Category: Miscellaneous

Posted on

Federal Court Strikes Claim By Coast Guard Worker Over Pay Issues, Cites Lack Of Jurisdiction

A member of the Canadian Coast Guard, Jennifer Horsman has had her challenge thrown out of the Federal Court, and lack of jurisdiction is cited.

This isn’t a case about being forced to take the clot-shots, but it’s still interesting. In August 2022, her employer claimed that she had been overpaid nearly $9,000, the remainder of a larger amount that was supposedly owed. Horsman says she kept her own records of all dates and shifts and contested the demand. This caused financial hardship.

She also tried to seek union representation, but was denied.

Despite attempts to resolve this internally, Horsman was unsuccessful. She eventually ended up suing the Government in March 2023 to resolve this, and here’s where it takes a turn.

Ottawa brought a Rule 221 Motion to Strike (throw out) the lawsuit on the grounds that the Court had no jurisdiction to hear the case at all.

Looking at Sections 208 and 236 of the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act, FPSLRA:

Individual Grievances
Presentation
Right of employee
.
208 (1) Subject to subsections (2) to (7), an employee is entitled to present an individual grievance if he or she feels aggrieved
.
(a) by the interpretation or application, in respect of the employee, of
.
(i) a provision of a statute or regulation, or of a direction or other instrument made or issued by the employer, that deals with terms and conditions of employment, or
.
(ii) a provision of a collective agreement or an arbitral award; or
.
(b) as a result of any occurrence or matter affecting his or her terms and conditions of employment.

Section 208 then goes on to list a series of conditions and limitations.

Disputes relating to employment
.
236 (1) The right of an employee to seek redress by way of grievance for any dispute relating to his or her terms or conditions of employment is in lieu of any right of action that the employee may have in relation to any act or omission giving rise to the dispute.

Application
(2) Subsection (1) applies whether or not the employee avails himself or herself of the right to present a grievance in any particular case and whether or not the grievance could be referred to adjudication.

Taken together, it seems laid out that Federal workers have the rights to file grievances, but they have no real right to take their problems to Court.

This ruling confirms the Adelberg decision, a high profile ruling in February 2023 that permanently ended the cases of over 400 Federal workers. Another 200 workers of Federally regulated industries had a setback as well, since the pleading was so poorly drafted.

Adelberg was also cited by a former RCMP worker, whose case was struck because of the FPSLRA.

Lesson in here: members of the Federal Government, as well as most unionized employers, have no guaranteed right to go to Court. There’s almost always a grievance or arbitration requirement.

If there’s any consolation here, it’s that the person wasn’t ordered to pay any costs. Yes, the Attorney General asked, but the Judge declined. She also didn’t waste many thousands of dollars hiring a lawyer to get the exact same result. Still, she has guts for at least attempting this.

(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2023/2023fc929/2023fc929.html
(2) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2023/2023fc929/2023fc929.pdf
(3) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/regu/sor-98-106/latest/sor-98-106.html
(4) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/sc-2003-c-22-s-2/latest/sc-2003-c-22-s-2.html
(5) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2023/2023fc252/2023fc252.html
(6) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2023/2023fc280/2023fc280.html

Posted on

5 Years Later: No Constitution Or Leadership Race For Bernier And PPC

It’s time to mention it again: the epicentre of “dissident” politics in Canada still doesn’t have even a basic framework in place, despite being launched 5 years ago. There are no governing documents whatsoever to outline how this organization will be managed.

Conveniently, there’s no way to force Bernier out either.

Interestingly, when this fact is pointed out to supporters, they indignantly point to “the platform”. Others may go off on a tirade about how establishment structures invite corruption. Apparently, allegations of the CPC being corrupt — whether true or not — is reason to abolish any sort of internal controls.

Some also point to an online vote following the 2021 Federal election. This doesn’t replace an actual leadership convention, with competing ideas and candidates. Heck, even the Communist Party of Canada is more democratic in structure.

It’s beyond obvious by this point that it was never intended to be any sort of a real party. Instead, this is a money-pit to suck up the cash of otherwise agnostic Canadians. But at $104,000 per year, plus whatever benefits are included, it’s lucrative.

Many theories have been floated as to why this “party” was launched, if there was no goal to make it a viable contender. These include:

(a) Spite and/or revenge
(b) Ego
(c) Grifting

While all are possible, there is another way to look at this. One of the arguments that supporters make is that they can’t stand the “LibCon” establishment. While valid, how does this help? How does forming an imitation of a political party upend things? It doesn’t. If anything, it helps to entrench the status quo by sucking out any energy and money that may have been better used.

But then, this may just be a cynical take.

Remember to donate!

(1) https://www.peoplespartyofcanada.ca/
(2) https://www.bitchute.com/video/48wpxl42BEdK/
(3) https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/maxime-bernier-leadership-party-review-1.6274329
(4) https://www.bitchute.com/video/pFiBwmcHolxk/
(5) https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/peoples-party-canada-maxime-bernier-1.5695908

Posted on

Some Thoughts On The Fine Line Between Awakening And Demoralizing

This piece is going to be different than what’s normally covered.

The above meme is of Yuri Bezmenov, a Soviet defector. He became famous decades ago for his talks on subversion and demoralization. Even when presented with hard evidence, demoralized people can be unable to see reality. Videos are widely available online.

A criticism that often comes up here is that it’s unproductive to expose a problem without proposing an alternative to it. At some point, trying to wake up a group of people devolves into depression and demoralization, where there’s no obvious solution to anything. Even when alternatives exist on paper, they seem completely impractical to implement.

Another comparison may be between “red-pilling” v.s. “black-pilling”.

A common instance where this comes up is with the problem-reaction-solution scenarios, or the Hegelian Dialectic. This is when it seems that the outcomes are prearranged, and to a degree, they are. It’s challenging to accept answers if it looks planned in advance.

What issues are important? Take a look around this site, and see what things are addressed.

There is a valid point to the notion that harsh doses of reality are needed. In order to come to sensible conclusions, it’s important to know just how bad a problem is. Sugar coating the depth of an issue does nothing to properly correct it. Is there any obligation to offer an alternative, or is pointing out the truth enough on its own?

But the flip side is that completely destroying people’s spirits by showing the depth of a situation may not be that helpful. Outlining in vivid detail how hopeless a situation is will be soul crushing. What’s the point of demonstrating the ugly truth if everyone feels powerless to fix it? Doesn’t draining the will to fight effectively lead to their defeat?

Reality and hopium cannot exist separately. At some point, we need both.

So, where do we draw the line?

I don’t have a clear answer to this, and don’t know if anyone does. Being a truther means going down all kinds of rabbit holes, and discovering incredible things. However, there are undeniable consequences for people who get into this. Constantly being suspicious of everything and everyone gets very tiring. It’s extremely time consuming and not a good way to live.

Anyhow, these are just some random thoughts on the subject.

As always, feedback is appreciated.

Posted on

A Look At Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Arguments

This piece will be a bit different. A case from a decade ago has helped bring a particular type of vexatious litigant to the public’s consciousness: Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument (OPCA) litigants.

A bit of a disclaimer: this isn’t to suggest that everyone who employs such techniques does so for an underhanded purpose. There are true believers out there.

The case referenced is Meads v. Meads, 2012 ABQB 571 (CanLII). The facts themselves aren’t really as interesting as the background research that has been done in preparing this ruling. It contains a wealth of information from tactics and habits of such OPCA. litigants. While there is typically some truth in what they espouse, it’s rarely the full story.

[1] This Court has developed a new awareness and understanding of a category of vexatious litigant. As we shall see, while there is often a lack of homogeneity, and some individuals or groups have no name or special identity, they (by their own admission or by descriptions given by others) often fall into the following descriptions: Detaxers; Freemen or Freemen-on-the-Land; Sovereign Men or Sovereign Citizens; Church of the Ecumenical Redemption International (CERI); Moorish Law; and other labels – there is no closed list. In the absence of a better moniker, I have collectively labelled them as Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument litigants [“OPCA litigants”], to functionally define them collectively for what they literally are. These persons employ a collection of techniques and arguments promoted and sold by ‘gurus’ (as hereafter defined) to disrupt court operations and to attempt to frustrate the legal rights of governments, corporations, and individuals.

[2] Over a decade of reported cases have proven that the individual concepts advanced by OPCA litigants are invalid. What remains is to categorize these schemes and concepts, identify global defects to simplify future response to variations of identified and invalid OPCA themes, and develop court procedures and sanctions for persons who adopt and advance these vexatious litigation strategies.

[3] One participant in this matter, the Respondent Dennis Larry Meads, appears to be a sophisticated and educated person, but is also an OPCA litigant. One of the purposes of these Reasons is, through this litigant, to uncover, expose, collate, and publish the tactics employed by the OPCA community, as a part of a process to eradicate the growing abuse that these litigants direct towards the justice and legal system we otherwise enjoy in Alberta and across Canada. I will respond on a point-by-point basis to the broad spectrum of OPCA schemes, concepts, and arguments advanced in this action by Mr. Meads.

While one can make valid arguments that Canadian laws are grossly insufficient or inadequate, that is not entirely the point with OPCA litigants. Instead, they allege that laws don’t apply. That can be very dangerous when it comes to institutions like the Canada Revenue Agency.

Unsurprisingly, there has been a surge of people who’ve lost faith in the judicial process in the last few years. There’s good reason for that, and it’s tempting to give these arguments another look.

[71] OPCA strategies as brought before this Court have proven disruptive, inflict unnecessary expenses on other parties, and are ultimately harmful to the persons who appear in court and attempt to invoke these vexatious strategies. Because of the nonsense they argue, OPCA litigants are invariably unsuccessful and their positions dismissed, typically without written reasons. Nevertheless, their litigation abuse continues. The growing volume of this kind of vexatious litigation is a reason why these Reasons suggest a strong response to curb this misconduct.

[72] Beyond that, these are little more than scams that abuse legal processes. As this Court now recognizes that these schemes are intended for that purpose, a strict approach is appropriate when the Court responds to persons who purposefully say they stand outside the rules and law, or who intend to abuse, disrupt, and ultimately break the legal processes that govern conduct in Canada. The persons who advance these schemes, and particularly those who market and sell these concepts as commercial products, are parasites that must be stopped.

By selling commercial products, this typically refers to seminars or guidebooks on how to assert certain rights and avoid consequences. The courts view this as exploiting vulnerable people.

Starting at paragraph 99, the ruling lists other Canadian “gurus”, including:

  • David Kevin Lindsay
  • John Ruiz Dempsey
  • Robert Arthur Menard
  • Eldon Gerald Warman
  • David J. Lavigne
  • Edward Jay Robin Belanger

Such OPCA litigants are often seen as busybodies in the Courts. Many have been declared “vexatious litigants” for repeatedly initiating (and often appealing) baseless proceedings. While the techniques employed are interesting — as an observer — it’s hard to argue against the allegation that they seem designed to frustrate the function of Courts.

There’s no question that the courts in Canada are lacking in many ways. However, the techniques employed by OPCA litigants have essentially a zero percent success rate. Certainly, don’t pay them for their “services”.

Would society be better off if we were sovereign citizens and exempt from taxes and licenses? Certainly there’s a case to be made for that. However, Courts have never upheld this.

(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abqb/doc/2012/2012abqb571/2012abqb571.html
(2) https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abqb/doc/2012/2012abqb571/2012abqb571.pdf
(3) https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcca/doc/2007/2007bcca165/2007bcca165.html

Posted on

4 Years Later, No Constitution, Votes Or Governing Documents

On a more light hearted note today: it’s time to troll and trigger some people. The 4th anniversary since the PPC’s launch is fast approaching.

The “People’s Party” name and its communist implications are actually quite appropriate. There’s nothing about this organization that’s member controlled, or grassroots. There’s no democracy whatsoever, but then again, there’s really not a party.

One can speculate about Bernier’s motivations, but it’s been clear for a long time that this was never meant to be any sort of long lasting organization. It lacks even a basic structure.

This “party” was announced in the summer of 2018, and since then:
-No leadership race
-No votes on internal positions
-No policy votes
-No constitution
-No other governing documents

Just a bit of advice: you probably shouldn’t say that drafting a constitution isn’t as difficult as negotiating Brexit. Sharon will take that as grounds to block you.

While lack of time may have been quasi valid for the 2019 race, it isn’t anymore. There’s simply no reason no to have proper structure in place by now. It’s also worth noting that this “party” can simply be shut down at any time, for no reason, without notice of any kind of mandate. It’s not like there’s a constitution to protect members.

The closest thing to a leadership race was an online “review” in late 2021. However, that’s not the same as holding a real contest. Also, it’s interesting to note there were allegedly some 27,000 members at the some. In 2019, there were over 41,000. Guess the numbers plummeted after the 2018 free passes expired.

Of course, it doesn’t help when dozens of the EDAs get shut down for not filing mandatory financial disclosures. There’s only so much good that “spin” can do.

As for the rant in the video, this is some crackhead logic at its finest. The idea seems to be that this party shouldn’t bother with a constitution because some other party has corrupt processes. Even if it’s true Scheer rigged the 2017 race (who knows?) that’s not a reason not to implement better safeguards here.

It’s sad because a lot of good people do get caught up in this. However, a hard reality check is required at some point.

Cultists have yet to offer any reasonable explanation why there’s no governing documents. Detractors (often CPC supporters) can’t really back up the “vote split” argument. The differences between CPC and LPC are cosmetic, so it doesn’t really matter who wins.

Also, should the “freedom movement” be led by a man who openly says that he recommends vaxxing his own father? Perhaps this isn’t controlled, but it does show cluelessness.

It’s been said that Liberals and Conservatives are 2 wings of the same bird. While true, that misses the bigger picture. Birds have legs, a tail, and a head, correct?

Anyhow, get out and vote harder!

(1) https://twitter.com/TransSplendor/status/1406969212757753859
(2) https://twitter.com/TransSplendor/status/1407309499308908558
(3) https://twitter.com/Babylon_Beaver/status/1407240058621497345
(4) https://www.peoplespartyofcanada.ca/
(5) https://www.bcrise.com/news/peoples-party-of-canada-leadership-review-results-are-in/

Posted on

Unpopular Opinion: If You “DO” Vote, You Don’t Have The Right To Complain

It’s a widely repeated mantra among many that “If you don’t vote, you don’t have the right to complain”. The logic seems to be that citizens aren’t allowed to criticize the state of affairs unless they cast a ballot for someone. Apparently, taking a principled stance in not supporting anyone is grounds to limit the ability to comment.

However, many of these same irate voters will express frustration and disillusionment with their choices within 6 months to 3 years. That said, it won’t stop people from endorsing the same people again and again. After all, the alternative is worse, right?

While this would certainly apply to Ontario — which has an election in June — the same principles are valid at all levels of Government.

This raises the interesting question: should people who voted for a dishonest and mediocre candidate have the right to complain afterwards?

Certainly, there will be claims that the voters had no idea that so-and-so would be so deceitful. Is that true though? Would a reasonable amount of due diligence have led to the conclusion that certain people can’t be trusted? Given that we are now in the internet era, it’s easier than ever to do background checks on the people running for office.

In fairness, the average person had no idea about this “pandemic” hoax that would be launched a few years ago. Still, this is a problem that goes much further back.

Take a look through any social media site. People will say they are voting for a person, not because they like or trust them, but because the alternative is worse. A great number also struggle to give any coherent reason as to why they are doing it. Using Ford as a specific example, Twitter is filled with people pledging to vote for the man who destroyed their Province — because Horwath and Del Duca would be much worse.

As lame a “journalist” as Brian Lilley is, he unfortunately sums up the right-wing quite well in Ontario, and Canada more broadly. Mindless sheep vote en masse for someone they KNOW will continue to wreck society. Ford brought in mask mandates, vaccine passports, issued stay-at-home orders, shut down entire sectors of business, ruined school for children, etc…. and he may very well get RE-ELECTED.

In the 2021 Federal election, millions voted for the Conservative Party of Canada. This came in spite of them being subsidized by Trudeau, and running on a PRO-vaccine passport agenda.

Support isn’t limited to real parties either. One would think that a “party” that doesn’t elect its leader, have a constitution, or vote on policies would be a cause for concern. After all, it’s been 4 years. Sadly, some simply cannot be reasoned with.

Take the U.K. as another example: Boris Johnson claimed (when running to replace Theresa May) that he would slash immigration to the “tens of thousands”. However, all it takes is a quick search to know that he supported amnesty for hundreds of thousands of illegals, while acting as Mayor of London.

In reality, it’s quite easy to check out candidates who are running for office. This is especially true if they’ve had a career in politics. Very few actually do it though.

Back to the premise of the article: if someone has no interest in performing any due diligence on the people who want to run their municipalities, provinces, or country, do they have the right to complain? Moreover, when the politician they helped install breaks all promises, are the voters not complicit in helping them?

If you vote for someone — while ignoring all of the warning signs — you are an accomplice to whatever destructive policies they may enact. As such, you don’t have the right to complain.

Here’s another unpopular opinion: universal voting is a bad idea. If someone can’t be bothered to do their homework on what they’re voting for, it’s detrimental to allow them access.

Update: As mentioned below, some countries, like Australia, make voting mandatory. With that in mind, it wouldn’t be fair to treat that the same way, if force is applied. The article was designed with Canada in mind, which doesn’t have such requirements.

%d bloggers like this: