes on about the various meet-ups that had been arranged, and how the information was obtained by monitoring Telegram channels. Now this:

In preparation for this hearing, the Crown was required to provide disclosure to Schill. Specifically, Carmichael’s Affidavit was sent to him. For some reason, MacKenzie published portions of it on his Substack. This was used to help establish a direct connection.

Interestingly, Carmichael testifies that the authorities weren’t willing to pay for a subscription to MacKenzie’s Substack, which would have allowed them to view everything. They consider him a public threat, and spend large amounts of money monitoring Diagolon, but wouldn’t pay this nominal fee?

Carmichael also explains that police wanted to know exactly who was posting on Telegram — since most accounts were anonymous. Yes, the servers aren’t located within Canada. However, it doesn’t seem any real effort was put in to try. Or perhaps they did get in, but don’t want to disclose that.

Carmichael concedes that he doesn’t believe that everyone associated with Diagolon is a terrorist or an extremist. He says that there is a broad range of people who are attached in some way.

Carmichael then goes on to speculate at length about how he believes Diagolon has simply “gone underground” given the attention they’ve received. Without really providing evidence or support, he claims that it’s still a threat to the public.

On cross-examination from Schill’s Amicus Counsel (starting at page 25) Carmichael reiterates that he’s been monitoring the Telegram chats constantly. Even on his off days he often listens to podcasts. In his notes, he states that he has listened to at least 38 episodes.

Of course, this doesn’t include what other members of intelligence or law enforcement have been listening to.

It’s fascinating how such a bad spin is put on these things. “Get offline and find your friends” is a legitimate goal, in that the online world doesn’t reflect reality. However, it’s being construed to mean the formation of militias for the purpose of causing violence and civil unrest.

In some sense, Schill’s Amicus Counsel actually seems to have done more harm than good. He gets Carmichael to explain new things — such as cutting down towers to stop 5G — that weren’t previously testified to.

Carmichael then goes on about the risk that “fed posting” causes. He says that Diagolon members fear being entrapped by someone saying overtly illegal things. This, he concludes, has caused them to go offline a lot more, and to be more guarded in their speech.

Carmichael admits that there’s no reference to “military style shooting” in the chats he’s reviewed. This implies that it was simply his interpretation. Nonetheless, this sort of this was allowed into evidence.

Carmichael also concedes that Schill himself didn’t participate in the conversations about bush craft of firearms tactics. Moreover, he concludes that he didn’t have grounds to support the conclusion that Schill was involved with terrorism or sedition.

Carmichael concedes that there’s no evidence Schill ever went to a so-called “Diagolon meet up”. He admits that no surveillance on Schill’s residence concluded otherwise.

The topic of the arrest for domestic violence is discussed. Again, the charge was dropped at the time of this hearing.

The Crown briefly reexamines Carmichael, who testifies that they found ammunition at Schill’s residence that wasn’t compatible with any of his legally obtained firearms.

Ultimately, Justice Robinson does grant the Application, and issues a 5 year prohibition for Schill. He refuses to allow any exemptions, including for a crossbow for hunting.

He cites the Public Emergency Order Commission (PEOC) Report from Paul Rouleau as well. It states that: “[l]aw enforcement and intelligence agencies view Diagolon as a militia-like extremist organization.”

Unfortunately, too many people post without having any understanding of what’s been going on. The Emergencies Act wasn’t invoked because of a meme, and the “Hate Gate” emails didn’t clear anyone. The PEOC Report was referenced in the decision to take Schill’s firearms and licence.

Even though Diagolon isn’t listed as a terrorist entity, and despite no evidence Schill was involved in terrorism or sedition, Schill’s firearms were taken away anyway. Yes, his assault charge had been dropped, but that wasn’t enough.

The standard for revoking or suspending firearms is actually quite low, and can be done for nearly any reason. This will be addressed in the next part.

SCHILL HEARING:
(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/oncj/doc/2024/2024oncj249/2024oncj249.html
(2) Evidence Of Officer Ernest Carmichael, Day 1
(3) Evidence Of Officer Ernest Carmichael, Day 2, Cross Examination

POEC HEARINGS:
(1) https://publicorderemergencycommission.ca/
(2) POEC Report, Volume 1: Overview
(3) Public Order Emergency Report Volume 1 Overview
(4) POEC Report, Volume 2: Analysis (Part 1)
(5) Public Order Emergency Report Volume 2 Analysis Part 1
(6) POEC Report, Volume 3: Analysis (Part 2)
(7) Public Order Emergency Report Volume 3 Analysis Part 2 Recommendations
(8) POEC Report, Volume 4: Process and Appendices
(9) Public Order Emergency Report Volume 4 Process And Appendices
(10) POEC Report, Part 5: Policy Papers
(11) Public Order Emergency Report Volume 5 Policy Papers

MOSLEY DECISION:
(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2024/2024fc42/2024fc42.html#par41