Bit Of History: Galati/Trudeau Put Rights Of Terrorists Over Canadians


(From Canuck Politics. Although a political ad, this one is entirely truthful, and worth a mention.)

Rocco Galati and Justin Trudeau both believe it’s a human right for foreigners who obtain Canadian citizenship to retain that citizenship, even after being convicted of terrorism or treason offences. Although Galati lost that court challenge, Justin Trudeau would “correct” it anyway, by implementing Bill C-6.

Simply holding a Canadian passport doesn’t make you a Canadian, except in a civic sense. Terrorists and traitors, however, don’t even deserve that.

1. Islam, Terrorism, Religious Violence

Check this series for more information on the religion of peace. Tolerance of intolerance is being forced on the unwilling public. Included are efforts to crack down on free speech, under the guise of “religious tolerance”.

2. Galati Defending Terrorists’ “Rights”

CLICK HERE, for Galati claiming to have received threats.
CLICK HERE, for $10.5 million payout to Khadr.
CLICK HERE, for Galati defending citizenship for terrorists.

https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fca/doc/2001/2001canlii22177/2001canlii22177.html
https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2003/2003fc928/2003fc928.html
galati.easier.bail.for.terrorists.2006canlii24454
galati.terrorist.citizenship.2015fc91

3. Challenging Security Certificates (2001)

Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Mahjoub, 2001 CanLII 22177 (FCA)
https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fca/doc/2001/2001canlii22177/2001canlii22177.html

[7] In my view, the real issue is whether the designated judge in a s. 40.1 hearing has jurisdiction to grant the remedy sought. Section 40.1(4)(d) states that the designated judge shall “determine whether the certificate filed by the Minister and the Solicitor General is reasonable on the basis of the evidence and the information available to the Chief justice or the designated judge, as the case may be, and, if found not to be reasonable, quash the certificate”. In Re Baroud, Denault, J., found that the role of this court is neither to substitute its decision for that of the Minister and the Solicitor General, nor to find that they were correct in their assessment of the evidence. Rather, the designated judge must determine, based on the evidence presented to him or her, whether the Ministers’ decision to issue the certificate is reasonable.

[8] Does the assessment of reasonableness, pursuant to s. 40.1(4)(d), include as assessment of whether upholding the certificate would breach the applicant’s constitutional rights? I do not find that it does. In my view, reasonableness and constitutionality are distinct issues. Reasonableness involves an evaluation of the evidence to determine if it supports the Ministers’ decision; constitutionality is a more in-depth assessment of the applicant’s constitutional rights. In my view, a plain reading of s. 40.1(4)(d) gives the designated judge jurisdiction only to consider the reasonableness of the certificate. If Parliament had intended the designated judge to consider the validity of the certificate, including its constitutionality, the section could have been so drafted.

[9] My decision that the designated judge does not have jurisdiction to consider Charter matters is further supported by the fact that there is no appeal from the decision of the designated judge. Section 40.1(6) states:
.
“A determination under paragraph (4)(d) is not subject to appeal or review by any court”.
.
By expressly prohibiting further appeal or review, Parliament reinforced the notion that proceedings under s. 40.1 of the Immigration Act are intended only to consider whether the Ministers’ decision to issue the certificate is reasonable on the basis of the available evidence.

[15] Although I initially had doubts regarding Cullen J.’s conclusion, I am now satisfied that his conclusion is the correct one. I find support for Cullen J.’s conclusion in the Federal Court of Appeal’s decision in Suresh v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)(1998), 229 N.R. 240. The issue before the Court of Appeal was whether a judge designated under subsections 40.1(8) and (9) of the Act had jurisdiction to hear constitutional issues that arose from an order made by a judge pursuant to subsection 40.1(9) of the Act.

This appeal concerned the constitutionality of the security certificates issued by the government. The limit scope of the appeals was over whether the decisions handed down were reasonable or not.

4. Bringing Back The Khadrs (2002 to ….)

Galati, decided to stop representing terrorists in late 2003. It wasn’t because he saw the practice as wrong. Instead, it was due to alleged death threats. One of his clients was Abdurahman Khadr, brother of Omar Khadr.

Omar Khadr himself, would eventually receive $10.5 million from taxpayers, due to “alleged” abuses and human rights violations at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

5. Causing Delays To Justify Release (2003)

Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Mahjoub, 2003 FC 928 (CanLII), [2004] 1 FCR 493
https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2003/2003fc928/2003fc928.html

As to the first part of the test, the reference to a period of 120 days in subsection 84(2) reflects Parliament’s intent that once a certificate has been determined to be reasonable, the person named in the certificate should be removed expeditiously. In the present case, Mahjoub has been detained for slightly over three years and it has been 21 months since the certificate was upheld. However, by requiring as one of the criteria for release that the Court consider whether removal will or will not take place within a reasonable time, Parliament has contemplated that in some circumstances, removal will not have occurred within 120 days, but the period of detention may still be a reasonable period. Otherwise, release after 120 days would be automatic, absent considerations of national security or the safety of persons. What in any particular case will be reasonable will depend upon the facts and circumstances of that case. Any uncertainty about when Mahjoub may be removed resulted from two significant circumstances: (i) Court proceedings which he has initiated or will initiate; and (ii) concerns as to whether Mahjoub faces a risk of torture or death if he is removed to Egypt. With respect to the first circumstance, while it was Mahjoub’s right to exhaust all avenues of legal recourse, the time required for those challenges could not be relied upon for the purpose of arguing that he will not be removed within a reasonable time. As to the second circumstance, the Supreme Court of Canada affirmed in Suresh that, absent extraordinary circumstances, deportation to torture will generally violate the principles of fundamental justice protected by section 7 of the Charter. Thus, generally, as a matter of law, the Minister should decline to deport Convention refugees where there is a substantial risk of torture.

[6]The position of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS), as stated in the summary, is that it believes that Mr. Mahjoub is a high-ranking member of an Egyptian Islamic terrorist organization, the Vanguards of Conquest, a radical wing of the Egyptian Islamic Jihad or Al Jihad. According to CSIS, Al Jihad is one of the groups which split from Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood in the 1970’s to form a more extremist and militant organization. Al Jihad, according to CSIS, advocates the use of violence as a means of establishing an Islamic state in Egypt.

[7]The summary provided to Mr. Mahjoub set out, to the extent consistent with national security and the safety of persons, CSIS’s grounds for believing that Mr. Mahjoub will, while in Canada, engage in or instigate the subversion by force of the Gov ernment of Egypt, and that he is a member of an organization that there are reasonable grounds to believe was and is engaged in terrorism, and which will engage in subversion by force against the Government of Egypt. The summary also set out the Service’s grounds to believe that Mr. Mahjoub had engaged in terrorism.

[8]An open hearing was held before Mr. Justice Nadon from February 26, 2001 to March 8, 2001 for the purpose of providing to Mr. Mahjoub a reasonable opportunity to be heard with respect to the certificate. Submissions were made by counsel to Mr. Justice Nadon on May 8, 2001. On October 5, 2001 [2001 FCT 1095 (CanLII), [2001] 4 F.C. 644 (T.D.)], Mr. Justice Nadon determined that, on the basis of the evidence and information available to him, the certificate filed by the Ministers is reasonable.

[9]On March 25, 2002 [[2002] I.Adj.D.D. No. 5 (QL)], the Adjudication Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board found Mr. Mahjoub to be inadmissible, based on the security certificate. A deportation order was therefore issued.

[68]With respect to membership in the Vanguards of Conquest and/or Al Jihad, Mr. Justice Nadon found that:
.
1. Mr. Mahjoub perjured himself when he denied knowing Mr. Marzouk.
.
2. Mr. Mahjoub was not truthful with respect to his connection with Mr. Al Duri.
.
3. Mr. Mahjoub was not truthful with respect to the use of his alias “Mahmoud Shaker” to CSIS agents.
.
4. Mr. Mahjoub was not truthful regarding his true activities while he worked in the Sudan for Osama bin Laden.
.
5. Mr. Mahjoub was initially untruthful when he was interviewed by CSIS and he denied knowing Mr. Ahmad Said Khadr.

In addition to lying in his earlier application, a defense was raised that human rights had been violated, since the deportation order hadn’t taken place within 120 days (4 months). However, that falls flat when it’s pointed out that the Applicant tried other legal means to stay in Canada.

6. Easier For Terrorists To Obtain Bail (2006)

R. v. Ghany, 2006 CanLII 24454 (ON SC)
https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2006/2006canlii24454/2006canlii24454.pdf

[5] The applicants submit that s. 83.01 offences are “akin, of the same class and indistinguishable from offences included in s. 469 of the Criminal Code, and therefore within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Superior Court of Justice. They argue that on the allegations as disclosed to date, “some of the allegations cited constitute, or may constitute, treason and/or intimidating Parliament or attempts thereunder”. Further, the applicants submit the nature and content of terrorism charges are “either subsets or specific instances of s. 469 offences or indistinguishably akin to them”.

[29] The fact that some of the offences under s. 83.01 involve elements of other offences does not assist the applicants. For example, another count of the information charges two accused with importing a firearm and prohibited ammunition contrary to s. 103 of the Criminal Code for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with a terrorist group, thereby committing an offence contrary to s. 83.2 of the Criminal Code. Doing so does not turn those offences into s. 469 offences. Section 103 is not covered by s. 469.

[36] The applicants further submit that their s. 15 Charter rights are impacted by this constitutional omission. Mr. Galati argues that having these offences “against the Canadian state tried by provincially appointed “lower magistrates” infringes sections 7 and 15 of the Charter, as well as infringing the pre-amble to the Constitution Act, 1982 in placing offences against the Canadian state before provincially appointed “lower magistrates and justices”. Finally, they submit that s. 469 “offers certain procedural and judicial benefits and protections for the accused” which mitigates in favour of having “the highest judicial scrutiny, and review by exclusive jurisdiction at first instance”. In regard to the contention that the cases are being “tried” in the Ontario Court of Justice, the issue on this application is the forum of the bail hearings.

In short, Galati wanted his client (who was charged with Section 83 — terrorism — offences), to have the court view them in the same manner as Section 469 offences. This would make it mandatory that bail hearings be held by the Superior Court of Justice in Ontario. Thus it would remove the discretion for the Lower Court to conduct it. Galati admits that the reason behind it is that he figures it will be easier for his client to get bail.

7. Bill C-24, Deport Dual National Terrorists

https://www.parl.ca/LegisInfo/BillDetails.aspx?Language=E&billId=6401990

(8) The portion of subsection 3(3) of the Act before paragraph (b) is replaced by the following:
.
(3) Paragraphs (1)(b), (f) to (j), (q) and (r) do not apply to a person born outside Canada
(a) if, at the time of his or her birth, only one of the person’s parents was a citizen and that parent was a citizen under paragraph (1)(b), (c.1), (e), (g), (h), (o), (p), (q) or (r) or both of the person’s parents were citizens under any of those paragraphs;
.
(a.1) if the person was born before January 1, 1947 and, on that day, only one of the person’s parents was a citizen and that parent was a citizen under paragraph (1)(o) or (q), or both of the person’s parents were citizens under either of those paragraphs; (a.2) if the person was born before April 1, 1949 and, on that day, only one of the person’s parents was a citizen and that parent was a citizen under paragraph (1)(p) or (r), or both of the person’s parents were citizens under either of those paragraphs; or

This provision would allow for Canada to strip away the Canadian citizenship of a foreign-born person convicted of terrorism or treason, if citizenship elsewhere was an option.

8. Fighting Deportation Of Terrorists (2015)

Galati v. Canada (Governor General), 2015 FC 91 (CanLII), [2015] 4 FCR 3
https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2015/2015fc91/2015fc91.pdf

I. Overview
[1] The applicants seek to set aside the decision of His Excellency The Right Honourable David Johnston Governor General of Canada on June 19, 2014 to grant royal assent to Bill C-24, the Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act, SC 2014, c 22 (Strengthening Citizenship Act).

[2] Section 8 of the Strengthening Citizenship Act amends the Citizenship Act, RSC 1985, c C-29 (Citizenship Act). The amendments allow the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to revoke the citizenship of natural-born and naturalized Canadian citizens where a citizen has a conviction relating to national security or terrorism. These convictions include treason under section 47 of the Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46 (subsection 10(2)(a) of the Citizenship Act); a terrorism offence as defined in section 2 of the Criminal Code (subsection 10(2)(b) of the Citizenship Act) and certain offences under the National Defence Act, RSC 1985, c N-5 and the Security of Information Act, RSC 1985, c O-5. Where the citizen holds, or could have a right to dual nationality, the Strengthening Citizenship Act provides for the revocation of citizenship and designation of that individual as a foreign national, which may lead to deportation from Canada.

[99] Given these principles, it is clear that Parliament must enjoy exclusive and unqualified legislative competence over citizenship, subject only to constraints of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

VI. Conclusion
[100] The application for judicial review is dismissed. The matter in respect of which judicial review is sought, the decision to grant royal assent, is a legislative act and not justiciable. The respondents are not federal boards exercising a power or jurisdiction conferred under an act of Parliament. In any event, the substantive argument with respect to constitutionality of the Strengthening Citizenship Act fails. Section 8 of the Strengthening Citizenship Act is within the legislative competence of Parliament.

JUDGMENT
.
THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is that the application is dismissed, with costs. If parties cannot agree on the amount of costs, submissions of no more than five pages in length may be made within 10 days from the date of this decision.

Although this application was thrown out, Trudeau would soon be elected, making this all a non-issue. Still, it’s absurd beyond belief that foreigners who come to Canada only to engage in these crimes should have people fighting for their rights.

9. Trudeau Liberals Introduce Bill C-6 (2016)

In early 2016, the Trudeau Government introduced Bill C-6, to remove the requirement that foreign born dual nationals be deported if convicted of terrorism or treason. In short, Trudeau did in the legislature what Rocco Galati failed to accomplish in Federal Court.

10. Rights Of Canadians Don’t Matter

Lawyers have a well deserved reputation for being scum, and these are just a few examples of it. Societal norms and protections are undermined under the pretense of “rights” for people who enter Canada with the intention of doing harm.

Just as bad are the lobbyists, politicians, NGOs, and others who undermine our laws to let these people in. Islam is not compatible with a Western Society, and we should not make any effort to accommodate it.

Foreign NGOs should not be allowed to influence laws and policies in Canada. For that matter, foreigners shouldn’t be allowed to hold public office — because their loyalty will always be divided.

Some Standards And Tests Courts Apply In Cases

In case you ever want to take the Government to court, or are just morbidly curious about how things work. Here are some standards that get applied in actual cases.

https://www.canlii.org/

1. Legal Process In Canada

For more information in various processes, check out this series. Some useful tidbits for the average person.

2. Standard For Review (Appeals)

The standard of review for findings of fact is such that they cannot be reversed unless the trial judge has made a “palpable and overriding error”. The same degree of deference must be paid to inferences of fact, since many of the reasons for showing deference to the factual findings of the trial judge apply equally to all factual conclusions. The standard of review for inferences of fact is not to verify that the inference can reasonably be supported by the findings of fact of the trial judge, but whether the trial judge made a palpable and overriding error in coming to a factual conclusion based on accepted facts, a stricter standard. Making a factual conclusion of any kind is inextricably linked with assigning weight to evidence, and thus attracts a deferential standard of review. If there is no palpable and overriding error with respect to the underlying facts that the trial judge relies on to draw the inference, then it is only where the inference‑drawing process itself is palpably in error that an appellate court can interfere with the factual conclusion.

Questions of mixed fact and law involve the application of a legal standard to a set of facts. Where the question of mixed fact and law at issue is a finding of negligence, it should be deferred to by appellate courts, in the absence of a legal or palpable and overriding error. Requiring a standard of “palpable and overriding error” for findings of negligence made by either a trial judge or a jury reinforces the proper relationship between the appellate and trial court levels and accords with the established standard of review applicable to a finding of negligence by a jury. Where the issue on appeal involves the trial judge’s interpretation of the evidence as a whole, it should not be overturned absent palpable and overriding error. A determination of whether or not the standard of care was met by the defendant involves the application of a legal standard to a set of facts, a question of mixed fact and law, and is thus subject to a standard of palpable and overriding error, unless it is clear that the trial judge made some extricable error in principle with respect to the characterization of the standard or its application, in which case the error may amount to an error of law, subject to a standard of correctness.

FACTUAL FINDINGS: Overriding, palpable errors
ERRORS IN LAW: Standard of correctness

PRINCIPLES INVOLVED:
(1) Limiting the Number, Length and Cost of Appeals
(2) Promoting the Autonomy and Integrity of Trial Proceedings
(3) Recognizing the Expertise of the Trial Judge and His or Her Advantageous Position

Housen v. Nikolaisen, 2002 SCC 33 (CanLII), [2002] 2 SCR 235
https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2002/2002scc33/2002scc33.html</a5

3. Test For Gross Negligence

Per the Chief Justice: Comment as to attempting to define or replace by paraphrases the phrases “gross negligence” or “wilful and wanton misconduct”, and observations as to a trial judge’s duty in assisting a jury in an action based upon said enactment. The said phrases imply conduct in which, if there is not conscious wrong doing, there is a very marked departure from the standards by which responsible and competent people in charge of motor cars habitually govern themselves. Subject to that, it is entirely a question of fact for the jury whether conduct falls within the category of one or other of said phrases.

That case was about a motor vehicle accident, but the same principles should apply elsewhere.

McCulloch v. Murray, 1942 CanLII 44 (SCC), [1942] SCR 141
https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1942/1942canlii44/1942canlii44.html

4. Gross Negligence Through Willful Blindness

[6] With respect, I think the judge failed to consider the concept of gross negligence that may result from the wrongdoer’s willful blindness. Even a wrongful intent, which often takes the form of knowledge of one or more of the ingredients of the alleged act, may be established through proof of willful blindness. In such cases the wrongdoer, while he may not have actual knowledge of the alleged ingredient, will be deemed to have that knowledge.

[8] In this case there is nothing like that. On the contrary, there are misrepresentations and payment of rebates. Before cashing the refund cheques, the respondents were either made aware of the misrepresentations or had strong suspicions as to the existence of misrepresentations or the legitimacy of the refunds themselves. By cashing the refunds and paying rebates, the respondents acquiesced and participated in the scheme that had been established to defraud the Agency. Their participation, which was free and voluntary, was an essential link in the realization of that scheme and they benefited economically from it. It is simply impossible not to conclude that this was willful blindness and consequently gross negligence.

This involved a rebate scheme that people had to know was fraudulent. Consequently, their willful blindness amouinted to gross negligence, according to the Federal Court of Appeal.

Canada (Attorney General) v. Villeneuve, 2004 FCA 20 (CanLII)
https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fca/doc/2004/2004fca20/2004fca20.html

5. Test To Obtain Interlocutory Injunction

There are three aspects to the test, all of which must be satisfied before interlocutory (temporary) injunctive relief can issue. An applicant must demonstrate:
(a) First, that there is a serious constitutional question to be tried;
(b) Second, that the applicant will suffer irreparable harm if the injunction is not granted; and
(c) third, that the balance of convenience favours the injunction

[1] Manitoba (Attorney General) v Metropolitan Stores Ltd. 1987 CanLII 79 (SCC), [1987] 1 SCR 110
https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1987/1987canlii79/1987canlii79.html

[2] RJR-MacDonald Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General) 1994 CanLII 117 (SCC), [1994] 1 SCR 311
https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1995/1995canlii64/1995canlii64.html

[3] Harper v. Canada (Attorney General) 2000 SCC 57 (CanLII), [2000] 2 SCR 764
https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2000/2000scc57/2000scc57.html

6. Test For Public Interest Standing

In order for a party to bring a case claiming “public interest standing”, there are a few questions that have to be answered. This is so they limit their time to important matters:
(a) Serious Justiciable Issue
(b) The Nature of the Plaintiff’s Interest
(c) Reasonable and Effective Means of Bringing the Issue Before the Court

Canada (Attorney General) v. Downtown Eastside Sex Workers United Against Violence Society, 2012 SCC 45 (CanLII), [2012] 2 SCR 524
https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2012/2012scc45/2012scc45.html

(alternatively) …..

(a) whether there is a serious justiciable issue raised by the claim;
(b) whether the plaintiff is directly affected by the proposed action or, if not, has a genuine interest in its outcome; and
(c) whether the action is a reasonable and effective means to bring the claim to court

Canada (Minister of Justice) v. Borowski, 1981 CanLII 34 (SCC), [1981] 2 S.C.R. 575
https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1981/1981canlii34/1981canlii34.html

7. Test For Striking Out Pleadings

On a motion to strike, a claim will only be struck if it is plain and obvious, assuming the facts pleaded to be true, that the pleading discloses no reasonable cause of action. The approach must be generous, and err on the side of permitting a novel but arguable claim to proceed to trial. However, the judge cannot consider what evidence adduced in the future might or might not show.

A. The Test for Striking Out Claims
.
[17] The parties agree on the test applicable on a motion to strike for not disclosing a reasonable cause of action under r. 19(24)(a) of the B.C. Supreme Court Rules. This Court has reiterated the test on many occasions. A claim will only be struck if it is plain and obvious, assuming the facts pleaded to be true, that the pleading discloses no reasonable cause of action: Odhavji Estate v. Woodhouse, 2003 SCC 69, [2003] 3 S.C.R. 263, at para. 15; Hunt v. Carey Canada Inc., 1990 CanLII 90 (SCC), [1990] 2 S.C.R. 959, at p. 980. Another way of putting the test is that the claim has no reasonable prospect of success. Where a reasonable prospect of success exists, the matter should be allowed to proceed to trial: see, generally, Syl Apps Secure Treatment Centre v. B.D., 2007 SCC 38, [2007] 3 S.C.R. 83; Odhavji Estate; Hunt; Attorney General of Canada v. Inuit Tapirisat of Canada, 1980 CanLII 21 (SCC), [1980] 2 S.C.R. 735.

R. v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd., 2011 SCC 42 (CanLII), [2011] 3 SCR 45
https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2011/2011scc42/2011scc42.html

8. Self Represented Litigants/Accused People

In 2017, the Supreme Court of Canada entrenched rights and protections of self represented litigants and accused persons into law. In the ruling they endorsed the Statement of Principles on Self-represented Litigants and Accused Persons (2006) (online) established by the Canadian Judicial Council. Now, while it’s nice to have that extra protection, it won’t help a person if they truly have no case.

9. All You Need To Know?

No, of course not. But the following should at least be useful information in determining your options and next move.

https://www.canlii.org/

Solutions #10: How To Do Your Own Research, Investigative Journalism

1. Previous Solutions Offered

CLICK HERE, for #1: Offering something to the other side.
CLICK HERE, for #2: Canada should leave the UN entirely.
CLICK HERE, for #3: Dumping multiculturalism and feminism.
CLICK HERE, for #4: More births instead of replacement migration.
CLICK HERE, for #5: Restore 1934 Bank of Canada Act
CLICK HERE, for #6: Abolish Human Rights Tribunals Entirely.
CLICK HERE, for #7: Abolish Gladue, fix underlying problems.
CLICK HERE, for #8: Banning (political) corporate welfare.
CLICK HERE, for #9: Putting a total moratorium on immigration.

2. Media Bias, Lies, Omissions And Corruption

CLICK HERE, for #1: Unifor in bed with Federal Gov’t
CLICK HERE, for #2: Global News’ selective truth on TRP granted.
CLICK HERE, for #3: Post Media owning most Canadian media.
CLICK HERE, for #4: conservative content dominated by Koch/Atlas.
CLICK HERE, for #5: origins of Malcolm’s “charity” True North Canada.
CLICK HERE, for #6: the people running the Post Millennial.

3. Why People Should Care About This

To anyone looking to get into citizen journalism, or otherwise expose the truth about our world, here are some basic tips on how to do so. This is a how-to article on those potential online sleuths.

Topics such as: the true scale of immigration into Canada; demographic replacement; loss of Christian roots; the loss of culture and heritage in favour of “multiculturalism”; the costs of globalized trade; globohomo; Islam; the people spreading Islam; the international banking cartel (BIS); the scale of debts; pension ponzi schemes; border security; forced multiculturalism; corruption in politics; internationalism; widespread human right abuses; trafficking; and a host of other issues are swept away. They are given little to no attention.

The goals of MSM, generally are:

  • (a) To only tell part of the story
  • (b) To divert your attention from another story
  • (c) Both (a) and (b)

Unfortunately, our media is full of grifters and shills with an agenda. Almost the entire mainstream media is controlled by one outlet: Post Media. Even the so-called “alternative media” can’t be relied on to be truthful. The Post Millennial, True North Canada, Spencer Fernando, and Rebel Media are among the “independents” with an agenda. What Canada needs, (and the world at large) needs, is people willing to take the plunge and research for themselves.

While commentators — online pundits — are a dime a dozen, true researchers are rare. Any Tom, Dick or Harry can give their opinion on someone else’s work. The real challenge is creating the original work. Right, no bias here.

Yes, some of the techniques will seem painfully obvious, but are worth going through. Note: there are no shortcuts in this line of work. It’s just patience, perseverance, and luck. Red pill yourself, and share your findings with the world.

If even one reader of the article decides to pursue this path, then it is all worthwhile.

4. Tip: Save & Archive Evidence

Taking screenshots of the proof you have is always a great idea. As a picture, it speaks for itself, and demonstrates what you want to show. Also, it doubles as a powerful form of evidence, should you ever get challenged on your work.

A secondary option is to archive the entire webpage you are quoting from. One such option is http://archive.is, which is shown above. There are a few reasons. First, you may get questioned about the authenticity of your work, even the screenshots. But as a practical matter, a few years later, the website may not exist, or the URL may have changed. Best to keep a backup handy. Admittedly this can be tedious, but beats having your sources disappear.

Another common archiving site is the Waybackmachine, which can be found at http://web.archive.org/. Either will do the job.

Now, let’s get into some actual techniques.

5. Look Using Simple Search Engines

This is a no-brainer to many. See what others have published on the subject. It may save you from having to reinvent a thousand wheels if you come across an article. Google, Bing, Yahoo, DuckDuckGo, etc… will all suffice. If nothing else, it will be a good place to start, and you may hit gold. Make sure to check the links and references put in whatever you find. (Please give the original author credit for their work).

The other techniques are not universally applicable, but use them according to the particular circumstances of your research. Here they are, in no particular order.

6. Look Up Directors, Executives

Yes, you can look up information on a particular company. There are various ways to do that. A simpler approach may be just to see who RUNS the company, and if they have any interesting connections. In this case, we see that Pierre Beaudoin, the Chairman of Bombardier is also a Director at Power Corporation, owned by the Desmarais Family. One might wonder if this is the reason (or a reason), that we keep using taxpayer money to bail out Bombardier.

7. Look Up Data From Website

Items such as annual financial statements, people joining the company, or major announcements may be posted on the organization website. And this does not only apply to corporations.

For example, McGill University announced a $200M gift from John McCall MacBain. He is a Trudeau Lobbyist, a member of the Trudeau Foundation, and head of the McCall MacBain Foundation.

The McGill website also shows that the Attorney General of Canada, David Lametti, is a member of the Faculty of Law, currently on leave. All of this information was provided by McGill.

One would have to wonder if that $200M donation is the reason Lametti ensured that SNC Lavalin got its deferred prosecution agreement.

8. Corporations Canada Website

If you want to know more about a business or non-profit, Corporations Canada can help with that. You can obtain information on the Directors, by-laws, registered office, or confirm that returns have been filed. Several years worth of data is available for free. You make the application, and within minutes, are emailed a series of attachments to download.

Some information can be obtained for free. Other data will involve paying fees. The choice is up to you.

Note: Obviously this applies to companies registered in Canada. The United States, and many other nations have similar options.

9. Charities And Other Donees

If you are looking into a charity, or a group that falls into some other categories, the Canada Revenue Agency may be of use. Basic information can be obtained, including the Directors, the use of the charity, the revenue, and recent changes. It was a help finding out where True North Center actually originated from.

10. LinkedIn, Other Social Media

Yes, people put stupid stuff online. It doesn’t have to be smoking pot, or topless photos in order to be helpful. For example, should you want to look into someone such as the CEO for an apparently independent media outlet, you can see what other organizations the person is connected to.

Furthermore, even if such accounts are altered or deleted, there is typically a copy or a partial copy somewhere. So don’t despair.

Now, to get into the more legal and/or political matters, the next few tricks will help immensely. While it is directed at Federal matters, the same principles apply Provincially and Municipally.

11. Check Campaign Contributions

While donating (within the limits) to political parties and politicians is allowed, it does create a nice paper trail. As such, you may be able to see who has donated to whom, how much, and how often. Of course, this doesn’t work when donations are given in cash under the table.

It should be pointed out, that some provinces (like Ontario) allow 3rd party donations. Essentially, that is an almost unlimited amount that is funnelled through an intermediary. Worth looking into. You want to know who the politician really serves.

Spoiler: it’s not you.

12. Check Lobbying Commissioner’s Office

Influence peddling can be a full time business for lobbyists. So, let’s see who they have been meeting with. One such case is SNC Lavalin lobbying pretty much everyone for its DPA over the last few years. It can be truly disgusting to see just how deep some of this goes. Naturally, why would companies spend all this money on lobbyists unless they got results?

Go through the site for a while. The amount of lobbying that goes on in government is absolutely sickening. Keeps lobbyists employed though.

13. Statistics Canada

They say there are lies, damn lies, and statistics. And that is certainly true, although StatsCan can at least give some official numbers for researchers to work with. It has the added benefit of being relatively free of government/political spin.

14. Open Data

Another government source for hard data focused, but still a good source of information. Keep in mind, it’s only as reliable as the people entering the information in.

15. Library & Archives Canada

Although there are fees for many documents, the Library & Archives Canada section can provide things that aren’t available in your typical online search.

16. Check Out Old/New Legislation

Want to know what is actually written in a bill? Original filings, as well as amended bills are available to the public. For bills that are passed or defeated, the voting records of all Members of Parliament is recorded as well. To reiterate, though this piece focuses on Federal issues, the same applies Provincially.

Don’t trust the media’s interpretation of what a particular piece of legislation says. Go check it out for yourself. To quote Reagan: trust, but verify.

17. Other Parliamentary Studies/Reports

CLICK ON PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS.

It isn’t just the bills themselves that go on. The MPs study the issues when they aren’t busy grandstanding. As such, hearings take place, and witnesses are often called to testify. This concerns issues such as letting fake refugees into Canada, and Conservatives endorsing the UN Parliament. Indeed, a lot more detail can be found here than in the hearings and votes. Entire transcripts of hearings can be downloaded or copied.

Also, please be aware, that http://parl.canadiana.ca/ also has more archived documents can be found. More and more is being scanned electronically and posted for all to see.

18. United Nations Search Engine

Want to know what is going on with UN globalism? Just go on the UN website and search. Although it’s fairly easy to navigate, there is the search function is you can’t find something. For example, typing “Islamophobia” nets about 600 results. Although there is a private access for members, most of what you need is open to the public.

19. CanLII, Court Searches

The good news is that major cases are listed. These include the Supreme Court of Canada, and Provincial Appellate Courts. Trial rulings “may” be listed if there is something particularly interesting or helpful, or if they are high profile. It covers criminal, civil, family, human rights tribunals, Law Society rulings, law review articles, and often motions. If one wants to self-represent in court, information available can be useful.

Bad news, is that the amount of information can be overwhelming. So many cases, and so many similar terms means that imprecise searches flood the user with useless hits. Even with the lower rulings usually not posted, the amount of information is mind boggling.

If you actually are looking for a court case, it’s a good tool. Otherwise, it’s not helpful in background information. An alternative (if you know what case you are looking for) is to contact the court and ask for certain documents.

20. Libraries Or Other Archives

Don’t knock it. If you have a large or older library in your town, or can get to one, you might be surprised what you can dig up. Often, older information is available in printed form that has not yet been digitized. For example, a library in my hometown still has microfilm on census data going back to the 1800s. If only it was readable.

21. Access To Information Requests

In most areas of government bureaucracy, there exists the option to file a formal request for information on certain topics. And it can be done across many departments.

While seemingly a quick and easy way to get answers, let’s mention a few disclaimers. First, the requests often take a long time, sometimes months to get back. Second, the government may withhold all or part claiming “public interest” or “confidentiality”. Third, there are often fees involved. Still, it can be an option to consider.

22. Interview The Subject

This is also known as “being a journalist”. You ask a person questions in the hopes of getting information. Not everyone will say yes, but if you never ask the answer will always be no.

Question: do you let the person know who you really are, and if you are recording? Ideally, you should, but it depends on the circumstances. Having done a few sneaky ones myself, it would be hypocritical to pass judgement.

One piece of advice: it may be better to talk to the person AFTER you have done other forms of searching. This is so that you are more fully aware of your facts prior to meeting.

23. Ancestry Sites

Want to find out who is related to who? Although these databases are far from complete, they can give a good idea about extended familial relations you may not otherwise have known about.

24. What Have I done?

The items listed above have been used as source material for Canuck Law articles. Which specific ones depend on the circumstances. All of these techniques are useful in conducting research for the writing. However, there is no one answer for everything.

25. What May Not Be Needed

Of course, this will depend on the people involved, and what information is being sought. Here are a few techniques I don’t engage in, but that others have.

  • Ambush journalism
  • Stalking, following subjects
  • Trying to get to family members
  • Dumpster diving
  • Trespassing, B&E

It is possible to get real results and real information without crossing ethical and legal lines. Suggestion: try not to cross lines where possible.

Media #5: The Origins Of True North Canada, Which Its “Founder” Hides


(This “charity” was originally called the Independent Immigration Aid Association. The goal was to help settle British immigrants into BC. It was acquired by Malcolm, renamed, and used for tax purposes for her media company.)

1. Media Bias, Lies, Omissions And Corruption

CLICK HERE, for #1: Unifor in bed with Federal Gov’t
CLICK HERE, for #2: Global News’ selective truth on TRP granted.
CLICK HERE, for #3: Post Media owning most Canadian media.
CLICK HERE, for #4: conservative content dominated by Koch/Atlas.

2. Important Links

CLICK HERE, for the “About Us” section at TNC.
http://archive.is/fOUxQ
CLICK HERE, for the information about TNC on CRA website.
http://archive.is/0Yquf

CLICK HERE, for a quick view on TNC for Public Policy.
CLICK HERE, for 2015 Registered charity information return.

CLICK HERE, for 2014 Atlas Think Tank Leadership Training.
http://archive.is/Y5fGh
CLICK HERE, for Jason Kenney & staffer Candice Malcolm.
http://archive.is/Mwsba
CLICK HERE, for review of Malcolm’s (a Kenney staffer) work.
http://archive.is/N0j3Q
CLICK HERE, for Kasra Netjatian, staffer for Jason Kenney.
http://archive.is/rat87

CLICK HERE, for business listing for True North Center for Public Policy (formerly Independent Immigration Aid Association).
http://archive.is/3u4kU
CLICK HERE, for the Federal Court decision overturning the Elections Commissioner on covering debates.
http://archive.is/FYtSb

3. Previously Covered By Press Progress

CLICK HERE, for prior coverage by PressProgress.ca.

When researching into True North Center’s tax returns and history, I stumbled across this piece on the subject. Quite thorough, and difficult to add to this, but let’s try anyway.

4. True North Originally Called I.I.A.A.

From Data On CRA Website

True North Centre for Public Policy
Business/Registration number: 132703448 RR 0001
Charity status: Registered
Effective date of status: 1994-06-18
Designation: Charitable organization
Charity type: Relief of Poverty
Category: Organizations Relieving Poverty

Address: 2030 – 10013 RIVER DR
City: RICHMOND
Province, territory, outside of Canada: BC

From “About Us” On Website

True North Centre for Public Policy (True North Centre) is a registered Canadian charity, independent and non-partisan. We conduct policy research on immigration and integration issues and provide timely investigative journalism on issues that affect Canada’s national security.
.
The True North Initiative is a not-for-profit advocacy organization that raises awareness around immigration and integration issues and advances Western democratic values.
.
Together, these organizations form True North Canada.

Interesting. On its own website, True North Canada claims to be about conducting policy research on immigration and integration issues.

However, in tax filings True North Centre for Public Policy (which claims to be a charity) says the organization is about relieving poverty. It also claims to be helping UK immigrants settle into BC.

The reason for this discrepancy is that the Independent Immigration Aid Association (I.I.A.A.) that was founded in 1994 was taken over by Candice Malcolm. It was renamed as TRUE NORTH CENTRE FOR PUBLIC POLICY. An interesting point to raise: why take it over? Why not just start a brand new organization?

It could be to continue the tax benefits that come with being a registered charity, which True North Center still officially is.

5. Registered Charity Information Returns, 2014

Director/trustee and like official # 1
Full name: Daniel J Brown
Term Start date: 2014-01-01
Term End date: 2014-12-31
Position: President
At Arms Length with other Directors? Yes

Director/trustee and like official # 2
Full name: Roger A Dawson
Term Start date: 2014-01-01
Term End date: 2014-12-31
Position: Vice President
At Arms Length with other Directors? No

Director/trustee and like official # 3
Full name: Carole Clark
Term Start date: 2014-01-01
Term End date: 2014-12-31
Position:
At Arms Length with other Directors? No

Director/trustee and like official # 4
Full name: Robert Davies
Term Start date: 2014-01-01
Term End date: 2014-12-31
Position:
At Arms Length with other Directors? Yes

Director/trustee and like official # 5
Full name: Thomas Viccars
Term Start date: 2014-05-01
Term End date: 2014-12-31
Position:
At Arms Length with other Directors? Yes

Director/trustee and like official # 6
Full name: Tom Moses
Term Start date: 2014-05-01
Term End date: 2014-12-31
Position:
At Arms Length with other Directors? Yes

Director/trustee and like official # 7
Full name: Peter Howard
Term Start date: 2014-01-01
Term End date: 2014-12-31
Position:
At Arms Length with other Directors? Yes

6. Registered Charity Information Returns, 2015

Director/trustee and like official # 1
Full name: Daniel J Brown
Term Start date: 2015-01-01
Term End date: 2015-12-31
Position: President
At Arms Length with other Directors? Yes

Director/trustee and like official # 2
Full name: Roger A Dawson
Term Start date: 2015-01-01
Term End date: 2015-12-31
Position: Vice President
At Arms Length with other Directors? No

Director/trustee and like official # 3
Full name: Carole Clark
Term Start date: 2015-01-01
Term End date: 2015-12-31
Position: At Large
At Arms Length with other Directors? No

Director/trustee and like official # 4
Full name: Robert Davies
Term Start date: 2015-01-01
Term End date: 2015-12-31
Position: At Large
At Arms Length with other Directors? Yes

Director/trustee and like official # 5
Full name: Thomas Viccars
Term Start date: 2015-01-01
Term End date: 2015-12-31
Position: At Large
At Arms Length with other Directors? Yes

Director/trustee and like official # 6
Full name: Tom Moses
Term Start date: 2015-01-01
Term End date: 2015-12-31
Position: At Large
At Arms Length with other Directors? Yes

Director/trustee and like official # 7
Full name: Peter Howard
Term Start date: 2015-01-01
Term End date: 2015-12-31
Position: At Large
At Arms Length with other Directors? Yes

7. Registered Charity Information Returns, 2016

Director/trustee and like official # 1
Full name: Daniel J Brown
Term Start date: 2016-01-01
Term End date: 2016-12-31
Position: President
At Arms Length with other Directors? Yes

Director/trustee and like official # 2
Full name: Roger A Dawson
Term Start date: 2016-01-01
Term End date: 2016-12-31
Position: Vice President
At Arms Length with other Directors? No

Director/trustee and like official # 3
Full name: Carole Clark
Term Start date: 2016-01-01
Term End date: 2016-12-31
Position: At Large
At Arms Length with other Directors? No

Director/trustee and like official # 4
Full name: Robert Davies
Term Start date: 2016-01-01
Term End date: 2016-12-31
Position: At Large
At Arms Length with other Directors? Yes

Director/trustee and like official # 5
Full name: Tom Moses
Term Start date: 2016-01-01
Term End date: 2016-12-31
Position: At Large
At Arms Length with other Directors? Yes

Director/trustee and like official # 6
Full name: Patricia Morris
Term Start date: 2016-01-01
Term End date: 2016-12-31
Position: At Large
At Arms Length with other Directors? Yes

8. Registered Charity Information Returns, 2017

Director/trustee and like official # 1
Full name: Kasra Nejatian
Term Start date: 2017-12-07
Term End date:
Position: Director
At Arms Length with other Directors? Yes

Director/trustee and like official # 2
Full name: Erynne Schuster
Term Start date: 2017-02-07
Term End date:
Position: Director
At Arms Length with other Directors? Yes

Director/trustee and like official # 3
Full name: William McBeath
Term Start date: 2017-12-07
Term End date:
Position: Director
At Arms Length with other Directors? Yes

9. Registered Charity Information Returns, 2018

Director/trustee and like official # 1
Full name: Kasra Nejatian
Term Start date: 2017-12-07
Term End date:
Position: Director
At Arms Length with other Directors? Yes

Director/trustee and like official # 2
Full name: Erynne Schuster
Term Start date: 2017-12-07
Term End date:
Position: Director
At Arms Length with other Directors? Yes

Director/trustee and like official # 3
Full name: William McBeath
Term Start date: 2017-12-07
Term End date:
Position: Director
At Arms Length with other Directors? Yes

10. Koch/Atlas Network, Canadian Partners

  • Alberta Institute
  • Canadian Constitution Foundation
  • Canadian Taxpayers Federation
  • Canadians For Democracy And Transparency
  • Fraser Institute
  • Frontier Center For Public Policy
  • Institute For Liberal Studies
  • Justice Center For Constitutional Freedoms
  • MacDonald-Laurier Institute For Public Policy
  • Manning Center
  • Montreal Economic Institute
  • World Taxpayers Federation

These “think tanks” all promote the same things: economic libertarianism; mass economic immigration; liberal or free trade; less government; larger role for private sector. Now, let’s connect some dots.

Spoiler alert: you will notice that none of the connections you are about to be shown actually appear in True North Canada’s public information. Almost like they didn’t want the public to know.

11. Candice Malcolm’s Ties To Koch/Atlas

Candice worked for Koch and the Fraser Institute, before getting into journalism. She now runs True North Initiative, which “identifies” as a non-profit group. Of course, there is also True North Center, which “identifies” as a charity.

This was a November 2014 Atlas gettogether to complete “THINK TANK LEADERSHIP TRAINING”, whatever that means. Canadian Taxpayer’s Federation rep, Candice Malcolm was there.

At this 2014 dinner, Malcolm was a member of the Canadian Taxpayer’s Federation. Yes, one of Atlas’ Canadian partners.

Malcolm leaves out any trace of her Atlas past in the TNC website. Not very candid, is it? Malcolm also omits being a political staffer, for Jason Kenney, who “enriched” the GTA as Immigration Minister, and who wants to enrich Rural Alberta now.

12. Kasra Nejatian’s Ties To Koch/Atlas

Interesting side note: Kasra Nejatian (a.k.a. Kasra Levinson) is Candice Malcolm’s husband. He is a Director at the Canadian Constitution Foundation, which is also part of Atlas Network. He’s part of the CCF, and she was part of Fraser and Koch Institute.

Interesting omission on the TNC site: not only does Candice not mention that Kasra — her husband — is a Director of a Koch group (CCF), she omits that he is a Director at True North Center, the “charity” branch of True North Canada.

There’s no information about this on the website. In fact, one would have to search Revenue Canada’s records in order to find this out. The TNC site doesn’t even say that THERE ARE any Directors.

Worth pointing out, Nejatian was also a staffer, for Jason Kenney, former Federal Immigration Minister, and current Alberta Premier.

13. William McBeath’s Ties To Koch/Atlas

One of the Directors for True North’s “charity” wing is William McBeath, who used to work for the Manning Center. Again, one would have to look at the Revenue Canada website to get this information, as it is not available on TNC.news.

Interestingly, he has also held party roles with both the Alberta and Federal Conservatives. Again, no mention of this on the TNC.news website. You need to check outside information.

14. Andrew Lawton, Ontario PC Candidate

True North admits that one of their fellows, Andrew Lawton, was a candidate in the 2018 Ontario Provincial election for the Progressive Conservative Party. A refreshing bit of candour considering what they leave out.

Nothing inherently wrong with journalists getting into politics, or politicians getting into journalism. However, being so recent, it should be noted the biases and beliefs Lawton will bring to the role.

15. Charity V.S. Non-Profit: CRA

CHARITY
NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION

Purposes
must be established and operate exclusively for charitable purposes
can operate for social welfare, civic improvement, pleasure, sport, recreation, or any other purpose except profit
cannot operate exclusively for charitable purposes

Registration
must apply to the CRA and be approved for registration as a charity
does not have to go through a registration process for income tax purposes

Charitable registration number
is issued a charitable registration number once approved by the CRA
is not issued a charitable registration number

Tax receipts
can issue official donation receipts for income tax purposes
cannot issue official donation receipts for income tax purposes

Spending requirement (disbursement quota)
must spend a minimum amount on its own charitable activities or as gifts to qualified donees
does not have a spending requirement

Designation
is designated by the CRA as a charitable organization, a public foundation, or a private foundation
does not receive a designation

Returns
must file an annual information return (Form T3010) within six months of its fiscal year-end
may have to file a T2 return (if incorporated) or an information return (Form T1044) or both within six months of its fiscal year-end

Personal benefits to members
cannot use its income to personally benefit its members
cannot use its income to personally benefit its members

Tax exempt status
is exempt from paying income tax
is generally exempt from paying income tax
may have to pay tax on property income or on capital gains

GST/HST
generally must pay GST/HST on purchases
may claim a partial rebate of GST/HST paid on eligible purchases
most supplies made by charities are exempt
calculates net tax using the net tax calculation for charities

must pay GST/HST on purchases
may claim a partial rebate of GST/HST paid on eligible purchases only if it receives significant government funding
few supplies made by NPOs are exempt
calculates net tax the regular way

Given how Revenue Canada distinguishes between charities and non-profits, this may be why Candice Malcolm took over Independent Immigration Aid Association and renamed it to True North Center for Public Policy. They likely wouldn’t be able to obtain charity status on their own. Therefore, taking an existing charity might have been an easier bet.

While True North does do decent work, there is nothing to indicate that it deserves special status, or should be registered as a charity. Otherwise, virtually any media would qualify.

Seriously, what else is the reason for acquiring the Independent Immigration Aid Association? It’s not like Malcolm, Nejatian, or any of the others wish to preserve their legacy. In fact, without looking any deeper into the topic, one would never know about it.

So did Malcolm found True North Initiative? In a deceptively technical sense, yes. The “non-profit” branch of True North Canada came from her. However, the “charity” portion which makes the organization eligible for tax perks was founded in 1994 by a completely different group of people. A lie of omission.

16. What Exactly Is True North Canada?

Press Progress picked up on the inconsistencies in Malcolm’s ever-changing description of True North Canada. So let’s go through some of them.

True North is simultaneously a media company, an advocacy group, a registered charity, and “it’s complicated“.

Could be that Malcolm wants to keep the tax breaks that come with the current structure. That could be why she “founded” True North Initiative (a non-profit), yet the True North Center for Public Policy (a charity) was a rebranded one from 1994.

Now, for a semi-related, but interesting ruling from the Federal Court of Canada.

17. Federal Court Ruling: T-1633-19

Recently, True North and Rebel Media won court cases which overturned (on an interlocutory basis) the decisions of the Elections Commissioner to restrict them from covering Federal debates in the 2019 election. This is an interesting side note to the story.

Worth stating at the front: although there were a few different names to choose from, Malcolm et al chose to use True North Center for Public Policy (the charity), for the court case.

Well, yes. They do engage in advocacy. It says so right on their website. While this may come across as pedantic, they are not wrong about this. However, things are not that simple.

The Test for the Requested Relief
[24] The test the Court must apply when asked to issue a mandatory interlocutory injunction is set out by the Supreme Court of Canada in R v Canadian Broadcasting Corp, 2018 SCC 5 [CBC] at para 18:
In sum, to obtain a mandatory interlocutory injunction, an applicant must meet a modified RJR — MacDonald test, which proceeds as follows:
(1) The applicant must demonstrate a strong prima facie case that it will succeed at trial. This entails showing a strong likelihood on the law and the evidence presented that, at trial, the applicant will be ultimately successful in proving the allegations set out in the originating notice;
(2) The applicant must demonstrate that irreparable harm will result if the relief is not granted; and
(3) The applicant must show that the balance of convenience favours granting the injunction. [emphasis in original]

[25] The Applicants bear the burden of proving to the Court on a balance of probabilities that they have met all three prongs of the tri-partite test. This Court observed in The Regents of University of California v I-Med Pharma Inc, 2016 FC 606 at para 27, aff’d 2017 FCA 8 that “[t]hese factors are interrelated and should not be assessed in isolation (Movel Restaurants Ltd v EAT at Le Marché Inc, [1994] FCJ No 1950 (Fed TD) at para 9, citing Turbo Resources Ltd v Petro Canada Inc (1989), 24 CPR (3d) 1 (FCA)).”

[26] The Order the Applicants seek is both extraordinary and discretionary. Given its discretionary nature, provided the tri-partite test has been met, the “fundamental question is whether the granting of an injunction is just and equitable in all of the circumstances of the case:” Google Inc v Equustek Solutions Inc, 2017 SCC 34 at para 25.

[37] There is also evidence in the record that some of the accredited news organizations have previously endorsed specific candidates and parties in general elections. The Commission responds that in those cases the advocacy was in editorials or produced by columnists. This begs the question as to where one draws the line as to what is and is not advocacy that disqualifies an applicant from accreditation. This goes to the lack of rationality and logic in the no-advocacy requirement.

This is a valid point. Most media outlets engage in some level of advocacy. So to disallow 1 or 2 outlets would be hypocritical.

[38] This also goes to the lack of transparency. Absent any explanation as to the meaning to be given to the term “advocacy” and given that the Commission accredited some organizations that have engaged in advocacy, I am at a loss to understand why the Commission reached the decisions it did with respect to the Applicants.

Agreed. The decisions weren’t really explained beyond the simple “you engage in advocacy”.

[39] Accordingly, I find that the Applicants are likely to succeed on the merits in setting aside the decisions as unreasonable.

The Procedural Fairness of the Process
[40] The application and scope of procedural fairness in administrative decision-making is explained by the Supreme Court of Canada in Baker v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] 2 SCR 817 [Baker].

[41] It was noted at para 20 of Baker that “The fact that a decision is administrative and affects ‘the rights, privileges or interests of an individual’ is sufficient to trigger the application of the duty of fairness.” In the matters before this Court the interests of those whose accreditation applications were rejected are most certainly affected. This was not disputed by the Commission; rather it submitted that the Applicants were afforded a fair process in accordance with Baker.

[42] The Supreme Court of Canada observed at para 22 of Baker that “the duty of fairness is flexible and variable, and depends on an appreciation of the context and the particular statute and the rights affected.” In paras 23 to 27, it listed five factors that a court ought to consider when determining the content of the duty of fairness in a particular case. There is no suggestion that these are the only factors a court may consider:
(i) The nature of the decision being made and the process followed in making it;
(ii) The nature of the statutory scheme and the terms of the statute pursuant to which the decision-maker operates;
(iii) The importance of the decision to those affected;
(iv) The legitimate expectations of those challenging the decision regarding the procedures to be followed or the result to be reached; and
(v) The choices made by the decision-maker regarding the procedure followed.

Conclusion
[68] I have found that these Applicants have satisfied the tripartite test for the granting of the injunction requested. Moreover, and for the reasons above, I find that granting of the requested Order is just and equitable in all of the circumstances.

[69] For these Reasons, following the oral hearing on October 7, 2019, the Court issued the following two Orders:
the Leaders’ Debates Commission / Commission des Debats des Chefs is to grant David Menzies and Keenan [sic] Bexte of Rebel News the media accreditation required to permit them to attend and cover the Federal Leaders’ Debates taking place on Monday, October 7, 2019 in the English language and Thursday, October 10, 2019 in the French language;
the Leaders’ Debates Commission / Commission des Debats des Chefs is to grant Andrew James Lawton of the True North Centre for Public Policy the media accreditation required to permit him to attend and cover the Federal Leaders’ Debates taking place on Monday, October 7, 2019 in the English language and Thursday, October 10, 2019 in the French language;

[70] After issuing these Orders, the Applicants requested and were granted an opportunity to make submissions on costs. The Court was later informed that “the parties have resolved the issue of costs” and thus no further Order is required.

For all the issues a person may have with an outlet, such as Rebel Media or True North Canada, it was nice to see this decision happen. The public is best served with more media available.

Regardless of how sketchy True North is, Elections Canada acted in a very heavy-handed way. The Courtruling was a very welcome victory.

18. Malcolm Misrepresents On Twitter

Malcolm claims to be the FOUNDER of True North Canada in her Twitter biography. While this is true on a technical level, it omits that she and her husband took an existing charity, renamed and repurposed it, and now use it for tax benefits.

It’s not entirely clear what this “non-profit” of True North Initiative adds, other than perhaps some cover. Slapping that on a rebranded charity seems to be what counts as “founding” these days.

While I support the challenge in Federal Court (allowing coverage of the debates), it was in the spirit of open media. It is not in any way to be seen as an endorsement of this “organization”. It is deceitful and underhanded.

Bit Of History: Peter MacKay Shanks David Orchard In 2003 PC Leadership Race

(Peter Mackay pledges – in writing – no merger with Alliance if he wins)

(Peter MacKay sticking the knife in again?)

1. Important Links


CLICK HERE, for the Peter McKay/David Orchard alliance.
http://archive.is/DJ6M8
CLICK HERE, for CBC article on the broken deal.
http://archive.is/fAEgs
CLICK HERE, for ONSC denying Orchard’s application in full.
http://archive.is/niIKc
CLICK HERE, for an ONSC judge refusing costs for defamation.
http://archive.is/NgxG0
CLICK HERE, for Orchard’s ON Court of Appeal Factum.
http://archive.is/nsX0V/image
CLICK HERE, for ONCA dismissing appeal/cross appeal/motion.
http://archive.is/nBrOy
CLICK HERE, for Stevens v. CPC, Federal Court of Canada.
http://archive.is/iwCyI
CLICK HERE, for Stevens v. CPC, Federal Court of Appeal.
http://archive.is/6S6am

CLICK HERE, for a May 2019 article on replacing Scheer (before election).
http://archive.is/ZPFdF
CLICK HERE, for MacKay commenting on Scheer’s 2019 loss.
http://archive.is/SFvWr

2. Context For This Article


In 2003, the current Conservative Party of Canada did not exist. Instead, there was the Alliance Party, led by Stephen Harper, and the Progressive Conservative Party, undergoing a leadership race.

Two candidates in that race, David Orchard and Peter Mackay, struck a deal: Orchard would support MacKay’s leadership bid in return for a written pledge not to pursue a merger or deal with the Alliance. At that time, a merger had been seriously considered, as a way to form a united alternative to the Liberal Party. But MacKay promised — in writing — not to pursue this if he was supported for leader of the Progressive Conservative leadership.

The deal went ahead as planned (so it seemed), and MacKay became leader of the party. However, it appeared he had no intention of honouring his deal. Almost immediately, he pursued merger talks with the Alliance. The eventually merged, and the new party formed government from 2006 until 2015. MacKay’s deceptive and underhanded tactics had won in the long term.

Fast forward more than a decade from 2003, and another controversy. See section #9 for more on that.

3. Text Of McKay/Orchard Deal

May 31, 2003 Agreement between Peter MacKay and David Orchard
1) No merger, joint candidates w[ith] Alliance. Maintain 301.
2) Review of FTA/NAFTA – blue ribbon commission with D[avid] O[rchard] w[ith] choice of chair w[ith] P[eter] M[acKay’s] agreement. Rest of members to be jointly agreed upon.
3) Clean up of head office including change of national director in consultation (timing w[ithin] reasonable period in future, pre-election) and some of DO’s people working at head office.
4) Commitment to making environmental protection front and center incl[uding] sustainable agriculture, forestry, reducing pollution through rail.
[Signed by Peter MacKay and David Orchard]

Looks pretty straightforward.
No merger. Fix our party instead.

4. ON Court Challenge By Orchard, Others

Administrative law — Voluntary association — Political parties — Political parties registered under Canada Elections Act — Leaders of Progressive Conservative Party of Canada and Canadian Reform Conservative Alliance reaching agreement for merger of political parties — Common law principles regarding unregulated voluntary associations did not apply to political parties registered under Canada Elections Act — Canada Elections Act governing merger of registered political parties — Canada Elections Act, S.C. 2000, c. 9.

On October 15, 2003, Peter MacKay, leader of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada (“PC Party”), reached an agreement in principle with Steven [page278] Harper, leader of the Canadian Reform Conservative Alliance (“Alliance”), for the establishment of the “Conservative Party of Canada”. PC Party members who were opposed to the agreement applied to the court for several declarations. The premise of these declarations was that the PC Party could not be dissolved or merged with another political party except with the unanimous consent of all its members. The applicants also sought a permanent injunction to prevent anyone from dealing with the party’s assets.

[4] The applicants are PC Party members who are opposed to the merger of the party with the Alliance. They request that the court make a number of declarations, which are all premised on their view that the PC Party cannot be dissolved or merged with another political party, except with the unanimous consent of all of its members. They also seek a permanent injunction to prevent anyone from otherwise dealing with the party’s assets.

[5] I note that several items of the relief set out in the Notice of Application are not pursued before me. Paragraph 1(j) requested a declaration that Mr. MacKay is in breach of his written agreement, dated June 1, 2003, with Mr. Orchard, and sought consequential relief. The request for this relief was withdrawn on the consent of counsel prior to the date set for the hearing. Paragraph 1(e) sought a declaration that the procedures set by the Management Committee of the PC Party for the special meeting scheduled for December 6, 2003 are contrary to the Party’s Constitution and by-laws. Counsel for the applicants indicated they [page280] were not seeking such relief and informed the court the applicants were making no attack on the specific procedures adopted by the Party respecting the special meeting. Counsel also informed the court that the applicants were not requesting the court to deal with the relief sought in para. 1(g) which sought a declaration that the Constitution of the PC Party prohibited its leader from agreeing with the leader of another political party that the PC Party will not nominate candidates in every federal constituency in Canada.

[6] Traditionally, the courts have been reluctant to get involved in supervising the internal affairs of voluntary associations. However, courts do recognize that membership in a voluntary association can give individuals important social rights that are worthy of some protection. Members may request the courts to require that the organization carry out its affairs honestly, in good faith and in accordance with its governing rules.

[7] In this case we are dealing with a political party. The social interest of members in ensuring that the organization’s affairs are conducted in accordance with its governing Constitution is apparent. Citizens exercise important rights in participating in political activity through membership in political parties. However, the court must be careful not to intrude into the political realm. There were submissions and evidence in this case that I considered to be political rhetoric. I have disregarded all such evidence and submissions.

[13] I am satisfied that the situation is sufficiently developed to give rise to an actual dispute between the parties. Both sides have important interests at stake. The leadership of the PC Party has embarked on a path to merge the party. The applicants are opposed to the course of action being taken. Counsel for both sides indicated to the court that it would be of assistance to have a decision before the vote is taken tomorrow. Given their national significance, there is good reason to determine the questions raised by this actual dispute, and I am satisfied that the court’s decision will be of practical effect in resolving the dispute.

[14] I have concluded that this dispute does not fall within the ambit of the internal dispute resolution in Article 13 of the PC Party’s Constitution. I regard the internal process as intended to deal with questions about whether the ongoing affairs of the party are being conducted in compliance with its Constitution and by-laws. This dispute arises in extraordinary circumstances not contemplated by its Constitution, concerns its continued existence, and as will be seen, is in large measure about the proper interpretation and effect of a public statute. In deciding not to defer to the internal arbitration process, I paid no heed to the applicants’ arguments that that process was flawed by relationship and institutional bias. I regard the applicant’s apprehension of bias to be without merit.

[40] In expressing this view, I should not be taken to be declaring the law. In this proceeding I was asked to make declarations that the PC Party cannot merge, transfer its assets, or dissolve without the unanimous consent of every one of its individual members. I have decided, based on the view I take of the law, that it is not appropriate to make such declarations.

[41] A further comment must be made about para. 1(h) of the application. Paragraph 1(h) seeks “a declaration that the resolution [before the December 6 special meeting] does not constitute the resolution required pursuant to s. 400(2)(b) of the Canada Elections Act in order for the PC Party to merge with another registered party under the Act”. Whether the resolution being acted upon tomorrow, or any other resolution, satisfies the requirements of the Act must, in the first instance, be decided by the Chief Electoral Officer. I refuse the relief requested in para. 1(h) on that basis.

[42] The application is dismissed in its entirety. Counsel may make an appointment through my secretary to address costs.
Application dismissed.

In short the Court ruled that the matter should be decided internally. The parties have governing documents (such as constitutions) which set out terms for various issues, including mergers.

One way to look at this would be the “sort out your own business” line of reasoning prevailed. And while members of an organization should expect leaders to behave in a good faith manner, the Court apparently isn’t always the place to demand such a resolution.

While the Judge “could” have intervened, the decision was made not to.

See the next section for the Elections Act (400-403)

5. Canada Elections Act

[34] I set out the provisions in full, underlining the particular phrases that I find helpful in interpreting the provisions. I discuss some of the particular phrases below.

400(1) Two or more registered parties may, at any time other than during the period beginning 30 days before the issue of a writ for an election and ending on polling day, apply to the Chief Electoral Officer to become a single registered party resulting from their merger.
(2) An application to merge two or more registered parties must
(a) be certified by the leaders of the merging parties;
(b) be accompanied by a resolution from each of the merging parties approving the proposed merger; and
(c) contain the information required from a party to be registered, except for the information referred to in paragraph 366(2)(i).

401(1) The Chief Electoral Officer shall amend the registry of parties by replacing the names of the merging parties with the name of the merged party if
(a) the application for the merger was not made in the period referred to in subsection 400(1); and
(b) the Chief Electoral Officer is satisfied that
(i) the merged party is eligible for registration as a political party under this Act, and
(ii) the merging parties have discharged their obligations under this Act, including their obligations to report on their financial transactions and their election expenses and to maintain valid and up-to-date information concerning their registration.
(2) The Chief Electoral Officer shall notify the officers of the merging parties in writing whether the registry of parties is to be amended under subsection (1).
(3) If the Chief Electoral Officer amends the registry of parties, he or she shall cause to be published in the Canada Gazette a notice that the names of the merging parties have been replaced in the registry with the name of the merged party.

402(1) A merger of registered parties takes effect on the day on which the Chief Electoral Officer amends the registry of parties under subsection 401(1).
(2) On the merger of two or more registered parties,
(a) the merged party is the successor of each merging party;
(b) the merged party becomes a registered party;
(c) the assets of each merging party belong to the merged party;
(d) the merged party is responsible for the liabilities of each merging party; [page287]
(e) the merged party is responsible for the obligations of each merging party to report on its financial transactions and election expenses for any period before the merger took effect;

(f) the merged party replaces a merging party in any proceedings, whether civil, penal or administrative, by or against the merging party; and
(g) any decision of a judicial or quasi-judicial nature involving a merging party may be enforced by or against the merged party.

403. Within six months after a merger
(a) each of the merging parties shall provide the Chief Electoral Officer with the documents referred to in subsection 424(1) for
(i) the portion of its current fiscal period that ends on the day before the day on which the merger takes effect, and
(ii) any earlier fiscal period for which those documents have not been provided; and
(b) the merged party shall provide the Chief Electoral Officer with
(i) a statement, prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, of its assets and liabilities, including any surplus or deficit, at the date of the merger,
(ii) an auditor’s report, submitted to the chief agent of the merged party, as to whether the statement presents fairly and in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles the information on which it was based, and
(iii) a declaration in the prescribed form by the chief agent of the merged party concerning the statement.

These sections of the Canada Elections Act are cited in both the Provincial and Federal Court rulings. As such, we should know what they actually say. In short, they quite clearly allow for party mergers. Broken promises and backroom deals don’t actually appear anywhere in the text.

6. ON Court Of Appeal (Orchard et al.)

[17] As a preliminary matter, the respondent moves to quash the appeal as now being moot. It argues that there is no longer a live issue affecting the rights of the parties because the merger has happened and the Conservative Party has been registered by the Chief Electoral Officer in place of the PC Party and the Alliance Party.

[18] In my view, the motion must be dismissed. There remains the same real legal issue between the parties that existed before December 6, 2003, namely, whether the PC Party can be dissolved or merged with another political party without the unanimous consent of all of its members. The only difference is that if [page134] they are successful, the appellants must now seek a remedial order undoing what has happened rather than an order to prevent it from occurring. The respondent has not shown that this would be impossible. The underlying legal issues still have an effect on the rights of the parties and hence mootness does not apply.

[19] On the appeal itself, the appellants’ fundamental contention is that the common law requires the PC Party to obtain the unanimous consent of all of its members to merge with the Alliance Party. In making this argument they place significant reliance on Astgen.

[45] By the terms of the constitution this decision is final and binding. Having had the opportunity to participate in that process the appellants are bound to accept it as final and binding, subject to judicial review which they have not sought. This is a corollary to the obligation of an organization like a trade union to give notice of an arbitration to a member whose rights will be affected because the decision of the arbitration board is final and binding. See, for example, Hoogendoorn v. Greening Metal Products and Screening Equipment Co. (1967), 1967 CanLII 20 (SCC), [1968] S.C.R. 30, 65 D.L.R. (2d) 641. It is not open to the appellants to seek a determination by the court that the resolution is of no legal effect because the PC Party failed to comply with the procedures required by its constitution. In this circumstance, that is a matter for the Arbitration Committee.

[46] In summary, therefore, the appellants’ arguments on appeal must be rejected.

[47] The respondent has cross-appealed from the decision of the application judge to award no costs because of the public importance of the issues raised. We did not call on the appellants to respond to the cross-appeal. In our view, it was an entirely appropriate exercise of discretion by the judge of first instance.

[48] As to the costs of the proceedings in this court, success has been divided. The appellants failed on the appeal. The respondent failed to establish mootness and failed on the cross-appeal. Together with the public importance of the questions raised, this makes it appropriate to order that there be no costs in this court. [page141]

[49] I would therefore dismiss the motion to quash and the appeal and the cross-appeal. No costs in this court.

Among other things, the Court of Appeals states that relief should have come in the form of an application for judicial review challenging the Elections Commission.

Beyond that, the Appeals Panel sidesteps the underhanded nature of MacKay’s duplicity. Instead, they point out that the Canada Elections Act explicitly allows for mergers except in very limited cases. Unanimity from all participants is not required.

To sum up, there is nothing new to add here, so appeal dismissed.

7. Stevens v. CPC (Federal Court)


This was not the only case that was launched. There was an Application for Judicial Review started in Federal Court to contest the ruling that allowed the merger.

[76] The Applicant argued that the decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal confirmed the opinion of the application judge that section 401(1)(b)(ii) of the Act vests the CEO not the Court, with the mandate of determining if the merger application met the statutory requirements. However, he also submits that the Court of Appeal recognized that section 400(2)(b) of the Act implicitly requires that a merger resolution be passed in accordance with the constitution of a merging party.

[77] Accordingly, the Applicant argues that this holding supports his contention that the CEO erred in law by rejecting the constitution of the PC Party as being relevant to his decision. The Applicant repeats and relies upon his earlier submissions that the constitution of that party specifically prohibits the merger application that was made.

[78] Further, the Applicant says that the judgment of the Ontario Court of Appeal does not address the argument that the common law rights of voluntary associations include the right to be heard when such association is a political party that is at risk of dissolution.

ii) The Respondent

[79] The Respondent disagrees with the Applicant’s interpretation of the Ontario Court of Appeal’s decision and argues that the Court rejected the arguments that the merger of the PC Party and the Alliance Party attracted application of the common law rule that the unanimous consent of each party member was required for the merger of those parties. Further, the Respondent submits that the Ontario Court of Appeal held that the Act did not require unanimous consent for such merger.

[80] In conclusion, the Respondent relies on the decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal as supporting its view that the decision of the CEO to amend the registry of parties on December 7, 2003, was correct.

<

p style=”padding: 2px 6px 4px 6px; color: #555555; background-color: #eeeeee; border: #dddddd 2px solid;”>

[114] A waiting period of sixty days applies when a political party initially applies for registration. In my view, it is reasonable that a waiting period, albeit a reduced one, will also apply when two registered parties apply for merger.

[115] It follows, then, that in my opinion, the CEO erred by amending the registry of parties on the same day that the merger application was made and without waiting for thirty days, to ensure that no election writ would be issued, thereby activating the commencement of the prohibited period.

[116] As noted earlier, the Applicant seeks an order quashing the decision of the CEO and reinstating the PC Party on the registry of parties. Alternatively, the Applicant seeks an order setting aside the decision of December 7, 2003 and referring the matter back to the CEO.

[117] In my opinion, the remedies sought by the Applicant should not be granted. Pursuant to section 18.1(3) of the Federal Courts Act, supra, the Court has discretion in the matter of granting relief upon an application for judicial review. On occasion, relief has been denied and in this regard, I refer to Mobil Oil Canada Ltd. v. Canada-Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Board, 1994 CanLII 114 (SCC), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 202.

[118] In the present case, I take judicial notice of the fact that no writ for an election was issued in the thirty days following December 7, 2003. In the result, the CEO’s action in immediately amending the registry of parties, although contrary to my interpretation of the Act, had no material effect. In the exercise of my discretion, I decline to grant the relief sought.

[119] The application for judicial review is dismissed. However, the Applicant has raised a valid point and is entitled to his assessed costs under Column III.

                                         <center>  ORDER</center>

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that:
.
The application for judicial review is dismissed, the Applicant to have his assessed costs under Column III

Much the same as with the Ontario Courts. The Court declines to intervene, and rules the merger allowed under the Canada Elections Act.

8. Stevens v. CPC (Federal Court of Appeal)

[49]I therefore find that the only interpretation that would give a concrete meaning to the texts in question is the one that requires the Chief Electoral Officer to let 30 days expire once the merger application is received before accepting it. If this was not Parliament’s intention, it is free to correct our vision with a more specific legislative text.

Exercising discretionary power for judicial review
[50]Justice Heneghan refused to grant the relief sought despite the fact that the Chief Electoral Officer, by not waiting 30 days before making his decision, violated the Canada Elections Act. Taking judicial notice of the fact that no writ ordering an election was issued in the 30 days following the merger application, she found, at paragraph 118 of her reasons:
In the result, the CEO’s action in immediately amending the registry of parties, although contrary to my interpretation of the Act, had no material effect. In the exercise of my discretion, I decline to grant the relief sought.

[51]Justice Heneghan, in my opinion, judiciously exercised the discretion inherent to the power for judicial review. The existence of this discretion is based both on the text of subsection 18.1(3) [as enacted by S.C. 1990, c. 8, s. 5; 2002, c. 8, s. 27] of the Federal Courts Act [R.S.C., 1985, c. F-7 , s. 1 (as am. by S.C. 2002, c. 8, s. 14)] under which the “Federal Court may” [emphasis added] quash the decision of a federal board, commission or tribunal, and on the principles associated with traditional prerogative writs. In this regard, it would be appropriate to return to this long excerpt from Justice Hugessen’s reasons in Schaaf v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, 1984 CanLII 3622 (FCA), [1984] 2 F.C. 334 (C.A.), at pages 342-344, which summarize the basis of this discretion best, with the adaptations required by the new, more explicit formulation of section 18 [as am. by S.C. 1990, c. 8, s. 4; 2002, c. 8, s. 26]:

In my view, nothing in the words used makes them other than attributive of jurisdiction. They create the power in the Court to set aside decisions which offend in one of the stated ways but do not impose a duty to do so in every case.

More of the same. The Federal Court can use discretion and choose not to intervene.

9. Current CPC Leadership Antics

This is the follow-up to Section #2. Andrew Scheer becomes leader of the Conservative Party of Canada in May 2017, is a surprise (and contested) 13th ballot over Maxime Bernier. However, it soon becomes clear that many people did not want this, and Scheer is undermined within his own party.

Bernier leaves in August 2018 to start his own party, the bizarrely named “People’s Party of Canada”. He claims that the CPC is no longer conservative, and that he will form an alternative. He also starts adopting populist rhetoric, something he previously hadn’t shown. Interestingly, Bernier spends more time attacking Scheer than the Liberal Party, which is currently in government.

Curiously, the People’s Party is missing a lot:
(a) Bernier has never called a leadership campaign
(b) No policies have ever been voted on
(c) There is no party constitution
(d) There are no by-laws, or other governing documents
(e) There is no national council, or senior board
(f) The platform was recycled from Bernier’s 2016/17 leadership run

Critics claim it is a “temporary” party meant to keep the Conservatives from winning, and to get Scheer ejected. Strangely enough, Peter MacKay’s name gets floated as a possible successor should Scheer not become Prime Minister.

Ultimately, Justin Trudeau did win again, but this time a minority. Despite winning the popular vote and increasing the seat total, Scheer was pressured to resign from the CPC leadership.

Could MacKay be at it again? Is this another scheme to undermine the will of conservative party members and select the party’s leader? Was the PPC just a psy-op to get rid of Scheer and install another leader instead?

10. Politics Is Rotten To The Core


This current fiasco has relevance to the 2003 one for a simple reason: some of the same people are involved in both. Now, could Peter MacKay be up to his old tricks of deceit and backstabbing? Choosing who becomes leader?

Actually governing people always seems to take a backseat to the infighting, pettiness, and selfishness of the politicians involved. Public servants appear to be anything but.

Giving your word, even in writing, seems to mean little. Alliances will always give way to self interest.

Reply Arguments In Appeal Of Dismissal To S3CA Challenge

1. Quotes From Gov’t Defense Of Dismissal

2. Previous Posts On Case

CLICK HERE, for abuse of Safe Third Country Agreement.
CLICK HERE, for Prothonotary strikes out Statement of Claim.
CLICK HERE, for Uppity Peasants on the moral arguments.
CLICK HERE, for arguments to appeal S3CA dismissal.

3, Text Of Plaintiff’s Reply

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

(1) To avoid rehashing the entire written submissions section in the original Motion Record, this will be limited to 5 follow up questions for the Court to consider.

ISSUES

  • Should “due diligence” be required before making rulings?
  • To what degree should court officials be able to decide what cases are important?
  • What role should Prothonotaries have in striking out documents?
  • Should the government be allowed to submit conflicting, or incoherent pleadings?
  • Does Canada owe an obligation (beyond S3CA) to protect its borders?

(2) The above questions are to aid the Court in determining whether the original ruling should be allowed to stand, and the bigger issues at stake here.

Should “due diligence” be required before making rulings?

(3) Part of the appeal is on the grounds that Prothonotary Milczynski made overriding palpable error in the findings that claims of mass illegal crossings were just “opinion” and “unsupported”. The defence suggests that there was no reason to have submitted the evidence affidavit in the motion record.

(4) Where was the opportunity to submit proof of this?
First: Evidence is not supposed to be submitted with the Statement of Claim.
Second: Evidence is not allowed in Rule 221 motions to strike.

(5) So where exactly was the opportunity to prove any of the allegations? Remember, the standard of review for findings of fact is “overriding palpable error”. Unless this can be demonstrated, the default position is to “give deference” to the lower court ruling.

(6) So yes, it was necessary to submit the evidence affidavit with the motion record. This was the first opportunity to have this evidence submitted, and it shows irrefutably that Prothonotary Milczynski was completely wrong about Roxham Road crossings. So yes, it is important to the course of justice.

(7) Fact is, illegals have been crossing the Canada/U.S. border for years, particularly at Roxham Road in Quebec. This is public information, and has been in the media fairly regularly. There is a “loophole” in the agreement, in that simply going around border ports allows entry into Canada.

(8) Prothonotary Milczynski seems not to have been at all aware of this, despite the media attention. Instead, the allegations in the Statement of Claim were labelled as “opinions” and “bald face assertions”. Even a minimal amount of research (even a Google search) would have immediately found a wealth of media, photographic and video evidence corroborating every assertion made in the Statement of Claim.

(9) The affidavit contained only a tiny piece of the evidence available to prove the Plaintiff’s claims. No one, with any seriousness, can deny the hordes of illegals crossing into Canada. Again, the loophole (not any intended outcome), was that it doesn’t apply BETWEEN official border ports.

(10) In my view, this falls far short of what should be considered acceptable by a Court official. If a Prothonotary or Judge is going to call a Plaintiff’s statements “opinion”, then some due diligence should be done. Prothonotary Milczynski committed overriding palpable error in those findings, and the affidavit should outweigh the default position to “give deference”.

(11) While it is true that Court Officers have a heavy workload, there must be some due diligence performed before declaring a Statement of Claim to be “opinion”. The information included in the SoC has been public knowledge for about 3 years now, and could have been easily verified. This falls far short of what should be acceptable from a Prothonotary.

To what degree should court officials be able to decide what case are important

(12) Admittedly there is a level of discretion for the Prothonotary or Judgeinvolved. There has to be some leeway to decide what cases are important.

(13) That being said, the discretion was improperly used. From the Vancouversex workers case the Defendant referred to earlier.

[1] This appeal is concerned with the law of public interest standing in constitutional cases. The law of standing answers the question of who is entitled to bring a case to court for a decision. Of course it would be intolerable if everyone had standing to sue for everything, no matter how limited a personal stake they had in the matter. Limitations on standing are necessary in order to ensure that courts do not become hopelessly overburdened with marginal or redundant cases, to screen out the mere “busybody” litigant, to ensure that courts have the benefit of contending points of view of those most directly affected and to ensure that courts play their proper role within our democratic system of government: Finlay v. Canada (Minister of Finance), 1986 CanLII 6 (SCC), [1986] 2 S.C.R. 607, at p. 631.The traditional approach was to limit standing to persons whose private rights were at stake or who were specially affected by the issue. In public law cases, however, Canadian courts have relaxed these limitations on standing and have taken a flexible, discretionary approach to public interest standing, guided by the purposes which underlie the traditional limitations.

[2] In exercising their discretion with respect to standing, the courts weigh three factors in light of these underlying purposes and of the particular circumstances. The courts consider whether the case raises a serious justiciable issue, whether the party bringing the action has a real stake or a genuine interest in its outcome and whether, having regard to a number of factors, the proposed suit is a reasonable and effective means to bring the case to court: Canadian Council of Churches v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), 1992 CanLII 116 (SCC), [1992] 1 S.C.R. 236, at p. 253. The courts exercise this discretion to grant or refuse standing in a “liberal and generous manner” (p. 253).

(14) First, this case is not about some minor or trivial thing. Rather, it is about trying to close the Canadian border to illegals trying to enter Canada. The Government of Canada “should” be taking this seriously. In fact, providing a secure border is arguably the most important function a government should serve.

(15) It is asinine to suggest that a citizen does not have a legitimate interest in having secure borders, and asinine that society as a whole is not impacted by mass illegal entries. Protecting its borders and sovereignty is arguably the most important function a government has. Without borders to mark and enforce its territory, the nation dies.

(16) It is not enough to simply have signs saying “Welcome to Canada” or some such thing. Borders must be enforced by people, and they must have laws — laws with teeth — enforcing them.

(17) Second, on a personal level, it does impact the Plaintiff. She has to pay more in taxes, it cheapens her citizenship if anyone can simply enter Canada if they go AROUND the border crossings, and social service access is limited as more resources are used on illegals who have no right to be in the country. On a public level, the same issues apply. Tax dollars are spent when they shouldn’t be.

(18) Third, as for being a reasonable means of bringing the court hearing the case, what’s the alternative? If the Government won’t act in ways that are most conducive to the safety and well being of its people, then what options are there other than the court?

(19) Although there is clearly discretion in whether or not to grant standing to hear such cases, it was inappropriately used here, especially when the Federal Court has the jurisdiction to hear it. (This is not a trivial or minor case). See the Federal Courts Act

Jurisdiction of Federal Court
Marginal note:
Relief against the Crown 17 (1) Except as otherwise provided in this Act or any other Act of Parliament, the Federal Court has concurrent original jurisdiction in all cases in which relief is claimed against the Crown.

Extraprovincial jurisdiction
25 The Federal Court has original jurisdiction, between subject and subject as well as otherwise, in any case in which a claim for relief is made or a remedy is sought under or by virtue of the laws of Canada if no other court constituted, established or continued under any of the Constitution Acts, 1867 to 1982 has jurisdiction in respect of that claim or remedy.

What role should Prothonotaries have in striking out documents?

(20) The Defendant makes a straw-man argument alleging I claim that Prothonotaries have no jurisdiction to hear motions to strike. That is weasly, and a misrepresentation.

(21) What was actually said (and cited by many cases) is that: (a) Amendments should be allowed prior to striking; (b) striking should be reserved to only when pleading is bad beyond argument; (c) Claims should not be struck out just because they are novel; (d) Prothonotaries should not strike on matters that are not fully settled before the courts. From the COMER case (Commission on Monetary and Economic Reform), submitted with motion record.

[30] The Plaintiffs remind the Court of the general principles to be applied on a motion to strike. The facts pleaded by the Plaintiffs must be taken as proven: Canada (Attorney General) v Inuit Tapirasat of Canada, 1980 CanLII 21 (SCC), [1980] 2 SCR 735; Nelles v Ontario (1989), DLR (4th) 609 (SCC) [Nelles]; Operation Dismantle Inc., above; Hunt, above; Dumont v Canada (Attorney General), 1990 CanLII 131 (SCC), [1990] 1 SCR 279 [Dumont]; Trendsetter Developments Ltd v Ottawa Financial Corp. (1989), 32 OAC 327 (CA) [Trendsetter]; Nash v Ontario (1995), 1995 CanLII 2934 (ON CA), 27 OR (3d) 1 (Ont CA) [Nash]; Canada v Arsenault, 2009 FCA 242 (CanLII) [Arsenault]. A claim should be struck “only in plain and obvious cases where the pleading is bad beyond argument” (Nelles, above, at 627), or where it is “‘plain and obvious’ or ‘beyond doubt’” that the claim will not succeed (Dumont, above, at 280; Trendsetter, above). It is inappropriate to strike a claim simply because it raises an “arguable, difficult or important point of law” (Hunt, above, at 990-91), or because it is a novel claim: Nash, above; Hanson v Bank of Nova Scotia (1994), 1994 CanLII 573 (ON CA), 19 OR (3d) 142 (CA); AdamsSmith v Christian Horizons (1997), 14 CPC (4th) 78 (Ont Gen Div); Miller (Litigation Guardian of) v Wiwchairyk (1997), 1997 CanLII 12256 (ON SC), 34 OR (3d) 640 (Ont Gen Div). Indeed, in the law of torts in particular, this may make it critical that the claim proceed so that the law can evolve in response to modern needs (Hunt, above, at 991-92). Matters not fully settled by the jurisprudence should not be decided on a motion to strike: R.D. Belanger & Associates Ltd v Stadium Corp of Ontario Ltd (1991), 1991 CanLII 2731 (ON CA), 5 OR (3d) 778 (CA). The Plaintiffs say that, in order to succeed, the Defendants must produce a “decided case directly on point from the same jurisdiction demonstrating that the very same issue has been squarely dealt with and rejected”: Dalex Co v Schwartz Levitsky Feldman (1994), 1994 CanLII 7290 (ON SC), 19 OR (3d) 463 (Gen Div). Furthermore, the Court should be generous with respect to the drafting of the pleadings, permitting amendments before striking: Grant v Cormier – Grant et al (2001), 2001 CanLII 3041 (ON CA), 56 OR (3d) 215 (CA); Toronto-Dominion Bank v Deloite Hoskins & Sells (1991), 1991 CanLII 7366 (ON SC), 5 OR (3d) 417 (Gen Div). Finally, the Claim has to be taken as pleaded by the Plaintiffs, not as reconfigured by the Defendants: Arsenault, above.

[31] The Plaintiffs say that the Prothonotary correctly stated the test on a motion to strike, but wholly misapplied it by determining substantive matters that should have been left for the trial judge, striking the Claim despite acknowledging that it was a “novel” and “complex” one, and making an erroneous ruling on the application of the Charter.

(22) As possible amendments, if certain statements were vague, or needed rewriting, that would certainly be possible to do. The option should have been given previously.

(23) With all of these principles in mind, striking with leave to amend (rewrite, clarify or otherwise fix) the Statement of Claim would have been the proper course rather than striking without leave. Here are a few proposed amendments if needed

  • Rewriting, redrafting the Statement of Claim, with more precise detail as seen fit.
  • Rewriting, redrafting the SoC, to make the legal arguments more clear
  • Modifying remedies sought, and just focusing on the law itself, not the fake refugees already here.

(24) If specific facts alleged should have clearer or more specific, that was — and still is — something that the Court can direct. Throwing the case out completely should not have been the first reaction.

Should the government be allowed to submit conflicting, or incoherent pleadings?

(25) The Defendant/Respondent has not disclosed that they have been fighting a case with a similar issue in Toronto since 2017. 3 “refugee claimants” are appealing the denial of their entry into Canada from the “warzone” that is the United States.

MOHAMMAD MAJD MAHER HOMSI ET AL v. MCI ET ALL
Court File: #IMM-775-17

NEDIRA JEMAL MUSTEFAv. MIRC ET AL
Court File: #IMM-2229-17

THE CANADIAN COUNCIL FOR RFUGEES ET AL v. MIRC ET AL
Court File: #IMM-2977-17

(26) The mental gymnastics are stunning. The Canadian Government tells the TORONTO Court that the Safe 3rd Country Agreement is necessary to protect Canadian borders from abuse. That same Government tells the VANCOUVER Court that an obvious loophole should not be closed, since the challenger is not a refugee claimant.

(27) That’s right. In Toronto, the Federal Government is telling the Court (and just had a 5 day hearing) that the Safe 3rd Country Agreement is vital. But in Vancouver, the Feds try to strike out a Claim attempting to close the loophole, which allows people to enter, just as long as they go around the actual border ports.

(28) In Toronto, border security is a critically important issue. In Vancouver, the case to secure the border from mass illegal entry is considered “busybody” work.

(29) Although the two cases are separate, and have separate parties, there is a palpable level of cognitive dissonance required in order for the Federal Government to argue both positions. As such, it should be considered arguing in bad faith, or being deliberately obfuscating.

Motion to strike
 221 (1) On motion, the Court may, at any time, order that a pleading, or anything contained therein, be struck out, with or without leave to amend, on the ground that it:
(a) discloses no reasonable cause of action or defence, as the case may be
(b) is immaterial or redundant
(c) is scandalous, frivolous or vexatious
(d) may prejudice or delay the fair trial of the action,
(e) constitutes a departure from a previous pleading, or
(f) is otherwise an abuse of the process of the Court
,

(30) Considering that the Toronto cases were started in 2017 — before this one — the defense in this case (the motion to strike) should actually not have been allowed to proceed. If not for contradictory pleadings, then for arguing in bad faith. 221(1)(e)

(31) In addition to the mental gymnastics of the 2 cases, the original motion to strike (filed by Aman Owais) was an abuse of the process of the court 221(1)(f)

(32) On top of that, take a look at the agreement itself. In the “understanding” portion of the Agreement, the following is written out.

EMPHASIZING that the United States and Canada offer generous systems of refugee protection, recalling both countries’ traditions of assistance to refugees and displaced persons abroad, consistent with the principles of international solidarity that underpin the international refugee protection system, and committed to the notion that cooperation and burden-sharing with respect to refugee status claimants can be enhanced;

DESIRING to uphold asylum as an indispensable instrument of the international protection of refugees, and resolved to strengthen the integrity of that institution and the public support on which it depends;

(33) In the original Motion to Strike, previous counsel Aman Owais argued that there was no loophole in the Safe 3rd Country Agreement, and that it was INTENDED to apply only to official border points (not the vast areas around them). This is utter nonsense and the Court should reject such arguments.

(34) The Agreement openly states that both Canada and the United States offer generous systems of refugee protection. It is therefore incoherent babble that people should be able to “asylum shop” simply by-passing official ports. This would reward people for breaking the law. The Government’s absurd claims like this are an abuse of the Court process in violation of Rule 221(1)(f), and the Motion should have been denied for that reason alone.

Does Canada owe an obligation (beyond S3CA) to protect its borders?

(35) Section 39, 40 of Immigration & Refugee Protection Act

39. A foreign national is inadmissible for financial reasons if they are or will be unable or unwilling to support themself or any other person who is dependent on them, and have not satisfied an officer that adequate arrangements for care and support, other than those that involve social assistance, have been made

40(1) A permanent resident or a foreign national is inadmissible for misrepresentation (a) for directly or indirectly misrepresentations or withholding material facts relating to a relevant matter that induces or could induce an error in the administration of this act.

(36) Section 39 and 40 of the Act are not for the protection of foreigners coming into Canada. Rather, they are to protect Canadians from people who are unwilling to support themselves, or who lie in order to get into Canada.

(37) The United Nations Office of Drugs and Crime (UNODC) in their 2011 publication “Smuggling of Migrants”

(38) A Global Review and Annotated Bibliography of Recent Publications”, noted the connection between illegal entry (which they call “irregular migration”) and the smuggling of people.

2.1 Smuggling of migrants and the concepts of irregular migration and trafficking in persons 2.1.1 Irregular migration
.
The relationship between irregular migration and smuggling of migrants has been discussed in the literature, with most authors acknowledging the crucial role of smuggling of migrants in facilitating irregular migration. The legal definition of smuggling of migrants finds wide acceptance among the academiccommunity, which usually refers to articles 3 and 6 of the Smuggling of migrants Protocol.

Contrary to the concept of smuggling, the notion of irregular migration does not have a universally accepted definition; however, most academics and experts refer to the definition provided by IOM, which highlights that the most common forms of irregular migration are illegal entry, overstaying and unauthorized work. In looking at the relationship between the two concepts, Friedrich Heckmann stresses that smuggling of migrants plays a crucial role in facilitating irregular migration, as smugglers may provide a wide range of services, from physical transportation and illegal crossing of a border to the procurement of false documents

(39) By refusing to properly protect and enforce the Canada/U.S. border, is Canada not taking the risk of aiding and abetting in the possible human smuggling across international borders?

(40) Objective 10 of the UN Global Migration Compact (which this government signed) requires Canada to act in ways to prevent smuggling and trafficking ofpersons

OBJECTIVE 10: Prevent, combat and eradicate trafficking in persons in the context of international migration
.
To realize this commitment, we will draw from the following actions:
.
a) Promote, ratification, accession and implementation of the Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons Especially Women and Children, supplementing the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime (UNTOC)
.
b) Promote the implementation of the Global Plan of Action to Combat Trafficking in Persons and take into consideration relevant recommendations of the UNODC Toolkit to Combat Trafficking in Persons and other relevant UNODC documents when developing and implementing national and regional policies and measures relating to trafficking in persons

(41) Also, read article 11 of the UN Protocol to Prevent, Supress and Punish Trafficking In Persons, particularly woman and children, Supplementing the United Nations Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime. Canada ratified it in 2003, and is still a party to it.

(42) To state the obvious, how exactly does allowing fake refugees to come in BETWEEN official border ports?

(43) These are the 5 questions being asked in this reply

  • Should “due diligence” be required before making rulings?
  • To what degree should court officials be able to decide what cases are important?
  • What role should Prothonotaries have in striking out documents?
  • Should the government be allowed to submit conflicting, or incoherent pleadings?
  • Does Canada owe an obligation (beyond S3CA) to protect its borders?

(44) If the Court thinks it proper, I am willing to make necessary changes to fix whatever problems may exist in the original Statement of Claim. Here are a few ideas to consider:
(a) Rewriting, redrafting the Statement of Claim, with more precise detail as seen fit.
(b) Rewriting, redrafting the Statement of Claim, to make the legal arguments more clear
(c) Modifying remedies sought, and just focusing on the law itself, not the fake refugees
already here.

4. Authorities Cited

[1] Canada/US Safe Third Country Agreement
[2] UN Protocol to Prevent, Supress and Punish Trafficking In Persons, particularly woman and children, Supplementing the United Nations Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime
[3] Federal Courts Act
[4] UN Global Migration Compact
[5] Immigration and Refugee Protection Act
[6] UN Office Of Drugs and Crime (UN Site down)
https://www.unodc.org/documents/human-trafficking/Migrant
Smuggling/Smuggling_of_Migrants_A_Global_Review.pdf

5. Order Sought

The Plaintiff, Moving Party requests:
(a) The decision of Prothonotary Milczynski be overturned and
 The Claim be allowed to proceed, or
 Necessary amendments be allowed to be made
(b) Costs for the appeal (revoking the earlier waiver)