Defense Motion To Stike: Safe 3rd Country Agreement Loophole

On Thursday, the Federal Government filed a motion to strike out (throw out) challenge to closing the loophole in the Canada/US Safe 3rd Country Agreement.

Here are the main points:

(1) I’m not a lawyer, so it is a waste of the court’s time to hear from someone who isn’t professionally trained.

That is irrelevant. Self-reps are allowed to do their own work, and the Court must give them fair consideration as per the Supreme Court ruling (Pintea v. Johns, 2017)

(2) I have no standing, either privately or publicly, to challenge this matter.

Sure, protecting the integrity of your borders and immigration systems are not at all a public or private interest.

(3) I have no genuine interest in the matter.

Obviously not, I just filed the case for fun (sarcasm).

(4) Challenge would be better off coming from someone directly effected by the S3CA loophole, such as an actual refugee claimant.

Even if this were true, it would be a huge conflict of interest. Why would a refugee claimant file a challenge to make rules harder for him/herself?

(5) Hearing this case is a waste of court resources

No, letting tens of thousands of illegals in at taxpayer expense is a waste of resources. This is just to stop it.

(6) Federal Court not the place to bring challenges to immigration law

Immigration is a Federal jurisdiction. The Federal Court has jurisdiction to hear applications for judicial review (when immigration and refugee claims are denied). They should also have the ability to decide what is proper procedure.

(7) This would involve making a ruling that would impact other “refugee claimants'” hearings and claims.

That is the point.

(8) Orginal document not worded clearly or specificly enough.

Thank you for the head’s up.

Of course, this is an overly simplified response. The real one will be coming soon enough.

A Case For Tort Reform: Free-Speech “Grifters” Want $5M

(Peterson interview after suing)

(Peterson announcing lawsuit to follow Shepherd)

(Pedantic Shepherd, YouTube is beside the point)

(Shepherd sues, then complains about being sued)

IMPORTANT LINKS


CLICK HERE, for a prior review on Jordan Peterson.
CLICK HERE, for a prior review on Bill C-16 (gender identity)
CLICK HERE, for Louder With Crowder interview.
(See 49:00 and 50:20 for Peterson comments on OHRC policies)
CLICK HERE, for Peterson & Cathy Newman (cringe)
CLICK HERE, and HERE, for Peterson’s cognitive dissonance deplatforming Faith Goldy at free speech event.
CLICK HERE, for Shepherd’s site: identitygrifting.ca.
CLICK HERE, for Peterson announcing $1.5M lawsuit and Wilfrid Laurier University and 3 employees.
CLICK HERE, for Peterson interview on lawsuit (2:55)
CLICK HERE, for National Post article on WLU 3rd party defence.
CLICK HERE, for the Ontario Human Rights Code.
CLICK HERE, for Ontario Court forms index.
CLICK HERE, for Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure.
CLICK HERE, for Ontario Libel and Slander Act.
CLICK HERE, for Hill v. Church of Scientology, 1995.
CLICK HERE, for Ontario Bill 52, protecting expression in matters of public interest.

SOME BACKGROUND


The details of the Wilfrid Laurier University scandal (Lindsay Shepherd, the 3 staff members, and Jordan Peterson), is old news at this point. The article just focuses on the lawsuits brought against WLU and its staff by Peterson and Shepherd.

It is the opinion here that although the facts alleged are basically true, the claims are fraudulent. They are combined seeking 5 million dollars (Shepherd $3.6, Peterson $1.5M). This is an abuse of the court system, and a way to unjustly enrich themselves.

Keep in mind, Peterson’s only claim to damages was that the tape defamed him (comparing him to Hitler, and other comments). His critics were vilified by the media. He suffered no actual damage, other than being named in a tape that Shepherd released.

Shepherd claims that not only was this 42 minute meeting difficult (surely it was), but that she was never treated the same way again. She cites a few examples, but nothing that would lead a reasonable person to think this would be worth millions in damages. Shepherd claims to be unemployable in academia, but her new love for media probably helped that.

Did WLU staff act like d*****bags? YES
Were inappropriate things said? YES
Was a tape of this leaked to the media? YES
Does any of this amount to millions in damages? NO

TOTAL HYPOCRISY


During the Louder With Crowder interview, Peterson (at 50:20) criticizes the Ontario Human Rights Code for automatically making employers vicariously liable for things employees say. However, he has no issue with USING vicarious liability in order to name the University in his lawsuit.

Peterson claimed that it was libel for Rambukkana to compare him to Hitler, yet Peterson compares trans activists to Communists, who have caused the deaths of millions of people.

Peterson has come to fame claiming to be a free speech champion, but has no issue deplatforming speakers he doesn’t agree with. Faith Goldy is a particularly bad example.

Shepherd and Peterson both claim to be free speech champions, but then sue over words they don’t like.

KARMA IS A B****


In 2018, Shepherd launched a $3.6 million lawsuit against Wilfrid Laurier University and 3 of its staff (Nathan Rambukkana, Herbert Pimlott, and Adria Joel). Although the infamous meeting was cited, there were other problems occurring later which were cited in the statement of defense.

Jordan Peterson filed a $1.5 million lawsuit of his own, claiming that Laurier hadn’t learned its lesson. Peterson claimed that the infamous tape had damaged his reputation.

Regarding Peterson’s claim, the WLU filed a 3rd party claim (Form 29A). It stated that if Peterson actually had suffered damages, he should be suing Lindsay Shepherd, as she made the tape secretly and released it.

Shepherd was outraged. After filing a lawsuit against her university, she is shocked that they would use her as a defence in a related lawsuit. She brought this on herself.

WLU should consider Rule 2.1.01

Rule 2.1 General Powers to Stay or Dismiss if Vexatious, etc.

Stay, Dismissal of frivolous, vexatious, abusive Proceeding
Order to Stay, Dismiss Proceeding
2.1.01 (1) The court may, on its own initiative, stay or dismiss a proceeding if the proceeding appears on its face to be frivolous or vexatious or otherwise an abuse of the process of the court. O. Reg. 43/14, s. 1

Although litigation tends to drag on a long time, something like this should be used. The litigation (particularly Peterson’s) is an abuse of process.

From the Ontario Libel & Slander Act:

Definitions
1 (1) In this Act,
“broadcasting” means the dissemination of writing, signs, signals, pictures and sounds of all kinds, intended to be received by the public either directly or through the medium of relay stations, by means of,

(a) any form of wireless radioelectric communication utilizing Hertzian waves, including radiotelegraph and radiotelephone, or
(b) cables, wires, fibre-optic linkages or laser beams,
and “broadcast” has a corresponding meaning; (“radiodiffusion ou télédiffusion”, “radiodiffuser ou télédiffuser”)
“newspaper” means a paper containing public news, intelligence, or occurrences, or remarks or observations thereon, or containing only, or principally, advertisements, printed for distribution to the public and published periodically, or in parts or numbers, at least twelve times a year. (“journal”) R.S.O. 1990, c. L.12, s. 1 (1).

Wilfrid Laurier and its 3 staff members did not do this. Shepherd did. She released the recording to the media, with the intent of making it widely distributed. So Rambukkana and Pimlott have a valid point. If Peterson did suffer damages, it was caused by Lindsay Shepherd.

Yes, Rambukkana and Pimlott were unprofessional for making the comments in the first place. However, it is clear they never meant to be recorded.

There is also some ambiguity as to the Statute of Limitations, whether it would be 3 months, or 2 years. If it is 3 months, then it has already lapsed.

SOME CANADIAN CASES


Here is Hill v Church of Scientology of Toronto (1995), which dropped “actual malice” as a requirement.

Here is Grant v Torstar (2009), which created an exception for responsible journalism.

Here is Crookes v Newton (2011), which ruled that linking, or hyperlinking stories does not count as publishing.

However, all of this may be irrelevant, since it was Shepherd who SECRETLY recorded the meeting, and then chose to publish it WITHOUT THE KNOWLEDGE OR CONSENT of the other parties.

ONTARIO’S BILL 52 (2015)


Not sure if this would be relied on in the proceedings, but in 2015, the Ontario Government passed Bill 52 on this subject. Interesting is section 137.1

Dismissal of proceeding that limits debate
Purposes
Rejet d’une instance limitant les débats
Objets
137.1 (1) The purposes of this section and sections 137.2 to 137.5 are,
(a) to encourage individuals to express themselves on matters of public interest;
(b) to promote broad participation in debates on matters of public interest;
(c) to discourage the use of litigation as a means of unduly limiting expression on matters of public interest; and
(d) to reduce the risk that participation by the public in debates on matters of public interest will be hampered by fear of legal action.

FINAL THOUGHTS


The topic of tort reform is a popular one in recent years, particularly in the United States. Putting a cap on maximum damages, or making it harder to collect on bogus claims is a goal worth pursuing.

Any google or online search of “tort reform” will lead to an almost endless number of matches.

This is not at all to say that a person should “never” go to civil court. If an employer doesn’t pay your wages, or your property is damaged, or bills are not paid, then litigation can be a very valid path. Admittedly, “reasonable” is very subjective. However, most people can agree that one must suffer actual damages to go to court.

However, Shepherd and Peterson have both laid million dollar lawsuits because people said mean things to them. (Shepherd’s claim cites more detail). And hypocritically, both think nothing of mocking their detractors.

These 2 are not the free speech champions they pretend to be. Rather, they support free speech when it is convenient to do so. They are “free-speech grifters”.

Hard to feel sorry for her anymore.

Motion to Strike Challenge to UN Parliament


Check toolbar on right for globalism links (under counter). Also view the MASTERLIST.

All personal court appearances are under “BLOG
Fed Court cases are addressed on right under “Canadian Media”.


QUOTES FROM MOTION TO STRIKE

10. An endorsement to a proposed organization, like the UNPA, or even a decision to participate in the UNPA, is not a decision of a “federal board, commission or other tribunal” within the meaning of sections 2 and 18.1 of the Federal Courts Act. Accordingly, this application must fail.

14. There has been no decision of a federal board, commission or tribunal, therefore, this application is completely without merit. Regardless, Canada’s actions in signing or endorsing an international body do not give rise a decision that can be judicially reviewed.

15. This application bears some similarities to Turp v Canada (Justice).10 In that case, the Applicant filed an application for judicial review of Canada’s decision to withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol. The Federal Court held that in the absence of a Charter challenge, a decision pertaining to such matters is not justiciable.

16. The matter at bar is also distinguishable from Turp. The Government of Canada has taken no action to participate in the proposed UNPA, therefore, there is no decision to judicially review. In Turp there was a decision to withdraw from the Kyoto protocol.

17. Regardless, it is well-established that under the royal prerogative, the conduct of foreign affairs and international relations, including the decision to conclude or withdraw from a treaty, falls exclusively under the executive branch of government

18. In Turp c. Canada, the Federal Trial Court followed the Ontario Court of Appeal’s holding in Black v Canada that the exercise of the prerogative is justiciable only when the subject matter affects the rights or legitimate expectations of an individual.

19. Even if there was a “decision” in this matter, Canada is exercising its prerogative powers under foreign affairs when participating or endorsing any international body like the UNPA.

20. In the Applicant’s material, she enumerates seven grounds for her application:
a) First, that the proposed UNPA violates “Peace Order and Good Government” pursuant to section 91 of the Constitution Act, 1867;
b) Second, that the UNPA violates section 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982;
c) Third, that the UNPA violates sections 91 and 92 of the Constitution Act, 1867;
d) Fourth, that the UNPA requires a constitutional amendment, pursuant to section 38 of the Constitution Act, 1982
e) Fifth, that the UNPA violates section 3 of the Charter;
f) Sixth, that the UNPA violates section 2 of the Charter;
g) Seventh, that the UNPA violates section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982

21. Although the Applicant has raised several constitutional issues, she has failed to articulate how endorsements of a proposed international body like the UNPA violates any of the ground listed. Likewise, she has failed to articulate how it affects her rights.

22. The UNPA does not affect the Applicant’s rights or legitimate expectations because it has no legal personhood, domestically or internationally, and therefore has no ability to affect the Applicant. The application is both premature and meritless.

23. In summary, there are obvious and fatal flaws with this application. Canada therefore requests that the application be dismissed on the basis that the application is so clearly improper as to be bereft of any possibility of success.

A number of problems cited:

  1. Application for Judicial Review is wrong format
  2. Endorsements are not sufficient
  3. Matter brought to court prematurely
  4. “Prerogative Power” allows such a “treaty”
  5. Court has no basis to interfere

Admittedly, a lot to take on. But a response is coming.

Different Approach On Fixing S3CA Loophole


Check toolbar on right for globalism links (under counter). Also view the MASTERLIST.

PETITION E-1906 (UN Global Migration Compact): CLICK HERE
PETITION E-2012 (UN Global Parliament) CLICK HERE

All personal court appearances are under “BLOG
Fed Court cases are addressed on right under “Canadian Media”.


IMPORTANT LINKS


CLICK HERE, for trying to use Notice of Application.
CLICK HERE, for trying to get a motion to extend time for A.J.R.
CLICK HERE, for background on the loophole.
CLICK HERE, for abuse of loophole in S3CA.

CLICK HERE, for the Canada/US Safe 3rd Country Agreement.
CLICK HERE, for the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

BACKGROUND INFO


The Federal Court has shot down multiple attempts to use application for judicial review (Section 18 of Federal Courts Act) to correct this problem. So, now the next approach taken: ask for straight-up enforcement of how the agreement was “intended” to be.

Specifically, it was never meant that anyone could bypass the S3CA simply by going around official checkpoints.

NEW ATTEMPT: CLAIM FOR ENFORCEMENT

Facts Alleged

  1. The Safe Third Country Agreement (S3CA) was signed between Canada and the United States on December 5, 2002, under then Prime Minister Jean Chretien.

  2. The Safe Third Country Agreement (S3CA) came into effect on December 29, 2004, under then Prime Minister Paul Martin.

  3. The intention behind this agreement is to recognize that both countries are “safe” countries, and that “asylum seekers”, shouldn’t be “shopping around” for a better country to arrive at.

  4. The Safe Third Country Agreement (S3CA) remains in effect legally, the only issue is of enforcing it properly.

  5. Recently, however, more than 40,000 economic migrants (fake refugees) have come into Canada from the United States. This poses security and financial burdens.

  6. Instead of deporting these illegal, economic migrants (fake refugees), the Federal Government has decided instead to take them in, at great expense to taxpayers.

  7. By far the most common location is Roxham Road, in Quebec, which shares a border with New York State.

  8. A loophole in the S3CA means this only covers “official ports of entry”, or official land border crossings. This means the law can be circumvented merely by going AROUND any official border crossings.

  9. While the wording in the official agreement may be poor, the intent was to avoid “asylum shopping”.

  10. No reasonable person could interpret the agreement to mean that the agreement could be
    bypassed by ignoring official checkpoints. That would reward lawbreakers.

  11. This is even more outrageous when considered that the US gets tens of thousands of asylum applications annually. Hardly a dangerous place.

Law On The Subject

(12) As specified on the Canadian Government’s own website, the point of the Safe Third Country Agreement (S3CA) is to prevent abuse. Here is a quote:

The Safe Third Country Agreement between Canada and the United States (U.S.) is part of the U.S.–Canada Smart Border Action Plan. Under the Agreement, refugee claimants are required to request refugee protection in the first safe country they arrive in, unless they qualify for an exception to the Agreement.

The Agreement helps both governments better manage access to the refugee system in each country for people crossing the Canada–U.S. land border. The two countries signed the Agreement on December 5, 2002, and it came into effect on December 29, 2004.

To date, the U.S. is the only country that is designated as a safe third country by Canada under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. The Agreement does not apply to U.S. citizens or habitual residents of the U.S. who are not citizens of any country (“stateless persons”).

(13) There is nothing vague or arguable about the intent of the agreement. People seeking asylum are required to apply for asylum in the first safe country they arrive at.

(14) Canada recognises the United States as a safe country. Period.

(15) It is further codified later on the Government website

Section 102 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) permits the designation of safe third countries for the purpose of sharing the responsibility for refugee claims. Only countries that respect human rights and offer a high degree
of protection to asylum seekers may be designated as safe third countries. To date, the United States is the only designated safe third country.

(16) And from reading Section 102 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, we gain this information.

Regulations
102 (1) The regulations may govern matters relating to the application of sections
100 and 101, may, for the purposes of this Act, define the terms used in those sections and, for the purpose of sharing responsibility with governments of foreign states for the consideration of refugee claims, may include provisions
(a) designating countries that comply with Article 33 of the Refugee Convention and Article 3 of the Convention Against Torture;
(b) making a list of those countries and amending it as necessary; and
(c) respecting the circumstances and criteria for the application of paragraph
101(1)(e).

Marginal note:Factors
(2) The following factors are to be considered in designating a country under
paragraph (1)(a):
(a) whether the country is a party to the Refugee Convention and to the
Convention Against Torture;
(b) its policies and practices with respect to claims under the Refugee Convention
and with respect to obligations under the Convention Against Torture;
(c) its human rights record; and
(d) whether it is party to an agreement with the Government of Canada for the
purpose of sharing responsibility with respect to claims for refugee protection.
Source: https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/I-2.5/page-19.html#h-56

(17) The United States, being the only officially designated “safe country” certainly means that people are safe there.

(18) To reiterate, it is the complete flaunting of a legitimate international agreement that is the issue. The S3CA was NEVER meant to mean anyone can claim asylum in Canada if they merely bypass official checkpoints.

(19) Under 101(1)(e) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, so called “asylum seekers” who enter Canada illegally via the US would be inadmissible anyways, even without the S3CA.

101(1)(e) the claimant came directly or indirectly to Canada from a country designated by the regulations, other than a country of their nationality or their former habitual residence; or

(20) Again, clearly this would make these illegal economic migrants ineligible.

(21) And to beat a dead horse, these illegal, economic migrants (fake refugees) would be ineligible under 34(1)(1.b) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. This is on the grounds that it would be subversion against an institution or process.
34(1)(b.1) engaging in an act of subversion against a democratic government, institution or process as they are understood in Canada;

(22) Also, allowing these illegal economic migrants (fake refugees), into Canada from the United States arguably violates AMERICAN law. Consider Section 101(a)(42) of the Immigration and Naturalization Act.

(42) The term “refugee” means
(A) any person who is outside any country of such
person’s
 nationality or, in the case of a person having no nationality, is outside any country in which such person last habitually resided and who is unable or unwilling to return to, and is unable or unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of, that country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in
a particular social group,or political opinion, or
 (B) in such special circumstances as the President after appropriate
consultation (as defined in section 1157(e) of this title) may specify, any
person who is within the country of such person’s

Here is the source.

(23) Please note: the Canadian Federal Court is not being asked to rule on the validity of US refugee laws. This is added to acknowledge that the US does offer refugee status to approved asylum applicants. Again, this is not an attempt to amend or alter US law.

(24) Allowing this to happen is not saved by Perogative Powers. True, the Executive Branch of the Federal Government has the power to make treaties, and has legitimate purpose.

(25) However this is a treaty signed by a previous administration, that of Jean Chretien in December 2002. The treaty is valid, binding, and to this date, has never been rescinded. The current federal government must respect that.

(26) If the current administration has no interest in enforcing the S3CA as it was intended, then perhaps they should leave the agreement entirely.

Public Interest

(27) As should be obvious from the content of the Statement of Claim, this case is not about money, or getting rich from it. It is about enforcing the integrity of existing border security laws.

(28) The Federal Government has an obligation to the public to enforce agreements in good faith, and to not allow loopholes to undermine public policy.

Remedies Sought

(a) To declare the entire Canada/US border an “official port of entry” or an “official border crossing” to close the loophole in the S3CA.
(b) To deport automatically illegal economic migrants (fake refugees) attempting to cross in the future.
(c) To retroactively void/deny or invalidate any existing or previous claims (where these illegal crossings happen) on grounds that it takes advantage of the loophole

Loophole in Canada/US Safe 3rd Country Agreement: Notice of Application


Check toolbar on right for globalism links (under counter). Also view the MASTERLIST.

PETITION E-1906 (UN Global Migration Compact): CLICK HERE
PETITION E-2012 (UN Global Parliament) CLICK HERE

All personal court appearances are under “BLOG

Fed Court cases are addressed on right under “Canadian Media”.


CLICK HERE, for the final text of S3CA.
CLICK HERE, for article which explains what the loophole in the S3CA is.
CLICK HERE, for previous article, on closing the loophole.

Note: Service had been attempted a few weeks back via a “Notice of Motion” to extend time to file a challenge to the Canada/US Safe 3rd Country Agreement. However, the Department of Justice refused (yes refused) to accept it. So after some thought, this is how it will be done: Not seek to modify the agreement itself, but ask to get it enforced as it should have been. Different tactic, same end goal.

TO THE RESPONDENT:
A PROCEEDING HAS BEEN COMMENCED by the applicant. The relief claimed by the applicant appears on the following page.

THIS APPLICATION will be heard by the Court at a time and place to be fixed by the Judicial Administrator. Unless the Court orders otherwise, the place of hearing will be as requested by the applicant. The applicant requests that this application be heard at Calgary Federal Court.

IF YOU WISH TO OPPOSE THIS APPLICATION, to receive notice of any step in the application or to be served with any documents in the application, you or a solicitor acting for you must prepare a notice of appearance in Form 305 prescribed by the Federal Courts Rules and serve it on the applicant's solicitor, or where the applicant is self-represented, on the applicant, WITHIN 10 DAYS after being served with this notice of application.

Copies of the Federal Courts Rules information concerning the local offices of the Court and other necessary information may be obtained on request to the Administrator of this Court at Ottawa (telephone 613-992-4238) or at any local office.

IF YOU FAIL TO OPPOSE THIS APPLICATION, JUDGMENT MAY BE GIVEN IN YOUR ABSENCE AND WITHOUT FURTHER NOTICE TO YOU.

APPLICATION

This is an application for judicial review in respect of Approximately 40,000 economic migrants (fake refugees), have crossed the border into Canada claiming asylum. They are taking advantage of a loophole in the Canada/US Safe 3rd Country Agreement, which only covers official ports of entry. However, no one could REASONABLY believe that this is how the agreement was intended when it was drafted.

The applicant makes application for:

(a) To issue a permanent, binding injunction against the Federal Government letting economic migrants (fake refugees) who enter Canada from the United States (via Roxham Rd. and elsewhere), make asylum claims in Canada.

(b) To find that the S3CA “meant” that refugees couldn’t land in one country and hop to the other, that they have to file for asylum in the first country they arrive in. The agreement means Canada and the US view each other as “safe countries”.

(c) To find that the agreement should apply across the ENTIRE Canada/US border, and that “Official Port of Entry” limitation is just poor wording.

(d) To find that not honouring the spirit and principles of the Canada/US Safe 3rd Country violates the intent of that Agreement.

Alternatively an order that:

(e) If the Government of Canada chooses not to participate in good faith in the Safe 3rd Country Agreement, that an act of parliament is required to withdraw from it.

(f) If the Government of Canada chooses to alter the terms of the Safe 3rd Country Agreement, that it must renegotiate with the United States.

The grounds for the application are:

  1. First: Does allowing illegal economic migrants entering from the US to claim asylum violate the spirit and principle of the Canada/US Safe Third Country Agreement, provided they circumvent official border checkpoints? This treaty was signed in 2002 by bth parties. Should it be honoured as it was reasonably intended to be?

  2. Second: Does allowing illegal economic migrants (fake refugees), into Canada end up violating US immigration regulations? These migrants would be travelling to the US on tourist visas, with the intention of coming to Canada to claim asylum. Bear in mind, the Court is not being asked to make a ruling that would impact US laws.

  3. Third: Does allowing large numbers of unscreened, unvetted, illegal economic migrants (fake refugees), into Canada under false pretenses violate Section 7 of the Charter, which guarantees security of the person?

  4. Fourth: Does allowing illegal economic migrants (fake refugees) to come across the Canada/US border violate Sections 91 and 92 of the Constitution, considering that most social services are Provincial jurisdiction?

5. Fifth: Does allowing illegal economic migrants (fake refugees) to come across the Canada/US border violate Sections 5/6 of the Canadian Human Rights Code, since they get priority of social services over citizens and legal residents?

6. Sixth: Does allowing illegal economic migrants (fake refugees) to come across the Canada/US border violate Immigration and Refugee Protection Act: Sections 3(2)(a) since they aren’t refugees, and 3(2)(e), since doing so would not maintain the integrity of the system, and 10.1(4) since the application would be based on misrepresentation?

This application will be supported by the following material:

    Copy of Canada/US Safe 3rd Country Agreement
    Information from both Canada/US Immigration websites
    Documentation showing mass illegal migration across border
    Other documentation as needed

Calgary 2.0: Proceedings Started To Challenge Loophole in Can/US S3CA


Check toolbar on right for globalism links (under counter).

PETITION E-1906 (UN Global Migration Compact): CLICK HERE
PETITION E-2012 (UN Global Parliament) CLICK HERE

All personal court appearances are under “BLOG
Challenge to UN Global Migration Compact dismissed in Calgary, however Court rules that it is non intended as legally binding contract.


CLICK HERE, for the Canada/US Safe Third Country Agreement.
CLICK HERE, for rough work in the motion to extend time.

In a nutshell: you can file what is called an “APPLICATION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW” if you believe that the Government or a Government Body has made an illegal or improper decision.

However: if more than 30 days has lapsed (which is the case here), you need to file a motion to get an extension of time.

Here are the weblinks relied upon

EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT B
EXHIBIT C
EXHIBIT D
EXHIBIT E

Here is a cut-and-paste from the “WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS” which was sent as part of the motion record. It is a bit tedious to read. Just warning you.

Part I: Jurisdiction
Part II: Issues
Part III: Facts
Part IV: Law
Part V: Authorities
Part VI: Order Sought

Part I: Jurisdiction

  1. Under Section 18 of the Federal Courts Act, and Section 300/301 of Federal Court Rules, the Federal Court of Canada has jurisdiction to hear such an application.
  2. Federal Court also has jurisdiction to grant a time extension to file application under Rule 18.1(2) of Federal Courts Act.
  3. Federal Court of Canada has right to correct ”technical irregularities” or to fix ”defects in form”, as is the case here. (Rule 18.1(5)).
  4. Federal Court of Canada has the jurisdiction to deal with matters where a Government will not do so, or unnecessarily delays in such matters (Rule 18.1(3) and 18.1(4)).
  5. This is a matter relating to border crossings and asylum/immigration, which falls exclusively under Federal jurisdiction

Part II: Issues

  1. Three questions to answer:
    (a) Can the Federal Court grant an extension of time (18.1(2) FCR) to file an application?
    (b) Does the Court see the matter of public interest to see through?
    (c) Does the Federal Court of Canada view the remedy sought as appropriate within Rules 18.1(3) and (4) and/or within 18.1(5)?

Part III: Facts

  1. The Safe Third Country Agreement is between Canada and the United States.

  2. The S3CA was signed on December 5, 2002, and took effect December 29, 2004 (Exhibit A and B)

  3. The obvious intent of the agreement is to recognize that both nations are safe, and to prevent abuse of refugee claims by people travelling between the 2 nations.

  4. The United States has an asylum process, which sees hundreds of thousands of people apply every year. (https://www.uscis.gov/i-589) (Exhibit E) is the application for asylum for the US.

  5. Every year people come to the United States seeking protection because they have suffered persecution or fear that they will suffer persecution due to:
    -Race
    -Religion
    -Nationality
    -Membership in a particular social group
    -Political opinion
     

  6. Since 2015, however, more than 40,000 illegal immigrants have entered Canada illegally, primarily through Roxham Road in Quebec. (Exhibit C)

  7. Many illegals travelled to New York State on tourist visas, then travelled north. New York State and Minnesota are not war zones. They are safe areas. However, they are exploited and used as a ”launchpad” to file fraudulent asylum claims in Canada.

  8. These illegals are now languishing in hotels at great public expense. (Exhibit D)

  9. Had these 40,000+ illegals gone to official border crossings, they would have been immediately sent back. However, going “around” ports of entry effectively allows illegal entry, and circumvents the agreement.

Part IV: Law

  1. The Canada/US Safe Third Country Agreement is an international agreement signed in good faith. However, it was not drafted with this loophole in mind.
  2. Section 18.1(3) and 18.1(4) of Federal Courts Act lists both powers and grounds for review which the Court has, and will ultimately be referenced, should the application to extend time be granted.
    (3) On an application for judicial review, the Trial Division may
    (a) order a federal board, commission or other tribunal to do any act or thing it has unlawfully failed or refused to do or has unreasonably delayed in doing; or
    (b) declare invalid or unlawful, or quash, set aside or set aside and refer back for determination in accordance with such directions as it considers to be appropriate, prohibit or restrain, a decision, order, act or proceeding of a federal board, commission or other tribunal.
     
    (4) The Trial Division may grant relief under subsection (3) if it is satisfied that the federal board, commission or other tribunal
    (a) acted without jurisdiction, acted beyond its jurisdiction or refused to exercise its jurisdiction;
    (b) failed to observe a principle of natural justice, procedural fairness or other procedure that it was required by law to observe;
    (c) erred in law in making a decision or an order, whether or not the error appears on the face of the record;
    (d) based its decision or order on an erroneous finding of fact that it made in a perverse or capricious manner or without regard for the material before it;
    (e) acted, or failed to act, by reason of fraud or perjured evidence; or
    (f) acted in any other way that was contrary to law.
    The wording in the Canada/US safe 3rd Country Agreement is clearly designed to prevent frivilious and fraudulent asylum claims by recognizing that both nations treat people humanely.  However, despite the evidence of this ”loophole” being exploited by illegal, economic migrants, the Federal Government has shown no willpower or resolve to correct this defect. Hence, they have not acted in accordance with 18.1(3) and 18.1(4)
  3. Rule 303(2) in Federal Court Rules states that in an application for judicial review (which an extension of time is sought here), where no person can be named, the Attorney General of Canada shall be named as a Respondent.
    Since there is no ”single person” who is responsible for this mess, the Attorney General of Canada shall be named as a Defendant.
  4. Provinces and Municipalities are forced to pay the tab for these illegal immigrants, and the Federal Government has shown little interest in stopping the influx.
  5. Without proper screening beforehand, the safety of Canadians is jeopardised. We should know who is being allowed into our country and under what circumstances BEFORE they arrive.

Part V: Authorities Cited

Extraordinary remedies, federal tribunals
18 (1) Subject to section 28, the Federal Court has exclusive original jurisdiction
(a) to issue an injunction, writ of certiorari, writ of prohibition, writ of mandamus or writ of quo warranto, or grant declaratory relief, against any federal board, commission or other tribunal; and
(b) to hear and determine any application or other proceeding for relief in the nature of relief contemplated by paragraph (a), including any proceeding brought against the Attorney General of Canada, to obtain relief against a federal board, commission or other tribunal.

Remedies to be obtained on application
(3) The remedies provided for in subsections (1) and (2) may be obtained only on an application for judicial review made under section 18.1.
Application for judicial review
18.1 (1) An application for judicial review may be made by the Attorney General of Canada or by anyone directly affected by the matter in respect of which relief is sought.
Marginal note:Time limitation
(2) An application for judicial review in respect of a decision or an order of a federal board, commission or other tribunal shall be made within 30 days after the time the decision or order was first communicated by the federal board, commission or other tribunal to the office of the Deputy Attorney General of Canada or to the party directly affected by it, or within any further time that a judge of the Federal Court may fix or allow before or after the end of those 30 days.
 
Marginal note:Powers of Federal Court
(3) On an application for judicial review, the Federal Court may
(a) order a federal board, commission or other tribunal to do any act or thing it has unlawfully failed or refused to do or has unreasonably delayed in doing; or
(b) declare invalid or unlawful, or quash, set aside or set aside and refer back for determination in accordance with such directions as it considers to be appropriate, prohibit or restrain, a decision, order, act or proceeding of a federal board, commission or other tribunal.

Marginal note:Grounds of review
(4) The Federal Court may grant relief under subsection (3) if it is satisfied that the federal board, commission or other tribunal
(a) acted without jurisdiction, acted beyond its jurisdiction or refused to exercise its jurisdiction;
(b) failed to observe a principle of natural justice, procedural fairness or other procedure that it was required by law to observe;
(c) erred in law in making a decision or an order, whether or not the error appears on the face of the record;
(d) based its decision or order on an erroneous finding of fact that it made in a perverse or capricious manner or without regard for the material before it;
(e) acted, or failed to act, by reason of fraud or perjured evidence; or
(f) acted in any other way that was contrary to law.

Marginal note:Defect in form or technical irregularity
(5) If the sole ground for relief established on an application for judicial review is a defect in form or a technical irregularity, the Federal Court may
(a) refuse the relief if it finds that no substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has occurred; and
(b) in the case of a defect in form or a technical irregularity in a decision or an order, make an order validating the decision or order, to have effect from any time and on any terms that it considers appropriate.
 
 Cartier v. Canada (Attorney General), 2002 FCA 384 (CanLII), [2003] 2 F.C. 317 (C.A.), at paragraph 10 
 
Part VI: Order Sought

1/ A time extension to file an application for judicial review
2/ The ultimate goal is to have the entire Canada/US border declared an ”official port of entry” in order to close the loophole which allows illegal immigrants to cross into Canada and make refugee claims.

Loophole in Canada/US Safe 3rd Country: Motion to Extend Time for Judicial Review Application

(Screenshots from the Federal Court website)

****************************************************************************
(1) The full text for UN Global Migration Compact is HERE.
(2) The full text for Canada/US Safe 3rd Country is HERE, and see HERE.
(3) The proposed UN Parliament/World Government is HERE.
(4) The full text of the Paris Accord is HERE.
(5) The Multiculturalism Act is HERE.
(6) The Canadian Citizenship Act (birth tourism) is HERE.
(7) Bill C-6 (citizenship for terrorists) is HERE.
(8) M-103 (Iqra Khalid’s Blasphemy Motion) is HERE.
(9) Fed’s $595M bribery of journalists is outlined HERE.
(10) Agenda 21 (signed in June 1992) is HERE
(11) Agenda 2030 (signed in September 2015) is HERE.
Items in the above list are addressed HERE

Please sign this: PETITION E-1906 CLICK HERE

All personal court appearances are under “BLOG
****************************************************************************

CLICK HERE, for general information on application for judicial review.
CLICK HERE, for the Federal Court forms
CLICK HERE, for the Federal Court Rules, (see Part V, sections 300-319)
CLICK HERE, for the Federal Courts Act (see Section 18)

IMPORTANT NOTE:
(A) If it has been “less than” 30 days since the order/decision you want reviewed, you simply file an application for a judicial review.
(B) If it has been “more than” 30 days since the decision being reviewed, you first need to file a motion for an extension of time. If granted, then you file an application as in (A).

This article will focus on (B) and assume that more than 30 days has lapsed since the decision you are trying to have reviewed.

Jurisdiction of Federal Court (continued)
Marginal note:
Extraordinary remedies, federal tribunals
18 (1) Subject to section 28, the Federal Court has exclusive original jurisdiction
(a) to issue an injunction, writ of certiorari, writ of prohibition, writ of mandamus or writ of quo warranto, or grant declaratory relief, against any federal board, commission or other tribunal; and
(b) to hear and determine any application or other proceeding for relief in the nature of relief contemplated by paragraph (a), including any proceeding brought against the Attorney General of Canada, to obtain relief against a federal board, commission or other tribunal.

Application for judicial review
18.1 (1) An application for judicial review may be made by the Attorney General of Canada or by anyone directly affected by the matter in respect of which relief is sought.

Powers of Federal Court
(3) On an application for judicial review, the Federal Court may
(a) order a federal board, commission or other tribunal to do any act or thing it has unlawfully failed or refused to do or has unreasonably delayed in doing; or
(b) declare invalid or unlawful, or quash, set aside or set aside and refer back for determination in accordance with such directions as it considers to be appropriate, prohibit or restrain, a decision, order, act or proceeding of a federal board, commission or other tribunal.

Grounds of review
(4) The Federal Court may grant relief under subsection (3) if it is satisfied that the federal board, commission or other tribunal
(a) acted without jurisdiction, acted beyond its jurisdiction or refused to exercise its jurisdiction;
(b) failed to observe a principle of natural justice, procedural fairness or other procedure that it was required by law to observe;
(c) erred in law in making a decision or an order, whether or not the error appears on the face of the record;
(d) based its decision or order on an erroneous finding of fact that it made in a perverse or capricious manner or without regard for the material before it;
(e) acted, or failed to act, by reason of fraud or perjured evidence; or
(f) acted in any other way that was contrary to law.

Interim orders
18.2 On an application for judicial review, the Federal Court may make any interim orders that it considers appropriate pending the final disposition of the application.

Hearings in summary way
18.4 (1) Subject to subsection (2), an application or reference to the Federal Court under any of sections 18.1 to 18.3 shall be heard and determined without delay and in a summary way.

Exception
(2) The Federal Court may, if it considers it appropriate, direct that an application for judicial review be treated and proceeded with as an action.

Content of the Motion Record
A/ Cover Page (Use form 66 for general heading)
B/ Table of Contents
C/ Notion of Motion (Form 359)
D/ Affidavit if swearing evidence (Form 80A)
E/ Any evidence attached to affidavit (a, b, c….)
F/ Written submissions/arguments

A Skeleton Motion Record
****************************************************************************

APPLICATION

(Court File No.)

FEDERAL COURT

BETWEEN:

Name
(Applicant)

and

Attorney General of Canada
(Respondent)

APPLICATION UNDER 18.1(2) of Federal Court Act (Extension of Time to File Application for Judicial Review)

_____________________________________________________________________________
(Motion Record)

_____________________________________________________________________________
(Your Information)

****************************************************************************

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1/ Table of Contents (Page A)

2/ Notion of Motion (Form 359) (Page 1-3)

3/ Affidavit swearing evidence (Form 80A) (Page 4-5)
-Exhibit A: Canada/US Safe 3rd country agreement (Page 5-9)
-Exhibit B: Exerps From Gov’t site on agreement (Page 10-12)
-Exhibit C: Article on Roxham Rd. Crossings (Page 13-14)
-Exhibit D: Gov’t announcing funding (Page 15-16)

E/ Written submissions/arguments (Pages 17-22)

****************************************************************************
(General Heading — Use Form 66)

NOTICE OF MOTION

(Motion in writing)

TAKE NOTICE THAT (my name) will make a motion to the Court in writing under Rule 369 of the Federal Courts Rules.

THE MOTION IS FOR:
-To gain an extension of time to file an application for judicial review (Rule 18.1(2) Federal Courts Act.

-The issue is to amend the Canada/US Safe Third Country Agreement to make the entire Canada/US border classified as a “port of entry”. This would effectively close the “loophole” in the existing agreement.

THE GROUNDS FOR THE MOTION ARE:

-Section 24 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states that in the event of a Charter breach, a litigant may seek relief in a court of competent jurisdiction

-Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states that people have the right to be secure in their persons. Allowing large numbers of unscreened illegal immigrants in jeopardises that protection.

-Section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states that equality is a right. However, this loophole allows illegal border jumpers to “go to the front of the line”

-Section 91/92 of the Constitution separate Federal/Provincial Powers. These illegal border crossers are now being given housing, health care, education, etc…. paid for by the Provinces, except these issues are PROVINCIAL jurisdiction.

-Section 18(1) of Federal Courts Act states that the Federal Court has exclusive jurisdiction to handle such matters. This is consistent with Rule 300 of the Federal Court Rules.

-Section 18.1(2) of Federal Courts Act allows for the Federal Court to grant such an extension of time as sought.

-Section 18.1(3) and 18.1(4) of Federal Courts Act lists both powers and grounds for review which the Court has, and will ultimately be referenced, should the application to extend time be granted.

-Rule 303(2) in Federal Court Rules states that in an application for judicial review (which an extension of time is sought here), where no person can be named, the Attorney General of Canada shall be named as a Respondent.

THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE will be used at the hearing of the motion:
Affidavit swearing evidence (Form 80A)
-Exhibit A: Canada/US Safe 3rd country agreement
-Exhibit B: Exerps From Gov’t site on agreement
-Exhibit C: Article on Roxham Rd. Crossings
-Exhibit D: Gov’t announcing funding

(February 2, 2019)
______________________________
(Signature of solicitor or party)
(Name, address, telephone and fax number of solicitor or party)

TO: (Name and address of responding party’s solicitor or responding party)

SOR/2004-283, s. 35

****************************************************************************

FORM 80A – Rule 80

AFFIDAVIT

(General Heading — Use Form 66)

AFFIDAVIT OF (Name)

I, (full name and occupation of deponent), of the (City, Town, etc.) of (name) in the (County, Regional Municipality, etc.) of (name), SWEAR (or AFFIRM) THAT:

1. (Set out the statements of fact in consecutively numbered paragraphs, with each paragraph being confined as far as possible to a particular statement of fact.)

Sworn (or Affirmed) before me at the (City, Town, etc.) of (name) in the (County, Regional Municipality, etc.) of (name) on (date).

______________________________________
Commissioner for Taking Affidavits
(or as the case may be)

_____________________________
(Signature of Deponent)

****************************************************************************

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS OF APPLICANT

Part I: Jurisdiction
Part II: Issues
Part III: Facts
Part IV: Law
Part V: Cases Cited
Part VI: Order Sought

Part I: Jurisdiction
-Under Section 18 of the Federal Courts Act, and Section 300/301 of Federal Court Rules, the Federal Court of Canada has jurisdiction to hear such an application.
-Federal Court also has jurisdiction to grant a time extension to file application

Part II: Issues
-Can the Federal Court grant an extension of time (18.1(2) FCR) to file an application?
-Does the Court see the matter of public interest to see through?

Part III: Facts
-The Safe Third Country Agreement is between Canada and the United States.
-The S3CA was signed on December 5, 2002, and took effect December 29, 2004
-The obvious intent of the agreement is to recognize that both nations are safe, and to prevent abuse of refugee claims by people travelling between the 2 nations.
-Since 2015, however, more than 40,000 illegal immigrants have entered Canada illegally, primarily through Roxham Road in Quebec.
-Many illegals travelled to New York State on tourist visas, then travelled north.
-These illegals are now languishing in hotels at great public expense.
-Had these 40,000+ illegals gone to official border crossings, they would have been immediately sent back. However, going “around” ports of entry effectively allows illegal entry, and circumvents the agreement.

Part IV: Law
-The Canada/US Safe Third Country Agreement is an international agreement signed in good faith. However, it was not drafted with this loophole in mind.

Part V: Cases Cited

Part VI: Order Sought
-A time extension to file an application for judicial review
****************************************************************************

Diversity 101: RCMP Looking To Drop All Standards For New Recruits

(Another Case Of Diversity Trumping Merit)

***********************************************************************
The full text for UN Global Migration Compact is RIGHT HERE.

Please sign this: PETITION E-1906 CLICK HERE

UN GMC Challenged In Calgary Fed Court, 300-635 8th Ave SW.
Case File: T-2089-18. Filed December 6, 2018.
CLICK HERE for more information.
***********************************************************************

The Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) are facing a personnel shortage, and have come up with an interesting solution: drop all standards, and focus on diversity. No, this is not an exaggeration.

Here are some of the proposals:
1/ Criminal record may not be a barrier to entry
2/ Credit problems not to be a barrier to entry
3/ Aptitude testing to be eliminated
4/ Hearing tests to be reduced or eliminated
5/ Vision tests to be reduced or eliminated
6/ Long stints at the acadmeny (training) to be reduced
7/ Focus to be on recruiting women and visible minorities

This CBC article, article is very difficult to parody, as it reads as one. Also, the comments are well worth checking out.

The RCMP are taking a radical look at their recruitment strategy and could ditch credit checks and the ban on recruits with criminal backgrounds to help them rebuild their depleted ranks.

The Mounties have been plagued by staffing challenges in recent years and are looking at how to convince more women and visible minorities to don the red serge.

An internal document, obtained through access to information, suggests credit checks, the criminal background ban, the two-hour aptitude test and long stints at the training depot could all be eliminated from the hiring process as senior ranks try to make a career as a Mountie more attractive.

The document notes that some of the mandatory requirements can create barriers for communities the force wants to attract, including “groups more likely to have contact with the criminal justice system.”
It asks: Are we “tuned-in or tone deaf?”

The review exercise is the brainchild of Vaughn Charlton, the director of gender-based-analysis-plus with the RCMP.
She was brought over from Status of Women Canada in April 2017 at the request of then-commissioner Bob Paulson and tasked with focusing on gender and inclusion within the force.

“We need to stop assuming there’s only one kind of person who belongs in policing,” she said in an interview with CBC News.

“If we’re going to have mandatory requirements, we want to make sure we’re not creating unintended barriers for reasons that really have nothing to do with whether you’d be a great police officer.”

For example, someone coming to the force later in life might not be able to spend 26 weeks at the training depot in Saskatchewan. Credit checks — long part of the RCMP security screening process — can be a barrier for single parents or those who’ve been forced to take long-term leave, said Charlton.

Staffing crunch

The document also flagged hearing and vision tests and long shifts as potential barriers and questioned the value of the aptitude screening assessment — which, among other things, tests memory, logic, judgment and comprehension.
“I can definitely say we are looking at everything really seriously,” Charlton said. “These are questions worth asking and thinking, ‘Are they still relevant criteria in 2019?'”

So far, Charlton said, her questions have gone over well with top brass.
The recruitment review exercise is ongoing with no set deadline, she said. The entrance exam is getting its own fairness review through the Public Service Commission.

“I think the challenge for us going forward is looking at diversity and inclusion as seriously as we look at security,” Charlton said.

‘Race to the bottom’

When Commissioner Brenda Lucki took over as top Mountie earlier this year, she was warned in a briefing binder that “the RCMP has a growing vacancy rate that exceeds its present ability to produce regular members at a rate that keeps pace with projected future demands.”

The briefing note says that in the last five years, there has been a “dramatic” increase in the number of new recruits required to fill operational vacancies and evolving program requirements.

The RCMP says that in 2018, 21.6 per cent of regular members self-identified as women and 20.8 per cent of members above the inspector level were women. According to a 2017 report, about 10 per cent of the force identify as visible minority and eight per cent are Indigenous.

Time for civilian governance at RCMP, watchdog says in harassment report

Analysis: Toxic culture, harassment issues overshadow RCMP commissioner’s tenure
Christian Leuprecht, a Royal Military College professor who has written about the RCMP’s structure, said public service organizations like police forces are plagued by cumbersome hiring processes and low pay. On top of that, the RCMP have been plagued in recent years by allegations of sexual harassment, bullying and intimidation within the ranks.

“What this all points to is that the RCMP is going to have to change the way they do business, both as an organization and in particular in the way they recruit,” he said.

But Leuprecht cautioned against dropping too many of the mandatory requirements simply to raise the number of applicants. In an age of complex cybercrime investigations, terrorist threats and sophisticated organized crime operations, he said the force needs to ask itself how it can bring in more of the country’s top minds.
“The discussion is always about, ‘Well what can we do to kind of eliminate some barriers to this race to the bottom?'” he said.

“The RCMP is the largest police organization in the country and it is also our federal police force. This needs to be the force that shows the greatest professionalism, the greatest competence and that needs to position itself as an employer of choice and an employer that affords equality of opportunity to all Canadians.”

With files from the CBC’s Kathleen Harris

Some thoughts on the article
(1) Dropping the prohibition against people with a criminal record is non-sensical. Having a “pardoned” criminal record is one thing, but letting actual criminals in to do the policing?

Additionally, there are way too many questions here:
(a) Which offences will be grounds for exclusion?
(b) Will there be any specific cut-off, or is it case by case?
(c) Will there be a waiting period before a person can enter?
(d) Will people on parole or probation be allowed to enter?
(e) If an ex-con has a firearms ban, will that be waived?
(f) If an ex-con has a driving prohibition, will that be waived?

(2) Credit checks are used in places like banks. When putting someone is a position of trust, it is important to have some knowledge that they can manage finances, and will be less likely to abuse that trust.

Furthermore, ”employment credit checks” do not show anywhere near as much information as say, getting a check for a loan or credit card. These ones are severely restricted in the information disclosed, as it is to measure trustworthiness, not the balance on your cards or mortgage.

(3) Dropping the aptitude test? Do we not want some intellectual standards for RCMP recruits? If a person cannot meet a basic entry level exam, then excluding that person, or people, is in the best interest of the organization. It does raise the question though: is this an attempt to gain more ESL recruits?

(4) Hearing and vision tests are useful, since your physical health and sense are essential to one’s ability to do the job. Further, given how dangerous and gruelling policing can be, physical strength and stamina are needed.

(5)Yes, being away from the family for 6 months can be a burden, but training to be a police officer is a serious commitment. It cannot simply be gutted.

(6) Who cares how many people are women (or trannies identifying as women), or how many people are of a particular background? The focus should be on creating a strong force of intelligent, fit people with good moral character. The rest is just pandering to identity politics.

(7) “”….If we’re going to have mandatory requirements, we want to make sure we’re not creating unintended barriers for reasons that really have nothing to do with whether you’d be a great police officer.””

If we’re going to have mandatory requirements? These people seem uncertain about that. Also, the above criteria are VERY important in selecting police recruits.

(8) Assuming the claims of a culture of harassment are true — fire any and all people engaging in behaviour and focus on building a force with better decency. Don’t eliminate standards. This is sort of like having Problem “A”, and coming up with Solution “B”.

(9) Why change the way you do business? Again, terminate the bad apples, but don’t make it open-recruitment under the guide of ”inclusiveness”.

(10) An interesting point is made: in an era where technology and crime is becoming more sophisticated, do we want to be LOWERING our IQ entry requirements?

(11) Regarding the obsession with Gender-Based Analysis: no one is saying that women should not be police officers. Rather, their abilities should be valued more, and the focus on being women should be stopped. This is a frequent straw-man lefties use: assume any difference in stats is due to discrimination, and not due to personal choices.

This quote says it all:


“We need to stop assuming there’s only one kind of person who belongs in policing,” she said in an interview with CBC News.

The challenge for us going forward is looking at diversity and inclusion as seriously as we look at security.

– Vaughn Charlton

Yes, we need to focusing on diversity and inclusion as much as security. So, people with criminal records, poor credit, low IQ, lack of commitment, poor hearing/vision, etc…. are just “another form of diversity”?

Enough of the endless pandering. Simply hire good quality recruits. If needed, make the compensation and benefits package more attractive. Offer flexibility in work locations. Don’t water down the standards.

Again, pretty difficult to parody this article.

How To Get An Injunction In 8 Easy Steps (Satire)

(Alanis Morissette, and her hit song “8 Easy Steps”)

***********************************************************************
The full text for UN Global Migration Compact is RIGHT HERE.

Please sign this: PETITION E-1906 CLICK HERE
***********************************************************************

Okay, well it’s a “bit” more complicated than that.

Note: This article has been rewritten due to prior errors made.

First, find out why you want to get an injunction. Something absurd like this site, or this this monstrocity, may be a good reason.

Note: There are actually 2 agreements: (1) migration; and (2) refugees. Our paper Canadian Immigration Minister says this is all about refugees, yet we are signing the “migration” compact.

Second, you need to decide “where” to get your injunction. If you choose to do it in Canadian Federal Court, here are some good locations.

Third, you will want to know what forms to use. Here are the ones for federal. Note, they are templates, and you use Form 66 as a cut/paste for the header.

Fourth, you will probably be confused at this point. So a call to the court house would be a good idea. The clerks cannot offer legal advice, but they can tell you what forms to us and give generic information

Fifth, if it has been more than 30 days since the order that you wish to challenge?

CLICK HERE, for more info.

What if more than 30 days have gone by since the decision being challenged was communicated?

If it has been more than 30 days since the decision or order was first communicated to you by the federal board, commission or tribunal, you must file a motion requesting an extension of time to file your Notice of Application for judicial review (see subsection 18.1(2) of the Federal Courts Act).

A motion is started by a Notice of Motion which sets out the precise order you are seeking from the Court, the grounds you intend to argue and a list of documents or other material you intend to rely on (see rule 359 and form 359). In most cases, an affidavit is required (see rule 363). Your Notice of Motion must clearly indicate whether you wish the Court to review your motion at an oral hearing or in writing (see rules 360 and 369). If you wish to present your motion at an oral hearing, you must take into account the minimum time requirement provided between the service and filing of your Motion Record and the date of hearing (see rules 362 and 364). Motions may be heard at the regularly scheduled General Sittings (see rules 34 and 360). Please note that motions for the extension of time to file a Notice of Application are most often dealt with in writing.
Generally, a Notice of Motion is filed as part of your Motion Record (see rules 364 and 367). Once you have written your Notice of Motion, the next step is to prepare your Motion Record which must contain, among other things:
Your Notice of Motion requesting an extension of time;

Any supporting affidavit(s) which should set out the facts you intend to rely on in support of your motion (see rules 80-81, 363 and form 80A);

Written representations justifying your request for an extension of time; and

Any other filed material necessary for the motion.
You must serve a copy of your Motion Record upon the respondent(s).
You will then need to file 3 copies of your Motion Record with the Registry, together with proof of service of your Motion Record upon the respondent(s) (see rule 146 and form 146) and you will need to pay a filing fee of $20.00, pursuant to Tariff A, 1.(2)(a).
To assist you with what is required to file a Motion for extension of time, please refer to rules 8, 73, 80 and 359 – 369 of the Federal Courts Rules.

Can I deal with any office of the Federal Court?

Yes. You may deal with the office of the Registry of the Federal Courts which is most convenient to you. A list of the Federal Court office locations, addresses and phone numbers is accessible on our website under Registry.

Sixth, more information on the actual proceedings.


What is required to file an Application for Judicial Review?

Applications for judicial review are governed by rules 300 to 319 of Part 5 of the Federal Courts Rules (and corresponding forms) as well as by section 18.1 of the Federal Courts Act.

Your Notice of Application for judicial review in respect of a decision or order of a federal board, commission or other tribunal must be limited to the review of a single decision, unless the Court orders otherwise (see rule 302) and must be filed within 30 days after the time the decision or order was first communicated to you (see section 18.1(2) of the Federal Courts Act). Rule 301 sets out what must be included in your Notice of Application and rule 303 indicates who must be named as respondent.
Please note there may be other statutory limitation periods within which you must file your application, either longer or shorter than the 30 days provided in subsection 18.1(2) mentioned above. You may wish to consult the relevant statute to review the time limits for filing your application.

You must pay a filing fee of $50.00, pursuant to Tariff A, 1.(1)(d) at the time of filing your Notice of Application by using a valid VISA, MasterCard or American Express credit card or by cash, debit, a personal cheque or a money order. When paying by personal cheque or money order, it must be made payable to the Receiver General of Canada.
You must deliver to the Registry as many copies of the Notice of Application as you will need to serve (see paragraphs 4 and 5 below). The Registry will certify these copies of your Notice of Application, by stamping them. The Registry will keep the original of your Notice of Application and will return the other certified copies to you.
Once I have filed my Notice of Application, is there anything else I need to do?

Yes. There are many steps you need to take after you have filed your Notice of Application and it has been issued by the Registry. You are responsible for taking these steps within the time limits provided in the Federal Courts Rules. Some of these steps are explained below, but please note that there may be other important steps you may need to take that are not set out herein.

Within 10 days of the issuance of your Notice of Application, you must serve a certified copy of it on the respondent(s), that is, the federal board, commission or tribunal whose decision you are challenging and any other person(s) required to be served by rule 304. Since a Notice of Application is an originating document, you must serve it in person by delivering a certified copy of your Notice of Application to each respondent (see Rules 127 to 137). It is your responsibility to identify the respondents and to serve them.

Personal service on the Crown, the Attorney General of Canada or any other Minister of the Crown of your Notice of Application (but of no other document you may need to serve) will be done by the Registry pursuant to rule 133. For this, the Registry will need you to provide them with two additional copies of your Notice of Application.

You must file proof of service with the Registry within 10 days of serving your Notice of Application on all the respondents (see rule 146 and forms 146 A-B).
Within 30 days after issuance of your Notice of Application, any affidavits and supporting documents you may wish to rely on in support of your Notice of Application (see rules 306 and 80-81 and form 80A) must be served on the respondent(s) and you must file proof of that service with the Court. Your supporting affidavits and documents need not be filed at this time but must be included in your application record (see step 9 below).

The respondents may also serve affidavits and file proof of service with the Registry (see rule 307). All cross-examinations on affidavits must be completed within the time period set out in rule 308.

You must serve and file your application record within 20 days of the end of the time period for cross-examination set out in rule 308. (See rule 309 for the required content of your application record).

Once you have served and filed your application record, the respondent has 20 days to serve and file a respondent’s record. When you have been served with the respondent’s record or the 20 days set out in rule 310 have passed, you are ready to have your case heard by a Judge of the Federal Court. Within 10 days (see rule 314) you must serve and file a Requisition for Hearing. You must also pay a filing fee of $50.00 pursuant to Tariff A, 1.(2)(f).

Can I represent myself?

Yes. Pursuant to rule 119, an individual may act in person or be represented by a lawyer in a proceeding. This means you may represent yourself in this matter; however, it is recommended that you seek the advice of a lawyer to assist you. Companies, associations or groups of people must be represented by a lawyer (see rule 120).

Please read the information about Registry Services to Assist Self-Represented Litigants, indicating what Federal Court Registry staff can and cannot do to help you prepare your case, should you decide to proceed.

Are there any other fees I will need to pay?

The fees most commonly charged are set out in paragraphs 2 and 10 above. Other Court services may require the payment of a fee. The complete list of registry fees is contained in Tariff A. It is also recommended that you read Part 11 of the Federal Courts Rules, which deals with the awarding of costs between the parties and the determination of which party must pay the other’s costs, related to the proceeding.

Law being relied on
-Section 2(b) of Charter: Free speech
-Section 3 of Charter: Right to participate in democracy
-Section 7 of Charter: Security of the person
-Section 15 of the Charter: Equality
-Section 24 of the Charter: Remedies available in Court
-Section 32 of the Charter: Applicability of the Charter
-Section 38 of the Constitution: How to amend the Constitution
-Section 52 of the Constitution: Supremacy of the Constitution
-Sections 91 & 92 of the Constitution: Federal v. Provincial domain

Caselaw cited:
Want to know how to do legal research for free?

CLICK HERE.

All you need are the skills used for Google and Wikipedia.

Seventh, since you have by now cited at least a few of the above Constitutional questions, it is now time to get a “NOTICE” together. See FORM 69 in the above guide. A copy will be sent to all Provincial Attorney Generals, to see if they want to weigh in.

Eighth, once you have a (I) Application for review; and (II) Notice of Constitutional Question, you are ready to file with the Court. They will give you a case number.

Ninth, you may want to get a temporary injunction. You do this by filing a “Motion Record”, which is like a binder, duotang, or possibly just stapled together. The Record will contain
-Notice of Motion, Form 359,
-Affidavit, Form 80A, which is a swearing out of evidence
-You can include actual documents for evidence as well
-Written submissions, a.k.a. arguments

Tenth, depending on the circumstances, you may have to give Her Majesty the Queen, time to respond, you may not.

Eleventh, Courts often refer to “proof of service”, which actually means swearing out an AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE. As the name implies, you swear out an affidavit saying that you did perform that service. Note, that if you are filing against the Canadian Government, Rule 133 of the Federal Court Rules says that service is effected after you file with the Registry.

Twelfth, depending on the circumstances, you will most likely have to book a hearing to get your temporary injunction against the Government. The Court staff will help you with that.

Thirteenth, attend the hearing, and convince the Judge why granting it is in the best interests of you and of justice.

So to review
If More Than 30 Days Have Lapsed
(a) Your Notice of Motion requesting an extension of time;
(b) Any supporting affidavit(s) which should set out the facts you intend to rely on in support of your motion (see rules 80-81, 363 and form 80A);
(c) Written representations justifying your request for an extension of time; and
(d)Any other filed material necessary for the motion.

If granted, then proceed to the next section

If Time Extension Is Granted (Or Not Needed)
CLICK HERE for more info.

Filing for Temporary Injunction
(a) Have your application for judicial review already filed
(b) File a “Motion Record”, which consists of a binder with:
(I) Notice of Motion, Form 359; (II) Affidavit; (III) Written Submissions
(c) Ask the Court clerk to schedule a hearing for you
(d) You can also ask for an emergency hearing to get a temporary injunction. This will likely be
“ex parte” which means the Judge will decide behind closed doors.

Proof of Service
(a) Affidavit of Service

There you have it: how to get an injunction in 8 (or so) easy steps.

Supreme Court Will Hear Woman Arrested for Not Holding Handrail

(Bela Kosoian, taking legal action to S.C.C.)

***********************************************************************
The full text for UN Global Migration Compact is RIGHT HERE.

Please sign this: PETITION E-1906 CLICK HERE
***********************************************************************

The Supreme Court of Canada has agreed to hear Bela Kosoian, a woman detained in Laval, Quebec, for refusing to hold a hand rail.

(1) Backstory of the Case
This is a a bizarre story, starting in 2009, of a woman in a Laval, QC, subway station, refused instructions from transit officers to hold a handrail while on an escalator.

When transit officers attempted to write her a ticket for the refusal to obey, she refused to identify herself. Identity is rather important in enforcing tickets. This led to her being detained for about a half hour, after which point she did reveal her name.

Kosoian was issued 2 tickets from that incident, one for $100, and one for $320. She contested both, and they were eventually thrown out.

Since then, she has taken legal action against the city, the STM, and a staff member. After a series of legal twists, it will now be heard by the Supreme Court of Canada.

(2) Quebec Court of Justice — Trial Court
Kosoian took legal action against: (a) the City of Laval; (b) Fabio Camacho — one of the officers; and (c) the Transportation Company of Montreal — aka the STM. She sought $24,000 for moral damages, pain, suffering, inconvenience and exemplary damages, and another $45,000 for moral and punitive damages for the fault committed by its agent.

Kosoian submitted a VERY LENGTHY list and description of physical and psychological trauma suffered as a resukt of being detained for about half an hour. On the surface, it seems like malingering.

Section 49 of the Canadian Charter was invoked, which states:

CHAPTER V
SPECIAL AND INTERPRETATIVE PROVISIONS

49. Any unlawful interference with any right or freedom recognized by this Charter entitles the victim to obtain the cessation of such interference and compensation for the moral or material prejudice resulting therefrom.
In case of unlawful and intentional interference, the tribunal may, in addition, condemn the person guilty of it to punitive damages.

For it’s part, the STM Referenced By-Law R-036

” BY-LAW R-036

“REGULATIONS RESPECTING THE SAFETY AND BEHAVIOR STANDARDS OF PERSONS IN ROAD EQUIPMENT AND BUILDINGS OPERATED BY OR FOR THE MONTREAL TRANSPORTATION CORPORATION”

[…]

SECTION III – GENERAL PROVISIONS

3. Subject to the law and regulations, any person has the right to use the public transportation system of the Company in comfort and safety.

Subsection I – Citizenship

4. In or on a building or rolling stock, no person shall

(a) impede or hinder the free movement of persons, including standing still, lurking, strolling, laying down or carrying a bag, container or other object;

(b) endanger the safety of persons or rolling stock, in particular by depositing or carrying a bag, container or other object;

[…]

e) to disobey a directive or pictogram posted by the Society;

[…]

h) to delay or interfere with the work of a servant of the Corporation; “

But according to the STM staff, it is not the potential safety infraction that led to Bela Kosoian being arrested. Rather, it was her refusal to identity herself when being written a ticket.

In August 2015, a Quebec Court rejected the claim. It stated that the officers acted reasonably, and that the situation was largely self-inflicted

(3) Motion for Leave, Quebec Court of Appeal
Kosoian sought leave to go to the Quebec Court of Appeal.

On December 2015, in an extremely brief ruling, the Quebec Court of Appeal allowed the appeal to proceed, dismissing a motion from the Respondents.

(4) Appeal, Quebec Court of Appeal
In a 2-1 split decision, Kosoian lost her appeal at the Quebec Court of Appeals. 2 Justices ruled that the STM and its staff had acted reasonably. In dissent, the other Justice says he would have set aside the Trial ruling, and ordered $15,000 in damages.

[ 1 ] The appellant appeals against a judgment rendered on August 11, 2015, by the Court of Quebec, District of Laval (the Honorable Denis Le Reste), dismissing the appellant’s motion to institute damages for damages .
[ 2 ] For the reasons of Dutil and Vauclair JJ., THE COURT :
[ 3 ] REJECTS the appeal with court costs.
[ 4 ] For other reasons, Schrager JA would have allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment at trial, granted the motion to institute proceedings, ordered the respondents, jointly and severally, to pay the appellant the sum of 15,000 $ with interest and the additional indemnity since the summons at first instance, as well as legal costs at first instance and on appeal, and stated that between the respondents, the Montreal Transit Corporation will have to assume the entire conviction.

(5) Supreme Court of Canada
This leads things to where they are today. Once again, the Supreme Court granting leave to appeal just now.

The motion for an extension of time and the application for leave to appeal is granted. The application for leave to appeal to the judgment of theCourt of Appeal of Quebec (Montreal), Number 500-09-025644-154, 2017 QCCA 1919 (CanLII) , date December 5, 2017, is awarded with costs in the case. The schedule for serving and filing materials will be set by the Registrar .

An interesting split so far in the courts. In Kosoian’s favour:
-Supreme Court of Canada, leave to appeal
-Quebec Court of appeal, dissenting opinion
-Quebec Court of Appeal, motion for leave

And against Kosoian:
-Quebec Court of Appeal, majority opinion
-Quebec Trial Court
-Laval ruling which dismissed the original tickets.

Personally, I see blame on both sides here. While ticketing her for refusing to hold a handrail does seem excessive, the escalation of the problems resulted from Kosoian herself. She did refuse to identify herself when being ticketed, which for the STM was a legitimate demand. Also, her claims of emotional and psychological damages seem grossly exaggerated, and manipulated to seek a huge damages amount.

The Supreme Court Appeal Panel will now decide the case.