Category: Property Rights

Posted on

B.C. Property Rights Class Action: Signing Away Your Land For Peanuts?

Back in August, the B.C. Supreme Court ruled that a section of land in Richmond actually belonged to the Cowichan Tribes. Understandably, this caused a lot of confusion for property and business owners, who learned about the decision after the fact. The case is being appealed, and that will be covered later.

It’s being reported that a Proposed Class Action has been filed in New Westminister. The Notice of Civil Claim is available, and it lists two Proposed Representative Plaintiffs: (a) Jasjeet Grewal; and (b) John Doe, who is unidentified.

Grewal is the owner of a hazardous materials removal business, but lives in Burnaby. He pleads that, despite not living in Richmond, his business affairs are now in question. The unidentified Plaintiff pleads that he owns property in Richmond, and is directly impacted by the ruling.

The Governments of Canada and British Columbia are named as Defendants.

While there may be issues with the filing itself, there’s a more immediate concern:

Class Action For Compensation If Owners SIGN AWAY Rights

There are 6 different remedies being sought. 4 of them are for damages, and the others are for Declaratory Relief. Sounds great, doesn’t it?

Despite the excitement that came with sharing this development, readers need to consider what’s going on with this case. Nowhere in the N.O.C.C. does it state that it’s fighting for landowners keeping their property. This lawsuit doesn’t demand either the Federal or Provincial Governments do anything to prevent similar Court decisions from coming up.

Instead, it’s to get property owners to sign away their rights in return for compensation.

Many have raised the argument that they shouldn’t have to pay property taxes if they don’t actually own the property. That is a valid point. However, demanding tax refunds from the Government (either Canada or B.C.) will necessitate handing it over.

This is a suit over compensation not land protection.

In Richmond specifically, probably the best argument landowners have is that they weren’t notified the Cowichan case was going on until after the fact. They weren’t able to participate, and were denied any sense of due process. That’s certainly true. But will they still have those rights if they take the money?

Nowhere in the lawsuit do the Plaintiffs challenge the implementation of UNDRIP, which helped make this possible. There’s nothing sought that would compel Governments to do more to protect property rights. Other than demands for future transparency, they aren’t seeking any change at all.

Notice Of Claim Has Some Procedural Defects

Let’s have some fun with this one.

The “Class” doesn’t appear to apply to either Representative Plaintiff. In paragraph 7, it lists people who may have suffered losses as a result of trying to refinance, sell, buy or mortgage property. Neither claim that they did, although perhaps it’s just not stated.

To be fair, there are presumably Plaintiffs in B.C. who would only be seeking compensation for losses, and not looking to sell. But in that case, there should have been multiple subclasses. This needs to be cleared up.

The Plaintiffs here don’t plead that they have been harmed or suffered damages.

Paragraph 8 states that the “Class” may also include all property owners in Provinces other than B.C., regardless of whether or not they suffered any losses. Again, this doesn’t include Grewal or John Doe. It’s unclear what grievances people from other regions could raise. This section is so vague it could also mean Plaintiffs living where there are no land claims whatsoever.

The torts aren’t adequately pleaded. When making these kinds of allegations, there’s a requirement to “provide particulars”, or to spell out in details what has happened. There are claims of negligence, deceit and malfeasance, but nothing is laid out. Who? What? Where? When? The Claim could be amended easily enough, but this information has to be there.

The N.O.C.C. doesn’t actually state that it will be seeking a Certification Order, although it may be assumed.

***In fairness, this isn’t the sort of disaster case that is normally covered here. But, there are some procedural issues that may come up. None of it should be fatal though, and better drafting should fix these errors.

With this in mind, it doesn’t change the primary concern: this lawsuit seems designed to convince Plaintiffs to hand over their land. Yes, it’s a cynical take. Do you really think you’ll be allowed to keep it once that tax refund goes through?

Sure, Plaintiffs may get *some* of their cash back, but will almost certainly be expected to sign away their deed in return. Does that seem worth it?

Also consider: in Class Actions, the lawyers typically have wide latitude to settle suits. This means that individual Plaintiffs may get very little in terms of their “tax refunds”. Then the lawyers will take some 30% to 45% from each client for fees.

CLASS ACTION COURT DOCUMENTS:
(1) Grewal Doc 001 Class Action Notice Of Civil Claim

COWICHAN RULING OF AUGUST, 2025:
(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2025/2025bcsc1490/2025bcsc1490.html

(1) https://news.gov.bc.ca/releases/2022AG0065-000611
(2) https://news.gov.bc.ca/files/CivilLitigationDirectives.pdf

Posted on

Secwepemc Land Grab Of Kamloops: Going On For A Decade

Another case in British Columbia has come to light involving property rights, this time in Kamloops.

The Secwepemc Nation filed a lawsuit in September 2015, claiming to be the actual landowners. If granted, it would not only effectively give them control of the city itself, but much of the surrounding area. This would impact over 100,000 people. Stunningly, this only became public a day ago.

For context, consider this:

John Rustad took the position of Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation back in June 2013. For whatever reason, he decided to remain silent on legal challenges that would erase the property rights of residents of British Columbia. He is now in charge of the “Official Opposition” in the Province. From Wikipedia:

He retained his seat in the 2013 election and was appointed Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation by Premier Christy Clark. He kept his cabinet post following his re-election in 2017, and added the role of Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations to his duties after Steve Thomson’s election as Speaker of the Legislative Assembly. Rustad continued in both ministerial roles until that July, when the Liberal minority government was defeated in a non-confidence motion.

Rustad was the Minister in charge the entire time, but chose not to inform the public. While in Opposition, he still doesn’t announce this news. Nor does the NDP. Presumably, he would have remained silent even as the case proceeded to Trial.

Peter Milobar, an MLA in Rustad’s Caucus, was Mayor of Kamloops from 2008 until 2017. He then got into Provincial politics. One would assume that he was aware of the suit.

Elenore Sturko: MLA Willing To Stand Up For Truth

Elenore Sturko, MLA for Surrey-Cloverdale, broke this story. She’s calling for full disclosure on all such claims being advanced in B.C. Courts. Of course, this raises all kinds of questions.

For starters, how and when did she find out?

What Do They Actually Want?

1. A declaration that the Secwepemc Nation holds aboriginal title to all or part of the Stk’emlupsemc te Secwepemc Territory, which is part of Secwepemc Traditional Territory.

2. A declaration that the Secwepemc Nation holds aboriginal title to all or part of the land subject to the Authorizations in the Kamloops region of British Columbia, which is in Secwepemc Traditional Territory;

3. A declaration that the Secwepemc people hold aboriginal rights in all or part of the Stk’emlupsemc te Secwepemc Territory, and in all or part of the land subject to the Authorizations, both of which are part of Secwepemc Traditional Territory, which rightsinclude some or all of the following:
(a) the right to hunt and trap;
(b) the right to fish;
(c) the right to harvest timber;
(d) the right to harvest bark;
(e) the right to harvest berries;
(f) the right to harvest and cultivate plants for food and traditional medicine;
(g) the right to carry on traditional customs and spiritual activities in the historical
location where those activities were and are traditionally carried on;
(h) the right to mine and trade in copper, gold, and other mineral resources;
(i) the right to a Secwepemc economy; and
(j) the right to sustainable watersheds, airshed, and a healthy ecosystem.

4. A declaration that the Authorizations unjustifiably infringe the aboriginal title and/or the aboriginal rights of the Secwepemc Nation;

5. A declaration that continued mining pursuant to the Authorizations would unjustifiably infringe the aboriginal rights and/or aboriginal title of the Secwepemc Nation;

6. A declaration that the Mines Act does not apply to the Secwepemc aboriginal title land;

7. A declaration that the provisions of the Mines Act that cumulatively prohibit the Secwepemc Nation from mining in copper and gold, are unjustifiable infringements of the Secwepemc Nation’s boriginal rights and/or title and are of no force and effect pursuant to s. 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982;

8. A declaration that the infringements of aboriginal title authorized by British Columbia unlawfully intrude upon Parliament’s exclusive right to legislate in respect of Indians and Lands reserved for the Indians and therefore such authorization and legislation is of no force and effect;

9. Damages for the past and continued infringement of the Secwepemc Nation’s aboriginal rights and/or title;

10. An accounting by British Columbia and/or Canada of all monies received in the form of Crown grants, mineral taxes, property tax, sales tax, corporate income tax, retail sales tax, and lease or other revenues arising out of, or with respect to, the mining of minerals pursuant to the Authorizations;

11. An interim and permanent injunction enjoining any drilling, mining, timber harvesting or road building, or any other activity pursuant to the Authorizations;

12. Interest and costs; and

13. Such further and other relief as this Honourable Court sees fit, including the declarations sought above in respect of such lesser tracts of land as the Court may determine are subject to aboriginal rights or title.

This is from page 25 in the most recent Notice of Civil Claim. There is speculation that this is really a “power play” to prevent mining and development in the area. Of course, if granted, it would effectively hand over the entire city of Kamloops.

Court Case Making Relatively Little Progress

The case has not yet gone to Trial. The Claim has been amended 3 separate times, with the most recent version being in March 2025.

Like with the Cowichan case, it appears that there was no attempt whatsoever to notify property owners (or residents in general) that a verdict could have profound consequences. Rustad was also the Minister when that one was filed in 2014.

The Cowichan case is more nefarious though. Although the case involved Richmond property owners, it was filed in Victoria, presumably to help conceal from the public. The case was also scrubbed from BCCSO entirely, and there are publication bans on certain documents.

Expect a follow-up as things progress.

Sturko MLA Letter Kamloops Action

COURT DOCUMENTS:
(1) Secwepemc Doc 001 Notice Of Civil Claim
(2) Secwepemc Doc 002 Requisition
(3) Secwepemc Doc 003 Requisition
(4) Secwepemc Doc 004 Response To Civil Claim
(5) Secwepemc Doc 005 Response To Civil Claim
(6) Secwepemc Doc 006 Response To Civil Claim
(7) Secwepemc Doc 007 Amended Notice Of Civil Claim
(8) Secwepemc Doc 008 Reply
(9) Secwepemc Doc 009 Reply
(10) Secwepemc Doc 010 Reply
(11) Secwepemc Doc 011 Response To Civil Claim
(12) Secwepemc Doc 013 Consent Order
(13) Secwepemc Doc 015 Requisition
(14) Secwepemc Doc 023 Notice Of Application
(15) Secwepemc Doc 024 Requisition
(16) Secwepemc Doc 025 Requisition And General Adjournment
(17) Secwepemc Doc 028 Requisition
(18) Secwepemc Doc 030 Notice Of Application
(19) Secwepemc Doc 035 Application Response
(20) Secwepemc Doc 038 Application Response
(21) Secwepemc Doc 041 Application Response
(22) Secwepemc Doc 051 Requisition
(23) Secwepemc Doc 058 Consent Order
(24) Secwepemc Doc 060 Consent Order
(25) Secwepemc Doc 062 Consent Order
(26) Secwepemc Doc 066 Consent Order
(27) Secwepemc Doc 067 Further Amended Notice Of Civil Claim
(28) Secwepemc Doc 069 Consent Order
(29) Secwepemc Doc 073 Requisition
(30) Secwepemc Doc 075 Consent Order
(31) Secwepemc Doc 076 Requisition
(32) Secwepemc Doc 080 Requisition
(33) Secwepemc Doc 086 Requisition
(34) Secwepemc Doc 092 Case Plan Order
(35) Secwepemc Doc 095 Consent Order Further Statement Of Claim
(36) Secwepemc Doc 096 Third Amended Notice Of Civil Claim
(37) Secwepemc Doc 103 Method Of Attendance

Posted on

Universal Ostrich Farms, Part 8: Giving Away Someone ELSE’S Land

The Supreme Court of Canada (S.C.C.) will be asked to hear a case challenging a Government decision to kill 400 or so birds in the name of public health. Worth noting, the S.C.C. declines to hear 90-95% of cases every year. While the subject matter would be fairly unique, numerically, it will be tough to sell it as “national interest”.

This is of course Universal Ostrich Farms, in Edgewood, B.C.

A quick summary of recent events:

  • The CFIA, or Canadian Food Inspection Agency, issued an order at the end on 2024 to cull approximately 400 ostriches from a farm in the Interior B.C. This was on the basis that the ostriches had the “H5N1 virus” based on “PCR testing”.
  • The farmers filed an Application for Judicial Review in Federal Court.
  • The Federal Court granted a temporary stay of the culling until the case was heard.
  • The Federal Court (Justice Zinn) dismissed the Application in May.
  • The Federal Court of Appeal issued another stay in June, until the Appeal was heard.
  • The Appeal was dismissed in August.
  • The Court of Appeal refuses a further stay in September.
  • Just now, the Supreme Court has issued a stay of their own, however, the CFIA will retain possession of the farm until the proceedings are concluded.

Beyond the Court drama, there’s a lot going on with the ostriches that received far less attention. Most importantly, these animals aren’t to be food at all. Instead, they are lab animals, supposedly infected with some manmade “antigens”.

See Parts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 in the series for more information.

If nothing else, this situation has shown the cognitive dissonance of protesters. Back in 2021, the rallying cries were that “Covid is a hoax”, or at worst that “It’s just the flu”. Now, the animals are being heralded as the anti-pharma solution to the next pandemic.

Remember: in 2020/2021, PCR testing was seen as “junk science” and completely unreliable. Many of these same protesters railed against it. But now that UOF’s business model is “antibody production”, suddenly PCR tests are a fairly accurate diagnostic tool. Even the Pelech Affidavit only gave mild criticism over cycle counts.

The above video was shot by Drea Humphrey (Rebel News), and posted online. It shows Katie Pasitney telling the RCMP to back off, since the farm is “on Indigenous land”. The news has also been shared on places like Facebook.

Protesters here are likely many of the same ones angry that B.C. Courts have been ruling that various tribes have rights to other people’s private property. They viewed it as Government overreach. But for UOF, it’s apparently okay to just declare Indigenous rights. Okay….

Some of the more astute observers have pointed out that doing this may make it easier for further land grabs in the future. Is invoking UNDRIP really the best idea? This may help Espersen, Bilinski and Pasitney in the short term, but overall, could backfire on them.

But here’s more the interesting part: it’s not their land to give away.

2014 Farm Foreclosure To RBC => Sold To Quigleys

.

This was covered in Part 4 of the series. Karen Espersen and David Bilinski don’t actually own the land in question. Nor does Katie Pasitney.

Back in 2012, RBC filed a Petition in B.C. Supreme Court over unpaid debts. The property was eventually sold to Catherine and Thomas (Owen) Quigley, who are the owners today.

Fast forward to 2021, Esperson filed a Notice of Civil Claim against the Quigleys. There had apparently been an agreement to subdivide the land (and get her a portion of it back) that had followed through. There have been endless delays, with Trial scheduled for 2026. The Counterclaim is also worth reading.

It’s anyone’s guess that the Judge will do at the end. But in the meantime, the Quigleys are still the legal owners of the property. There’s no indication — at least from what’s readily available — that they endorsed any of this.

In short, Espersen and Pasitney have told the police that an Indian tribe has rights to the land that belongs to someone else. While it’s an innovative and amusing technique to use against the RCMP, it’s not their property.

Imagine this scenario: you live in an apartment and pay rent. For various reasons, you are unable to meet those obligations, and the landlord tries to evict you. Is it then okay to declare that the property is on unceded land, and that the owners have no rights? That’s more or less what’s happening here.

There’s all kinds of sympathy for the farmers, and their animals. But what about the rights of the owners?

Courts Unwilling To Delve Into Issue

As for the Federal Court rulings themselves, this pretty accurately sums up the frustration that many have with the process.

[6] In this regard, it is not the role of this Court to set, vary, or grant exemptions from governmental policy. Rather, our sole role is to determine whether the decisions at issue in this appeal were reasonable in accordance with the deferential standard of review set out in the case law of the Supreme Court of Canada, this Court, and other Canadian courts. Because the Stamping-Out Policy, which underlies the two decisions, the Notice to Dispose, and the Exemption Denial, are all reasonable in accordance with that case law, we have unanimously concluded that this appeal cannot succeed.

The Federal Court of Appeal has echoed the Federal Court in ruling that it’s not their job to vary Government policy, or to make exceptions. As long as the underlying decisions are “reasonable”, they won’t intervene. Of course, reasonable doesn’t necessarily mean “correct”.

Will the Supreme Court get involved, or will they refuse to hear it? Looking at the low success rate of Applications for Leave, it seems unlikely. Then again, it’s a fairly novel case, with potential to impact many lives down the road. The S.C.C. just might.

While it’s understandable that many have sympathy for UOF, keep in mind that they’re not the only ones impacted by all of this.

For the time being, the CFIA, despite having custody of the birds, is prevented from killing them. How well will they be looked after?

COURT OF APPEAL (CHALLENGING JUSTICE ZINN’S ORDER)
(1) Ostrich APPEAL Notice Of Appeal (May, 2025)
(2) UOF APPEAL Notice Of Appearance (May, 2025)
(3) UOF FCA Appeal Denied (August, 2025)
(4) UOF FCA Motion To Stay Dismissed (September, 2025)

COURT OF APPEAL (MOTION TO STAY CULL ORDER)
(1) UOF APPEAL Motion Record To Stay Culling (June, 2025)
(2) UOF APPEAL Notice Of Motion To Stay Culling (June, 2025)
(3) UOF APPEAL Bilinski Affidavit To Stay Culling (June, 2025)
(4) UOF APPEAL Bilinski Affidavit Exhibit E June, 2025)
(5) UOF APPEAL Espersen Affidavit To Stay Culling (June, 2025)
(6) UOF APPEAL Moving Party Submissions To Stay Culling (June, 2025)
(7) UOF APPEAL Responding Motion Record Volume 1
(8) UOF APPEAL Responding Motion Record Volume 2 (June, 2025)
(9) UOF APPEAL Responding Submissions To Stay Culling (June, 2025)
(10) UOF APPEAL Order Staying Cullings Pending Appeal (June, 2025)

COURT OF APPEAL (JUSTICE BATTISTA STAYING CULL ORDER):
(1) UOF Order To Stay Culling (January, 2025)
(2) UOF Notice Of Appeal (February, 2025)
(3) UOF Notice Of Appearance (February, 2025)
(4) UOF Agreement Appeal Book Contents (March, 2025)
(5) UOF Joint Appeal Book (April, 2025)
(6) UOF Consent To Extend Time (May, 2025)
(7) UOF Notice Of Discontinuance (May, 2025)

FEDERAL COURT DOCUMENTS (CFIA):
(1) Ostrich Notice Of Application Certified (January, 2025)
(2) Ostrich Notice Of Application (January, 2025)
(3) Ostrich Notice Of Motion (January, 2025)
(4) Ostrich Bilinski Affidavit (January, 2025)
(5) Ostrich Espersen Affidavit (January, 2025)
(6) Ostrich Pelech Affidavit (January, 2025)
(7) Ostrich Jones Affidavit (January, 2025)
(8) Ostrich Responding Motion Record (January, 2025)
(9) Ostrich Responding Motion Record Expedited (February, 2025)
(10) Ostrich Motion Record Ex-Parte (February, 2025)
(11) Ostrich Exemption Notice Of Application (February, 2025)
(12) Ostrich Exemption Motion Record (February, 2025)
(13) Ostrich Ruling Of Justice Zinn (May, 2025)

MONEY:
(1) https://bcrising.ca/save-our-ostriches/
(2) https://www.gofundme.com/f/help-ostrich-farmers-fight-to-save-herd-from-avian-flu?attribution_id=sl%3A80e09934-7413-429b-acfb-2f7015cc19d3&lang=en_CA
(3) https://www.givesendgo.com/save-our-ostriches
(4) https://www.kinexus.ca/

Posted on

Universal Ostrich Farms, Part 6: A Look Into The Motion Staying Cull Order

We’re back to covering the ongoing saga of Universal Ostrich Farms, and the CFIA’s attempt to cull (kill) approximately 400 birds on a B.C. farm. The story keeps getting stranger. An Appeal is underway to challenge a Federal Court ruling, permitting it to go ahead.

See Parts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 in the series for more information.

The Appeal was initiated in late May to set aside Justice Zinn’s ruling, which upheld the Canada Food Inspection Agency’s (CFIA’s) cull order as “reasonable”. The last article mentioned the sort of concerns that will be raised at the hearing.

But before that, there’s another more immediate problem. Unless otherwise halted, the current cull order is set to go into effect. A Motion was recently filed in order to prevent that, at least for the time being.

The Motion includes Affidavits from Karen Espersen and David Bilinski, in addition to the Notice, and the written arguments.

Such a Motion would likely not involve a hearing. Instead, a single Judge would consider all the filings and issue a decision behind closed doors.

Beyond simply requesting that the culling be deferred, the Motion reveals a lot about the operation that wasn’t previously public (or at least well known).

Motion To Stay Culling Is Well Written

To be more balanced, the filings submitted here are of better quality than what is usually covered on this website. At the end of January, 2025, Justice Battista did temporarily stay the killing of the ostriches. It’s reasonable to assume that the Court of Appeal may as well. While not guaranteed, it’s quite possible.

UOF’s argument to postpone the culling amounts to the following:

  • This appeal is neither frivolous nor vexatious
  • UOF will suffer irreparable harm if its ostriches are slaughtered
  • UOF will suffer the greater harm if a stay is denied

The full Motion Record is available, and includes all the documents. The Notice of Appeal outlines a number of serious errors, such as Justice Zinn not fully understanding the arguments that were before him. It’s stated that he deferred far too much to the CFIA, instead of diving more into the evidence himself. Beyond that, there are allegations (albeit not fleshed out) of financial conflicts of interest with prior counsel.

The Motion further requests that additional testing be done on the birds to see if there are illnesses that may have spread. It’s offered that the Appellants would cover such expenses.

The Motion points out the obvious: if the stay isn’t granted, and the birds are culled anyway, then the entire Appeal becomes moot. There would be no birds left to save.

In fairness though, the CFIA did appeal the Order of Justice Battista at the end of January. It was dropped for being “moot” after Justice Zinn upheld the CFIA order as reasonable. It’s fair to assume that the CFIA will be opposing such a Motion this time around as well.

Bilinski Affidavit Sheds New Light On Business Operations

The Affidavit of David Bilinski is very interesting. It outlines in considerable detail where he and Karen anticipated taking the business to, and whom they would be partnering with. Exhibit “E” is the business plan that was submitted.

An important detail is that the agreement with Breathe Medical fell through when the company declared bankruptcy. The partnership with the Quebec-based Immune Biosolutions appears to have not fared well either. However, there were apparently other options available.

19. By December 2020, UOF’s operations became entirely dedicated to scientific research through antibody production.

20. In Early 2021, Breathe Medical Manufacturing declared bankruptcy and our exclusive supply agreement and corresponding revenue expectations were not realized.

21. In 2022, Karen and I incorporated Struthio Bio Science Inc. (“Struthio”) to, in partnership with UOF, engage in manufacturing and marketing of ostrich egg IgY antibodies and related products. As of the date of this Affidavit, Struthio is wholly owned by Karen and I with each of us holding a 50% share.

22. In April 2024, Karen and I negotiated and entered into agreements which would, inter alia, implement a new ownership structure for Struthio. Under this proposed restructuring, an majority interest in Struthio would be transferred to new principals and governed by a board of directors, including Dr. Tsukamoto – in exchange for investment and the licensing of certain patents necessary for commercialization of IgY antibodies and related products.

23. Exhibit “E” to this affidavit is a true copy of the Struthio BioScience Business Plan dated December 5, 2023 (“Struthio Business Plan”) and accompanying PowerPoint presentation. The Struthio Business Plan is a detailed roadmap for Struthio’s venture to develop and commercialize biomedical products derived from ostrich eggs, and it identifies UOF as a crucial partner supplying the necessary ostrich eggs. Among other things, the plan describes Struthio’s proposed proprietary research into antibodies from ostrich egg yolks, new corporate and governance structure and projects the financial returns from this research over the next several years (in the order of millions of dollars annually). Karen and I would retain 25% each interest in Struthio BioScience Inc.

24. I do not put this forward to assert that those revenue projections will in fact be realized or that the science will succeed. Rather, I rely on the Struthio Business Plan to show the existence of Struthio’s business model and the expectations that UOF and Struthio had at the time: namely, that UOF’s ostrich flock would be used to produce a continuous supply of eggs enabling Struthio’s venture to move forward. The very inclusion of UOF as a key supplier in this plan, and the magnitude of the projected benefits, demonstrate how integral our ostrich flock is to UOF’s commercial strategy with Struthio. The plan provides important context for UOF’s anticipated growth – context which will be completely upended if the flock is destroyed. Any statements or figures in the business plan are being referenced here only to illustrate what Struthio anticipated and the scale of the opportunity UOF stood to gain, not as proof that those outcomes are guaranteed.

25. Exhibit “F” to this affidavit is a true copy of the terms of Struthio and Ostrich Pharma KK (“OPKK”) Agreement (“OPKK Agreement”) which was executed On April 11, 2024.

26. The OPKK Agreement sets out the principal terms of a proposed investment and partnership whereby OPKK agreed in principle to partner with Struthio’s egg-based biotech venture. The OPKK Agreement references anticipated investment, exclusive patent licencing, technology transfer and a revised corporate structure for Struthio. This reflects that OPKK’s confidence in Struthio’s business which was inextricably predicated on UOF’s ostrich flock and egg production.

Do read Bilinski’s Affidavit, especially the business plan which was attached as Exhibit “E”.

BOARD OF DIRECTORS:

  • Chairman – Dr. Yasuhiro Tsukamoto- President of Kyoto University, Founder and Scientist of Ostrich IgY patents
  • CEO – Interm – Dave Bilinski – Presently recruiting for full time position – Production Expert for Ostrich, 31 Years experience
  • VP – IgY Egg Production – Karen Espersen -, IgY Egg Production Expert for Ostrich, Director Alberta Ostrich Association, 33 Years experience
  • VP Product Development – Dr. Stu Greenberg –, CEO Ostrich Pharma USA
  • Board Member – Dr. Lyle Oberg – Presently Chariman of Alberta Health Services
  • CF0 – Actively recruiting for position
  • CMO – Carol Epstein, M.D. .Dr. Epstein has been in the biopharmaceutical industry for over 25 years. She has served as Chief Medical Officer of IRX Therapeutics, Inc
  • Board Member – To be chosen by investor

ADVISORY BOARD:

  • Dr. Alessio Fasano- Director of Center for Celiac Research & Treatment at MassGeneral Hospital. Director of the Mucosal Immunology and Biology Research Center at MassGeneral Hospital for Children (50 scientists and staff). Founder of Zonulin
  • Dr. Meer Janjua – BioNektar Inc. Founder and Chief Medical Officer, International Distribution management through Doctors network
  • Dr. Willian Bithoney MD, FAAP – Dr. William Bithoney is an experienced healthcare professional with more than 35 years of experience in the healthcare sector having served as a physician executive in diverse academic and hospital systems
  • Dr. Elma Hawkins, Ph.D. – Dr. Hawkins’s 30-year career encompasses pioneering efforts in biotechnology and drug development, and executive roles in corporate development, strategy, fundraising, and general management
  • Hassan Hassan = Business Development – CEO of Aim-X Canada. Dedicated International Entrepreneur in Natural Resource Exploration & Sustainable Development
  • Ken Davidson , CPA, CA, CFP, ICD.D -Ken Davidson is an accomplished corporate director, consultant, entrepreneur, Chartered Professional Accountant (CPA) and certified Corporate Director (ICD.D) with over 30 years of experience in a diverse range of industries across Canada, the US and the Caribbean

Currently, Espersen and Bilinski co-own Struthio BioSciences, holding 50% each. The proposed new structure would see that reduced to 25% each, and a more corporate format. Bilinski would become the CEO, at least on an interim basis. Espersen would be a Vice President. This is a far cry from the “family farm” that had been portrayed by media outlets.

Wasn’t this supposed to be about protecting the food supply?

Considering the disdain that the Freedom Movement has for “public health” in general, it seems odd to be supporting the expansion of an enterprise that would see the Chairman of Alberta Health Services become one of the Directors.

In other words, donors are contributing to these legal proceedings in order to protect the expansion of a company engaged in scientific research. These ostriches are test subjects, plain and simple.

At this point, one should ask what benefit donors are getting from contributing to this case. Consider that Bilinski and Espersen were willing to give outsiders a 50% stake in the new company. What would be fair to people contributing to these legal proceedings? Should larger donations merit equity, or dividends?

Silence From “Alternative Media” Outlets

Espersen and Bilinski have every right to earn a living. However, when donations are solicited, there’s an expectation that there will be transparency. While this Motion does shed a lot of light on their business model, it seems unlikely that contributors were fully aware of it.

It’s a fair question to ask if Universal Ostrich Farms will even exist a few years from now, regardless of what the CFIA does. Espersen doesn’t own the land, and the Quigleys are trying to kick them out. Yes, it’s still being disputed in Court in B.C., but still worth asking.

Would people be protesting around the farm’s perimeter if they knew these details? Would they (or their children) feel safe around animals injected with experimental antigens? People need to know what else — if anything — these birds were exposed to.

Druthers, among others, did cover the story, and report on these birds being the solution for “natural immunity”. Covid doesn’t exist, but that’s beside the point here. While Kyoto University was mentioned, there was nothing about where the parties planned to take their relationship.

The proposed trajectory is open-ended pharmaceutical testing, where ostriches will be little more than guinea pigs. Again, this is the kind of thing many in the Freedom Movement are against.

A follow-up from Connie would also be nice.

COURT OF APPEAL (CHALLENGING JUSTICE ZINN’S ORDER)
(1) Ostrich APPEAL Notice Of Appeal (May, 2025)
(2) UOF APPEAL Notice Of Appearance (May, 2025)

COURT OF APPEAL (MOTION TO STAY CULL ORDER)
(1) UOF APPEAL Motion Record To Stay Culling (June, 2025)
(2) UOF APPEAL Notice Of Motion To Stay Culling (June, 2025)
(3) UOF APPEAL Bilinski Affidavit To Stay Culling (June, 2025)
(4) UOF APPEAL Bilinski Affidavit Exhibit E June, 2025)
(5) UOF APPEAL Espersen Affidavit To Stay Culling (June, 2025)
(6) UOF APPEAL Moving Party Submissions To Stay Culling (June, 2025)

COURT OF APPEAL (JUSTICE BATTISTA STAYING CULL ORDER):
(1) UOF Order To Stay Culling (January, 2025)
(2) UOF Notice Of Appeal (February, 2025)
(3) UOF Notice Of Appearance (February, 2025)
(4) UOF Agreement Appeal Book Contents (March, 2025)
(5) UOF Joint Appeal Book (April, 2025)
(6) UOF Consent To Extend Time (May, 2025)
(7) UOF Notice Of Discontinuance (May, 2025)

FEDERAL COURT DOCUMENTS (CFIA):
(1) Ostrich Notice Of Application Certified (January, 2025)
(2) Ostrich Notice Of Application (January, 2025)
(3) Ostrich Notice Of Motion (January, 2025)
(4) Ostrich Bilinski Affidavit (January, 2025)
(5) Ostrich Espersen Affidavit (January, 2025)
(6) Ostrich Pelech Affidavit (January, 2025)
(7) Ostrich Jones Affidavit (January, 2025)
(8) Ostrich Responding Motion Record (January, 2025)
(9) Ostrich Responding Motion Record Expedited (February, 2025)
(10) Ostrich Motion Record Ex-Parte (February, 2025)
(11) Ostrich Exemption Notice Of Application (February, 2025)
(12) Ostrich Exemption Motion Record (February, 2025)
(13) Ostrich Ruling Of Justice Zinn (May, 2025)

MONEY:
(1) https://bcrising.ca/save-our-ostriches/
(2) https://www.gofundme.com/f/help-ostrich-farmers-fight-to-save-herd-from-avian-flu?attribution_id=sl%3A80e09934-7413-429b-acfb-2f7015cc19d3&lang=en_CA
(3) https://www.givesendgo.com/save-our-ostriches
(4) https://www.kinexus.ca/

Posted on

Bills C-398/C-399: The “Right” Of Homeless Encampments, And Immigration “Equity”

Just before Parliament took its Summer recess in 2024, NDP Member of Parliament, Jenny Kwan, introduced 2 Private Member’s Bills: C-398 and C-399.

Both are in the introductory stage in the House of Commons. While Private Bills don’t commonly become law, there’s always the possibility they will. There’s also the prospect that the contents will simply be incorporated into a larger, Government Bill.

Starting with Bill C-398, it would create the “right” to set up homeless encampments on Federal land. It would amend the National Housing Strategy Act in several places. Authorities would be prevented from blocking them, or shutting them down. And for reference:

Homeless encampment means an outdoor settlement of one or more temporary structures, such as tents, vehicles or other structures that are not designed or intended for permanent human habitation but that one or more persons experiencing homelessness use as their residence.‍ (campement d’itinérants).

(e) establish measures to prevent the removal of homeless encampments on federal land and to identify alternatives to homeless encampments following meaningful engagement with their residents; and

(f) provide for processes to ensure that Indigenous peoples are actively involved and supported in determining and developing culturally appropriate housing-related programs and that responses to homeless encampments respect their rights.

Bill C-398 does talk about “identifying alternatives to homeless encampments”. Presumably this means providing people with low or no-cost housing. Interestingly, there’s nothing in the legislation that says it will only apply to Canadian citizens, or permanent residents, or landed immigrants.

Logically, anyone who entered the country illegally, who who overstayed their visa, would be entitled to the same protections.

Mandate
10 (1) The mandate of the Ombud is to examine the practices of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration to ensure that they are fair, equitable, unbiased, non-racist and non-discriminatory, and to conduct investigations if the Ombud has reasonable grounds to believe that a person or group of persons has been the victim of unfairness, inequity, bias, racism or discrimination — including systemic racism and systemic discrimination — in the Department’s decision-making process.

Duties and functions
(2) The Ombud’s duties and functions include
(a) reviewing the Department of Citizenship and Immigration’s policies, programs, initiatives, training procedures and processing standards to identify fairness or equity problems in the Department’s administration of the Citizenship Act and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, including those resulting from biases and discrimination — including systemic racism and systemic discrimination;
(b) receiving and, if appropriate, investigating complaints, including complaints about the problems referred to in paragraph (a);
(c) monitoring trends and patterns in complaints in order to identify the problems referred to in paragraph (a); and
(d) making recommendations to the Minister regarding any unfairness, inequity, bias or discrimination — including systemic racism and systemic discrimination — that the Ombud identifies.

Kwan wants to create an ombudsman to ensure that “equitable” policies and practices are being implemented by the Ministry of Citizenship and Immigration. She also wants that ombudsman to make recommendations to the Minister in order to help this along.

Now, while the connection may seem tenuous, consider this:

The New Democrats and experts agree that the problem on orderly crossings is the safe third country agreement. For over a year now, I have been calling on the government to invoke article 10 of the safe third country agreement and to provide written notice to the United States that we are suspending the agreement.

If the safe third country agreement is suspended, asylum seekers can make safe, orderly crossings at designated ports of entry. This will protect the rights of the asylum seekers, provide safety and stability to Canada’s border communities most impacted by this influx, and allow for the government agencies, such as the RCMP, CBSA, IRCC, and the IRB, to strategically deploy personnel and resources necessary to establish border infrastructure instead of this ad hoc approach. This is the rational, reasonable response to this situation.

Back in April 2018, Kwan posted on her website that she had been calling on the Trudeau Government to suspend the Safe Third Country Agreement. The reason for doing this is so that people entering from the United States — to claim asylum — could simply stroll into any official port of entry.

In November 2018, Kwan called for the Safe Third Country Agreement to be suspended, claiming that the U.S. (under Donald Trump) wasn’t a “safe country”.

In March 2020, she wrote to Trudeau and Freeland, protesting that illegals trying to cross from the U.S. were being turned back.

Taken together, what does this all mean?

It means that Kwan, who is pro-open borders, supports having illegals come in from the U.S., and presumably elsewhere as well. On one hand, she introduces Bill C-398, which entrenches the “right” of people to set up encampments on Federal land. On the other, she has Bill C-399, which creates and ombudsman to ensure that “equitable” immigration policies are enforced, and to make recommendations to the Minister.

Will taxpayer funded “housing for illegals” become a human right?

(1) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/44-1/c-398
(2) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Members/en/jenny-kwan(89346)
(3) https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/C-398/first-reading
(4) https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/n-11.2/FullText.html
(5) https://www.parl.ca/LegisInfo/en/bill/44-1/C-399
(6) https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/C-399/first-reading
(7) https://www.jennykwanndp.ca/on_irregular_border_crossings
(8) https://www.jennykwanndp.ca/emergency_study_on_irregular_border_crossings
(9) https://www.jennykwanndp.ca/open_letter_to_deputy_prime_minister_on_border_restriction

Private Member Bills In Current Session:
(1) Bill C-206: Decriminalizing Self Maiming To Avoid Military Service
(2) Bill C-207: Creating The “Right” To Affordable Housing
(3) Bill C-219: Creating Environmental Bill Of Rights
(4) Bill C-226: Creating A Strategy For Environmental Racism/Justice
(5) Bill C-229: Banning Symbols Of Hate, Without Defining Them
(6) Bill C-235: Building Of A Green Economy In The Prairies
(7) Bill C-245: Entrenching Climate Change Into Canada Infrastructure Bank
(8) Bill C-250: Imposing Prison Time For Holocaust Denial
(9) Bill C-261: Red Flag Laws For “Hate Speech”
(10.1) Bill C-293: Domestic Implementation Of Int’l Pandemic Treaty
(10.2) Bill C-293: Concerns Raised In Hearings Over Food Supplies
(11) Bill C-312: Development Of National Renewable Energy Strategy
(12) Bill C-315: Amending CPPIB Act Over “Human, Labour, Environmental Rights”
(13) Bill C-367: Removing Religious Exemptions Protecting Against Antisemitism
(14) Bill C-373: Removing Religious Exemptions Protecting Against Antisemitism 2.0
(15) Bill C-388: Fast Tracking Weapons, Energy, Gas To Ukraine
(16) Bill C-390: Expanding Euthanasia Into PROVINCIAL Frameworks
(17) Bill S-215: Protecting Financial Stability Of Post-Secondary Institutions
(18) Bill S-243: Climate Related Finance Act, Banking Acts
(19) Bill S-248: Removing Final Consent For Euthanasia
(20) Bill S-257: Protecting Political Belief Or Activity As Human Rights
(21) Bill S-275: Adding “Sustainable And Equitable Prosperity” To Bank Of Canada Act

Posted on

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

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

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

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

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

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

Starting with the Supreme Court of Canada:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*Disclaimers, Ethics* Proudly powered by WordPress