Category: Subversion

Posted on

Recent Statistics From U.S. Customs And Border Protection (USCBP), As Of 2024

This article will focus on data from the U.S. Customs and Border Protection, or USCBP. It sheds light on just how bad things are with their borders, particularly the side with Mexico. There have been many interests vested in not securing it. Consequently, people flood in illegally, since there’s little reason not to at least try.

Why should Canadians care about this?

The answer is simple: it’s not just an American problem. Open borders threatens nations in general. Not only that, many of those illegal aliens will surely be working their way to Canada, given the generous welfare benefits available.

There’s also some historical data, going back 100 years on total apprehensions.

The following data is by no means all of the information that CBP releases, including on weapons and drugs. It’s just a portion of it. But it should be alarming to anyone who takes border security seriously.

Total Customs And Border Patrol Enforcement Actions

YEAR TOTALS OFFICE OF FIELD OPS US BORDER PATROL
FY 2017 526,901 216,370 310,531
FY 2018 683,178 281,881 404,142
FY 2019 1,148,024 288,523 859,501
FY 2020 646,822 241,786 405,036
FY 2021 1,956,519 294,352 1,662,167
FY 2022 2,766,582 551,930 2,214,652
FY 2023 3,201,144 1,137,452 2,063,692
FY 2024* 1,981,177 809,460 1,171,717

* Beginning in March FY20, OFO Encounters statistics include both Title 8 Inadmissibles and Title 42 Expulsions. To learn more, visit Title-8-and-Title-42-Statistics. Inadmissibles refers to individuals encountered at ports of entry who are seeking lawful admission into the United States but are determined to be inadmissible, individuals presenting themselves to seek humanitarian protection under our laws, and individuals who withdraw an application for admission and return to their countries of origin within a short timeframe.

** Beginning in March FY20, USBP Encounters statistics include both Title 8 Apprehensions and Title 42 Expulsions. To learn more, visit Title-8-and-Title-42-Statistics. Apprehensions refers to the physical control or temporary detainment of a person who is not lawfully in the U.S. which may or may not result in an arrest.

Inadmissible Foreign Criminals And Outstanding Warrants

YEAR OFO C.N.E NCIC** USBP C.N.E USBP Warrants
FY 2017 10,596 7,656 8,531 2,675
FY 2018 11,623 5,929 6,698 1,550
FY 2019 12,705 8,546 4,269 4,153
FY 2020 7,009 7,108 2,438 2,054
FY 2021 6,567 8,979 10,763 1,904
FY 2022 16,993 10,389 15,267 949
FY 2023 20,166 11,509 15,267 988
FY 2024*** 11,626 6,946 10,337 587

OFO = Office of Field Operations
USBP = U.S. Border Patrol

* Criminal noncitizens refers to noncitizens who have been convicted of crime, whether in the United States or abroad, so long as the conviction is for conduct which is deemed criminal by the United States. Criminal noncitizens encountered at ports of entry are inadmissible, absent extenuating circumstances, and represent a subset of total OFO inadmissibles. U.S. Border Patrol arrests of criminal noncitizens are a subset of total apprehensions. See U.S. Border Patrol Criminal Noncitizen Statistics for a breakdown of criminal noncitizen stats by type of conviction.

** NCIC (National Crime Information Center) arrests refers to the number of CBP arrests of individuals, including U.S. citizens, who are wanted by other law enforcement agencies.

*** FY 2024, or Fiscal Year 2024, ends on September 30th, 2024

Drug Seizure Statistics 2021-2024

YEAR OC NO DE JA FE MA AP MY JN JL AU SE TOT
2021 98K 67K 69K 60K 90K 88K 64K 89K 93K 77K 75 45 913K
2022 83K 58K 45K 50K 60K 44K 53K 47K 61K 54K 60K 41K 656K
2023 37K 39K 40K 49K 70K 56K 36K 41K 44K 50K 49K 39K 549K
2024* 37K 48K 34K 37K 67K 51K 46K – – – – – 321K

* FY 2024, or Fiscal Year 2024, ends on September 30th, 2024

Data represents pounds that were seized, rounded for space considerations. For example, 58K means 58,000 pounds of narcotics.

Source: https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/drug-seizure-statistics

Types Of Drugs Seized 2021-2024

YEAR MJ ME CO FE HE KH KE EC LSD OTH
2021 319K 192K 98K 11K 5K 203K 22K 1K 38 73K
2022 155K 175K 70K 15K 2K 175K 14K 1K 36 49K
2023 150K 140K 81K 27K 2K 70K 8K 649 11 71K
2024* 110K 105K 41K 11K 513 5K 9K 321 6 39K

MJ = Marijuana
ME = Methamphetamine
CO = Cocaine
FE = Fentanyl
HE = Heroin
KH = Khat (Catha Edulis)
EC = Ecstasy
LSD = LSD
OTH = Other Drugs

Source: https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/drug-seizure-statistics

* FY 2024, or Fiscal Year 2024, ends on September 30th, 2024

Weapons And Firearms Seized

YEAR AM CA MA OG RE SC SI BA TOTAL
FY 2021 345,757 – 419 230,761 181 – 18,036 – 595,154
FY 2022 1,029,554 – 516 115,902 253 – 1,272 – 1,147,497
FY 2023 501,368 847 7,532 34,181 324 357 2,457 544 547,610
FY 2024* 243,783 178 6,475 47,719 175 238 1,907 3,282 303,756

AM = Ammunition
CA = Case
MA = Magazine
OG = Other Gun Parts
RE = Receiver
SC = Scope
SI = Silencer/Muffler
BA = Vest/Body Armour

* FY 2024, or Fiscal Year 2024, ends on September 30th, 2024

Source: https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/weapons-and-ammunition-seizures

Terrorist Screening Encounters

OFFICE OF FIELD OPERATIONS
YEAR SOUTHERN BORDER NORTHERN BORDER TOTAL
FY 2017 116 217 333
FY 2018 155 196 351
FY 2019 280 258 538
FY 2020 72 124 196
FY 2021 103 54 157
FY 2022 67 313 380
FY 2023 80 484 564
FY 2024* 24 172 196
U.S. BORDER PATROL
YEAR SOUTHERN BORDER NORTHERN BORDER TOTAL
FY 2017 2 0 2
FY 2018 6 0 6
FY 2019 0 3 3
FY 2020 3 0 3
FY 2021 15 1 16
FY 2022 98 0 98
FY 2023 169 3 172
FY 2024* 80 1 81

* FY 2024, or Fiscal Year 2024, ends on September 30th, 2024

Source: https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/cbp-enforcement-statistics

Arrests Of Non-Citizen Gang Members

YEAR 18TH ST. MS-13 PAISAS OTHER TOTAL
FY 2015 84 335 73 352 844
FY 2016 47 253 119 283 702
FY 2017 61 228 53 194 536
FY 2018 145 413 62 188 808
FY 2019 168 464 90 254 976
FY 2020 36 72 93 162 363
FY 2021 28 113 79 128 348

Source: https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/cbp-enforcement-statistics-fy2023

Note: More recent data breaks down data among many other gangs. However, most have had just a few members detained at the border.

Arrests of Non-Citizens with Criminal Convictions

FISCAL YEAR TOTAL ARRESTS
FY 2017 8,531
FY 2018 6,698
FY 2019 4,269
FY 2020 2,438
FY 2021 10,763
FY 2022 12,028
FY 2023 15,267
FY 2024* 10,337

* FY 2024 ends on September 30th, 2024

Source: https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/cbp-enforcement-statistics/criminal-noncitizen-statistics

Records checks of available law enforcement databases following the apprehension of an individual may reveal a history of criminal conviction(s). That conviction information is recorded in a U.S. Customs and Border Protection database, from which the data below is derived.

Total Criminal Convictions by Type Of Non-Citizens

YEAR ABSV ROB DUI HOM DRUG IRE WEAP SEX OTH
FY 2017 692 595 1,596 3 1,249 4,502 173 137 1,851
FY 2018 524 347 1,113 3 871 3,920 106 80 1,364
FY 2019 299 184 614 2 449 2,663 66 58 814
FY 2020 208 143 364 3 386 1,261 49 156 580
FY 2021 1,178 825 1,629 60 2,138 6,160 336 488 2,691
Fy 2022 1,142 896 1,614 62 2,239 6,797 309 365 2,891
FY 2023 1,254 864 2,493 29 2,055 8,790 307 284 3,286
FY 2024* 662 412 1,778 20 942 6,368 142 133 1,933

* Fiscal Year 2024 runs October 1, 2023- September 30, 2024.

Source: https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/cbp-enforcement-statistics/criminal-noncitizen-statistics

The FY total displays the total CES apprehensions but does not equal the sum of data by category because the same apprehension can have multiple NCIC Charges that are included in multiple categories.

“Other” includes any conviction not included in the categories above.

ABSV = Assault, Battery, Domestic Violence
ROB = Burglary, Robbery, Larceny, Theft, Fraud
DUI = Driving Under The Influence
HOM = Homicide: Murder, Manslaughter, etc….
DRUG = Illegal Drug Possession, Trafficking
IRE = Illegal Re-Entry
WEAP = Illegal Weapons Possession, Transport, Trafficking
SEX = Sexual Offences
OTH = Categories Not Listed Above

Historical Data On Apprehensions: 1925 – 2020

YEAR TOTAL YEAR TOTAL YEAR TOTAL
1925 22,199 1926 12,735 1927 16,393
1928 23,566 1929 32,711 1930 20,880
1931 22,276 1932 22,735 1933 20,949
1934 10,319 1935 11,016 1936 11,728
1937 13,054 1938 12,851 1939 12,037
1940 10,492 1941 11,294 1942 11,784
1943 11,175 1944 31,175 1945 69,164
1946 99,591 1947 193,657 1948 192,779
1949 288,253 1950 468,339 1951 509,040
1952 528,815 1953 835,311 1954 1,028,246
1955 225,186 1956 68,420 1957 46,225
1958 40,504 1959 32,996 1960 28,966
1961 29,384 1962 29,897 1963 38,861
1964 42,879 1965 52,422 1966 79,610
1967 94,778 1968 123,519 1969 172,391
1970 231,116 1971 302,517 1972 396,495
1973 498,123 1974 634,777 1975 596,796
1976 696,039 1977 812,541 1978 862,837
1979 888,729 1980 759,420 1981 825,290
1982 819,919 1983 1,105,670 1984 1,138,566
1985 1,262,435 1986 1,692,544 1987 1,158,030
1988 969,214 1989 891,147 1990 1,103,354
1991 1,132,033 1992 1,199,560 1993 1,263,490
1994 1,031,668 1995 1,324,202 1996 1,549,876
1997 1,412,953 1998 1,555,776 1999 1,579,010
2000 1,676,438 2001 1,266,214 2002 955,310
2003 931,557 2004 1,160,395 2005 1,189,075
2006 1,089,092 2007 876,704 2008 723,825
2009 556,041 2010 463,382 2011 340,252
2012 364,768 2013 420,789 2014 486,651
2015 337,117 2016 415,816 2017 310,531
2018 414,142 2019 859,501 2020 405,036

* FY 2020 ended on September 30th, 2020

Source: https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/media-resources/stats (pdf file) (archive)

Again, this is nowhere near all the information that the CBP puts out. It’s just a snapshot of the people, drugs, weapons and more that have been stopped. It’s alarming to think how many people, drugs and weapons aren’t being caught.

(1) https://www.cbp.gov/
(2) https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/cbp-enforcement-statistics
(3) https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/drug-seizure-statistics
(4) https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/weapons-and-ammunition-seizures
(5) https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/southwest-land-border-encounters
(6) https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/cbp-enforcement-statistics/criminal-noncitizen-statistics
(7) https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/media-resources/stats
(8) U.S. Border Patrol Total Apprehensions (FY 1925 – FY 2020) (508)

Posted on

Senate Recommends Adding “Temporary” Workers To Reflect True Immigration Numbers

Not too long ago, Canadians were fed the line that only 300,000 to 400,000 people were coming to Canada each year. The more “moderate” plan from the Conservatives supposedly was only 250,000 annually.

Is the Overton Window finally shifting? 5 years ago, this website reported that the true scale of people immigrating to Canada was vastly under reported. See here, here, here, here and here. In reality, the number is more like 1 million per year, and has been for a long time. The Annual Reports to Parliament from 2019, 2020, 2021 and 2022 are available. 2023 will be covered shortly. In order to have a meaningful discussion on policy, accurate information has to be included.

Specifically, public discourse about “immigration levels” had focused primarily on the number of new permanent residents. This is misleading because it glosses over so-called temporary categories, including:

  1. Temporary Foreign Worker Program (TFWP)
  2. International Mobility Program (IMP)
  3. International Students

Each of these programs has options to transition to permanent resident, or at least to extend the stay via other means.

Finally, in the Spring of 2023, Statistics Canada finally began disclosing more realistic figures. The organization admitted that 2022 saw approximately 1 million people enter the country.

Now, the Senate has recommended changes in how the TFWP is reported. Does this mean that the TFWP will be scrapped, or greatly scaled down? Nope. What it does it include the numbers in the totals that are disclosed to the public.

The Temporary Foreign Worker Program was created in 1973 as a measure of last resort to bring foreign workers to Canada on a temporary basis to fill jobs for which qualified Canadians were not available. It is now clear that this program is essential and entrenched; it is therefore time to recognize this reality and adapt Canada’s migrant labour infrastructure accordingly.

In other words, it’s not going away.

However, to be more transparent with the totals, it’s not just the TFWP that needs to be addressed. There’s also the International Mobility Program, which is similar, but effectively an open work permit. Then there are the hundreds of thousands of student visas handed out every year.

RECOMMENDATION 3
The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology recognizes that neither migrant work programs nor workers are truly temporary, and therefore, recommends that the Government of Canada:
.
–implement the March 2024 commitment to include temporary residents in the annual Immigration Levels Plans;
-provide more transparent pre- and on-arrival information about transitioning from temporary work permits to permanent residence;
-review the language and education eligibility criteria required to apply for permanent residence;
–expand the Provincial Nominee Program to allow more temporary and migrant workers to obtain permanent residence;
-make migrant workers eligible for integration services under the existing Settlement Program and increase funding to support the additional demand, including to community organizations already doing this work;
–develop Settlement Program services specific to temporary residents’ needs including targeted language and education resources to support greater integration and reduce barriers to obtaining permanent residence; and
–increase funding to the Migrant Workers Support Program and existing grassroots organizations to support dedicated services across the country to help migrant workers navigate Canadian bureaucracy before, during and after their stay, including accessing health care, social supports like Employment Insurance, and immigration needs.

While the bit about transparency is nice, the Senate also recommends increasing the number of temporary workers that obtain PR status. They also suggest increasing taxpayer funding across the board.

As for their recent report, (archived here), the Senate does show how many people are actually coming via “temporary” categories. Here are the official statistics, compiled from the last 20 years. Sources are the reports linked below.

Year Stu TFWP IMP Total
2003 61,293 82,151 – 143,444

2004 56,536 90,668 – 147,204

2005 57,476 99,146 – 156,622

2006 61,703 112,658 – 174,361

2007 64,636 165,198 – 229,834

2008 79,509 192,519 – 272,028

2009 85,140 178,478 – 263,618

2010 96,157 182,276 – 278,433

2011 98,383 190,842 – 289,225

2012 104,810 213,573 – 318,383

2013 111,865 221,310 – 333,175

2014 127,698 95,086 197,924 420,078

2015 219,143 73,016 175,967 468,126

2016 265,111 78,402 207,829 551,342

2017 317,328 78,788 224,033 620,149

2018 356,876 84,229 255,034 696,139

2019 402,427 98,310 306,797 807,534

2020 256,740 84,609 242,130 583,452

2021 445,776 103,552 313,294 862,622

2022 550,187 135,818 470,033 1,156,038

From the way the reports are worded, it appears that these are new visas being issued. In fairness, some are people who had one category expire, and are applying for another.

However, the reports are confusing as to how many people are counted across multiple programs. A cynic may wonder if it’s done deliberately.

This point had been made before, but is important to go over again. (See archive). In 2013/2014, the “Conservative” Government of Stephen Harper faced backlash for how many TFWs were coming into the Canada, and the effect of reducing wages. In 2014, following public backlash at the TFWP being abused, subsequent reports splits it off with the IMP, to help camouflage what was going on.

The Issue of Employer-Specific Work Permits
An overwhelming majority of migrant workers, migrant worker advocates, academics and economists told the committee that employer-specific work permits are the single most egregious condition of vulnerability. While employer-specific work permits are most often associated with the TFWP, Judy Fudge notes that “approximately one-third” of IMP participants also hold them.

Catherine Bryan summarized that the closed work permit is a primary concern for migrant workers because it imposes barriers on their ability to “contest any difficulties that they are encountering and it makes it almost impossible for them to leave.” Elizabeth Kwan added that these permits make “migrant workers vulnerable to abuse and exploitation and provide employers with a stable low-wage and compliant migrant workforce.”

Page 34 of the Senate report recommends scrapping the requirement that foreign workers stay with a single employer.

On some level, it’s nice to see an initiative from the Senate to reflect the true scale of people coming to Canada. However, they seem content with increasing the numbers overall. Not exactly a win.

There’s also the problem that Ottawa doesn’t know how many people remain in the Canada after their visas expire. It was just 2016 when it was announced that a proper entry/exit system would be implemented. Before this, there wasn’t really any passport tracking of who had left.

This Senate report will be followed up.

(1) https://sencanada.ca/en/committees/SOCI/44-1
(2) https://sencanada.ca/en/info-page/parl-44-1/soci-temporary-and-migrant-labour/
(3) https://sencanada.ca/content/sen/committee/441/SOCI/reports/2024-05-17_SOCI_Migrant_Report_e.pdf
(4) Canada Senate SOCI Report 2024
(5) https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/canada-to-begin-collecting-exit-passport-data-1.2947418

ANNUAL IMMIGRATON REPORTS TO PARLIAMENT:
(1) 2004 Annual Immigration Report To Parliament
(2) 2005 Annual Immigration Report To Parliament
(3) 2006 Annual Immigration Report To Parliament
(4) 2007 Annual Immigration Report To Parliament
(5) 2008 Annual Immigration Report To Parliament
(6) 2009 Annual Immigration Report To Parliament
(7) 2010 Annual Immigration Report To Parliament
(8) 2011 Annual Immigration Report To Parliament
(9) 2012 Annual Immigration Report To Parliament
(10) 2013 Annual Immigration Report To Parliament
(11) 2014 Annual Immigration Report To Parliament
(12) 2015 Annual Immigration Report To Parliament
(13) 2016 Annual Immigration Report To Parliament
(14) 2017 Annual Immigration Report To Parliament
(15) 2018 Annual Immigration Report To Parliament
(16) 2019 Annual Immigration Report To Parliament
(17) 2020 Annual Immigration Report To Parliament
(18) 2021 Annual Immigration Report To Parliament
(19) 2022 Annual Immigration Report To Parliament
(20) 2023 Annual Immigration Report To Parliament

Posted on

Vote Harder! Poilievre Tells Corporate Canada To “Fire Your Lobbyist”

Recently, Pierre Poilievre, leader of the CPC and the Official Opposition of Canada, published an article in the National Post. The catchy title called on Corporate Canada to “fire your lobbyist”.

But apparently, the call is to stop lobbying other politicians. Poilievre himself seems quite content. In fact, the Lobbying Registry of Canada lists him meeting with special interest groups 329 times. Whether a person believes in the practice of political lobbying or not, this comes across as hypocritical.

Then there’s this:

At the most, the Chamber of Commerce, Business Council, and Canadian Federation of Independent Business hold pointless luncheons and meetings and write op-eds or record interviews that almost no one sees. As leader of the Conservative Party of Canada, I refuse to meet the aforementioned groups. They tell me what I already know.

Sounds lovely, doesn’t it? Fortunately for Poilievre, few will bother to fact check anything that he says. But there are always nerdy, autistic trolls that have too much time on their hands.

In the article, he claims that he refuses to meet with the groups: (a) Chamber of Commerce; (b) Business Council, and (c) Canadian Federation of Independent Business. However, records from the Lobbying Registry make it clear that he does meet with them. Not like any of this is difficult to find out.

There’s also apparently a Chamber of Marine Commerce that Poilievre has met with.

He’s also met 10 times with CIJA, the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs. There were 3 meetings with NCCM, the National Council of Canadian Muslims. Both have lobbied for changes to the Canadian Human Rights Act, to ban “hate speech”.

There are countless other examples of Poilievre being lobbied by the sorts of people that he now rails against. He mentions Teck Resources in the National Post article, despite also having been lobbied by them.

Want to stop the latest tax hike? Or get bureaucracy out of the way to build homes, mines, factories, pipelines and more? Then cancel your lunch meeting at the Rideau Club. Fire your lobbyist. And go to the people.

Sounds catchy, just like so many of his soundbites. But apparently it’s still okay for him to meet with lobbyists. Presumably this attitude will change if and when he ever takes power.

Did Poilievre write this himself? Or did his handlers?

In any event, vote harder!

(1) https://nationalpost.com/opinion/pierre-poilievre-corporate-lobbyists-keep-sucking-up-to-high-tax-anti-resource-liberals
(2) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/
(3) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/advSrch
(4) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/advSrch?searchCommand=navigate&time=1715077407904
(5) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/cmmLgPblcVw?comlogId=391128
(6) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/cmmLgPblcVw?comlogId=354769
(7) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/cmmLgPblcVw?comlogId=444749
(8) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/cmmLgPblcVw?comlogId=487562
(9) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/cmmLgPblcVw?comlogId=489399
(10) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/cmmLgPblcVw?comlogId=498788
(11) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/cmmLgPblcVw?comlogId=502584
(12) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/cmmLgPblcVw?comlogId=584972
(13) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/cmmLgPblcVw?comlogId=519778
(14) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/cmmLgPblcVw?comlogId=591832
(15) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/advSrch?searchCommand=navigate&time=1715078569598

Posted on

B.C. Bill 12 (Online Harms) Deferred: Another Case Of Problem, Reaction, Solution

The C.B.C. recently reported that British Columbia Bill 12 (the Online Harms Act) is being paused for now. This is titled the Public Health Accountability and Cost Recovery Act. The stated reason is that social media companies like Facebook and X/Twitter have come to the table to implement their own protections.

But B.C. Premier David Eby made it clear that this may go ahead anyway, if an agreement cannot be worked out.

Other recent B.C. specific legislation includes:
Bill 23, the (Anti-White) Anti-Racism Act, and
Bill 31, domestic implementation of U.N. Sendai Framework

The stated purpose is to hold companies — such as social media outlets — accountable for medical and health care costs that arise from content they put out. An example cited is Carson Cleland, the 12 year old from Prince George, who committed suicide last October after online sextortion. It’s claimed that if platformed were properly regulated, this wouldn’t have happened.

However, it appears more likely that this is a pretext to be able to swiftly remove content the Government deems “harmful”, for whatever reason. And this is being achieved in the standard way.

  1. Problem
  2. Reaction
  3. Solution

The PROBLEM is that Bill 12 is crafted in such a way as to impose financially crippling penalties. No Government wants to be seen as being overtly anti-free speech. So this must be framed in a manner that appeals to public safety.

The REACTION is that companies get nervous about the fines and other costs they could be on the hook for, even if they weren’t complicit in generating the material.

The SOLUTION is that social media firms agree to “voluntarily” implement their own measures, which means complying with what the Government wanted anyway.

Now, what’s in this Bill?

Direct action by government
2 (1) The government has a direct and distinct action against a person to recover the cost of health care benefits caused or contributed to by a health-related wrong.
.
(2) For certainty,
(a) subsection (1) does not establish a right of action for any other person, and
(b) the cost of health care benefits recoverable under subsection (1) includes the cost of health care benefits in relation to the risk of disease, injury or illness.

Direct action by the government of Canada
3 (1) The government of Canada has a direct and distinct action against a person to recover the cost of health care benefits caused or contributed to by a health-related wrong.
.
(2) For certainty,
(a) subsection (1) does not establish a right of action for any other person, and
(b) the cost of health care benefits recoverable under subsection (1) includes the cost of health care benefits in relation to the risk of disease, injury or illness.

Sections 2 and 3 of the Bill specify that the B.C. (and oddly, Canadian) Governments are able to take legal action against people for health care costs in relation to “disease, injury or illness”.

Interestingly, both Sections 2 and 3 specify that the right of action — or ability to sue — is for Governments only. Private people apparently don’t have that right. Then there’s 2(6) and 3(6)

(6) If the government [of Canada seeks] in an action under subsection (1) to recover the cost of health care benefits on an aggregate basis,

(a) it is not necessary
(i) to identify particular individual benefit recipients,
(ii) to prove the cause of disease, injury or illness in any particular individual benefit recipient, or
(iii) to prove the cost of health care benefits for any particular individual benefit recipient

What this means is that while both the B.C. and Federal Governments have the right to sue to recoup health care costs, private citizens don’t. It’s also not required that they identify: (a) beneficiaries; (b) causation; or (c) analysis of health care benefits.

Apparently, companies aren’t limited to being sued once, either.

Private parties and proceedings
6 (1) It is not a defence to an action commenced by the government under section 2 (1), or by the government of Canada under section 3 (1), that a claim for a benefit recipient’s damages, alleged to have been caused or contributed to by a health-related wrong, has been adjudicated or settled.

6 (2) It is not a defence to an action commenced in respect of a benefit recipient’s claim for damages, alleged to have been caused or contributed to by a health-related wrong, that an action commenced by the government under section 2 (1), or by the government of Canada under section 3 (1), has been adjudicated or settled.

It’s a commonly accepted principle that once a dispute is resolved, that it not be rehashed in a different forum. This applies to things like union grievances and human rights complaints. But here, it’s explicitly stated that “adjudicated or settled” won’t protect from future litigation.

Section 8 gets into what evidence will be allowed. This will include “statistical information and information derived from epidemiological, sociological and other relevant studies, including information derived from sampling”. In other words, modelling will be allowed as evidence. Remember how that was used back in 2020/2021?

Section 10 states that the Statute of Limitations both for the B.C. and Federal Governments will be 15 years. This goes well above the 2 year limit that typically applies.

In any event, it’s not hard to see what social media companies are nervous about Bill 12 going ahead. It exposes them to all kinds of risks, but without really defining their responsibilities. It’s no surprise that they’re now willing to work something out to prevent this legislation from going ahead.

Another area the CBC article omitted was any explanation of who was responsible for social media companies capitulating. For that, we turn to the B.C. Lobbying Registry.

Jean-Marc Prevost is one of the people lobbying on behalf of Facebook. He’s a former staffer for BCPHO Bonnie Henry, and helped her push the injections back in 2021. To give context, he was a part of this same NDP Government, leaves, and then promptly lobbies that same Government. See Archive.

And the conflict of interest doesn’t end there. Prevost lobbied for the company Emergent BioSolutions Inc., a few years back. This is the actual manufacturer of the AstraZeneca vaccines. He had the ear of the right people at the time.

Bradley Lavigne works at Counsel Public Affairs, same as Prevost. In March, he also lobbied on behalf of Facebook. And similar to Prevost. Lavigne pushed for vaccines on behalf of Emergent BioSolutions back in 2021. He has been a CBC commentator for about 20 years, meaning he pitches his clients’ goals directly to the public. See archive. He has also been in the inside of the Federal NDP party structure going back to the days of Jack Layton.

As should be obvious: a lot of these “commentators” and “pundits” are really just paid actors, playing the role of experts. And although these actors are supposedly from different political parties, their respective firms have people on staff across the spectrum.

For more on Emergent BioSolutions, or pharma lobbying more broadly, there are many rabbit holes to go down. These examples are hardly exhaustive.

Rachel Curran also lobbied on behalf of Meta. This is important since she spent over 3 years as part of the B.C. Government, and more than 6 more working for Harper Federally. See archive. Additionally, she lists herself as a CBC commentator from 2016 to 2020. This isn’t simply a left or right issue, but one where all parties do much the same things.

  • Francis LeBlanc – Chair, Former Executive Director, Canadian Association of Former Parliamentarians
  • Chris Wilkins – Past Chair, CEO, Edge Interactive
  • Robert Asselin, Senior Director, Public Policy, Blackberry
  • Megan Beretta, Policy Analyst, Canadian Digital Service
  • Rachel Curran, Public Policy Manager, Canada, Facebook
  • Peter Donolo, Vice-Chairman, Hill+Knowlton Strategies Canada
  • Dr. Elizabeth Dubois, Assistant Professor of Communication, University of Ottawa
  • Kathleen Monk, Principal, Earnscliffe Strategies

Curren is also involved in CIVIX, which is an online “disinformation prevention” group funded by taxpayers. In fact, there are several such organizations in Canada. Some are registered as charities, receiving large tax benefits.

The name Peter Donolo should also ring a bell. He was Jean Chretien’s Chieff of Staff in the 1990s, and helped get him elected. He also worked with Michael Ignatieff and Justin Trudeau.

It’s interesting that groups that are supposed to stop disinformation also are filled with operatives from the same Governments who are impacted.

The B.C. Government was lobbied on behalf of X (formerly Twitter) with regards to Bill 12. Fernando Minna works for Capital Hill Group, and has for the past 3 years. See archive.

Capitol Hill Group is run by David Angus, who worked for former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, and former Ontario Premier Bill Davis.

Sabrina Geremia of Google lobbied the B.C. Government as well. While she doesn’t list political involvement in her profile, at least 3 colleagues do: Lindsay Doyle, Jeanette Patell, and Semhar Tekeste.

Erin O’Toole, former CPC Leader, gets an honourable mention. Before getting into politics, he lobbied on behalf of Facebook. He worked for Heenan Blaikie, same law firm as Jean Chretien and Pierre Trudeau.

Why cover all of this?

Bill 12 seems designed to force social media companies into compliance or face crippling financial penalties. Virtually anything can “cause public health harm”, depending on how it’s worded. This legislation is written in such a way that either Victoria or Ottawa can inflict damage. But these groups are very willing to negotiate, and the lobbyists have connections to those same Governments.

If the goal all along was to compel these outlets into being willing to censor, it’s more effective to get them to do it themselves. And remember, it’s all voluntary here. Technically, no one has been forced.

Problem. Reaction. Solution.

(1) https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/bc-online-harms-bill-paused-1.7182392
(2) https://www.leg.bc.ca/
(3) https://www.leg.bc.ca/parliamentary-business/legislation-debates-proceedings/42nd-parliament/5th-session/bills/progress-of-bills
(4) https://www.lobbyistsregistrar.bc.ca/
(5) https://www.lobbyistsregistrar.bc.ca/app/secure/orl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=5501&regId=56572920
(6) https://www.lobbyistsregistrar.bc.ca/app/secure/orl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=4186&regId=56566730
(7) https://www.linkedin.com/in/jean-marc-prevost-04830598/
(8) Jean-Marc Prevost LinkedIn Profile
(9) https://www.lobbyistsregistrar.bc.ca/app/secure/orl/lrs/do/cmmLgPblcVw?comlogId=34073
(10) https://www.lobbyistsregistrar.bc.ca/app/secure/orl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=1334&regId=56559236&blnk=1
(11) https://www.linkedin.com/in/brad-lavigne-a0927a39/
(12) Brad Lavigne LinkedIn Profile
(13) https://www.lobbyistsregistrar.bc.ca/app/secure/orl/lrs/do/cmmLgPblcVw?comlogId=34055
(14) https://www.linkedin.com/in/rachel-curran-a99258109/details/experience/
(15) Rachel Curran LinkedIn Profile
(16) https://www.lobbyistsregistrar.bc.ca/app/secure/orl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=5460&regId=56572569&blnk=1
(17) https://www.linkedin.com/in/fernandominna/
(18) Fernando Minna LinkedIn Profile
(19) https://www.lobbyistsregistrar.bc.ca/app/secure/orl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=3536&regId=56568880
(20) https://www.linkedin.com/in/sabrina-geremia-028644/
(21) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=16607&regId=948142
(22) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=288445&regId=668908

Posted on

Adam Skelly, Part 3: R.O.A. Challenge Finally To Be Heard?

Starting on October 1st, 2024, the Ontario Superior Court will finally hear a long delayed challenge to the Reopening Ontario Act, or R.O.A. Of course, this assumes that there are no more setbacks. Given how things have played out so far, there are no guarantees.

This Application is from William Adamson Skelly (a.k.a. Adam Skelly), and stems from his refusal to bend the knee to Doug Ford back in 2020.

Part 1: The Akbarali Decisions
Part 2: Swinwood Malpractice Claim

Due to Michael Swinwood — the former lawyer — screwing up the case in 2021, and then walking away, the matter has been unnecessarily delayed for years. This is in spite of getting several expert witnesses ready to appear.

  1. Byram Bridle
  2. Douglas Allen
  3. Gilbert Berdine
  4. Harvey Risch
  5. Joel Kettner
  6. William Briggs

There are, of course, differences in the reports that have been submitted. However, what they all argue is that this “global pandemic” is vastly overblown. Lockdown measures weren’t needed, nor was there any benefit to society from implementing them.

Now, in the year 2024, why does this still matter? While the so-called “pandemic” may be over, the Reopening Ontario Act is still in effect, even if there aren’t any shutdowns going on.

Here are the provisions being challenged:

Orders continued
2 (1) The orders made under section 7.0.2 or 7.1 of the Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act that have not been revoked as of the day this subsection comes into force are continued as valid and effective orders under this Act and cease to be orders under the Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act.
.
Exception
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to the order filed as Ontario Regulation 106/20 (Order Made Under the Act — Extensions and Renewals of Orders).
.
Clarification
(3) For greater certainty, an order that is in force is continued under subsection (1) even if, on the day that subsection comes into force, the order does not apply to any area of the Province.

Power to amend orders
4 (1) The Lieutenant Governor in Council may, by order,
.
(a) subject to subsections (2) and (5), amend a continued section 7.0.2 order in a way that would have been authorized under section 7.0.2 of the Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act if the COVID-19 declared emergency were still in effect and references in that section to the emergency were references to the COVID-19 pandemic and its effects;
.
(b) amend an order continued under section 2 to address transitional matters relating to the termination of the COVID-19 declared emergency, the enactment of this Act or the continuation of orders under section 2.

Provisions applying with respect to orders
7 (1) Subsections 7.2 (3) to (8) of the Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act continue to apply, with necessary modifications, with respect to orders continued under section 2, including any amendments to such orders made under this Act.
.
Same
(2) Subsections 7.0.2 (6) to (9) of the Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act continue to apply, with necessary modifications and the modifications specified in subsection (3), with respect to continued section 7.0.2 orders, including any amendments to such orders made under this Act.
.
Modifications
(3) The modifications referred to in subsection (2) are the following:
.
1. The reference, in paragraph 1 of subsection 7.0.2 (7) of the Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act, to the emergency is deemed to be a reference to the COVID-19 pandemic and its effects.
.
2. The reference, in paragraph 2 of subsection 7.0.2 (7) of the Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act, to when the declared emergency is terminated is deemed to be a reference to when the order in relation to which that paragraph applies is revoked or ceases to apply.

Temporary closure by police, etc.
9.1 (1) A police officer, special constable or First Nations Constable may order that premises be temporarily closed if the police officer, special constable or First Nations Constable has reasonable grounds to believe that an organized public event or other gathering is occurring at the premises and that the number of people in attendance exceeds the number permitted under a continued section 7.0.2 order.

Offences
10 (1) Every person who fails to comply with subsection 9.1 (2) or (3) or with a continued section 7.0.2 order or who interferes with or obstructs any person in the exercise of a power or the performance of a duty conferred by such an order is guilty of an offence and is liable on conviction,
.
(a) in the case of an individual, subject to clause (b), to a fine of not more than $100,000 and for a term of imprisonment of not more than one year;
.
(b) in the case of an individual who is a director or officer of a corporation, to a fine of not more than $500,000 and for a term of imprisonment of not more than one year; and
.
(c) in the case of a corporation, to a fine of not more than $10,000,000.
.
Separate offence
(2) A person is guilty of a separate offence on each day that an offence under subsection (1) occurs or continues.
.
Increased penalty
(3) Despite the maximum fines set out in subsection (1), the court that convicts a person of an offence may increase a fine imposed on the person by an amount equal to the financial benefit that was acquired by or that accrued to the person as a result of the commission of the offence.

The Reopening Ontario Act may be seen as “sleeper” legislation. While there may be no obvious harm now, it can be used at any time, and under almost any pretense. We have seen this elsewhere, and the public is lulled into a false sense of security, believing the threat to be over.

But that’s not all. The Health Protection and Promotion Act is also facing a challenge given the heavy handed and unconstitutional manner which it was employed.

Interpretation
Directions by M.O.H.
24 (1) A medical officer of health, in the circumstances specified in subsection (2), may give directions in accordance with subsection (3) to the persons whose services are engaged by or to agents of the board of health of the health unit served by the medical officer of health. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.7, s. 24 (1).
.
When M.O.H. may give directions
(2) A medical officer of health may give directions in accordance with subsection (3) where the medical officer of health is of the opinion, upon reasonable and probable grounds, that a communicable disease exists in the health unit and the person to whom an order is or would be directed under section 22,
(a) has refused to or is not complying with the order;
(b) is not likely to comply with the order promptly;
(c) cannot be readily identified or located and as a result the order would not be carried out promptly; or
(d) requests the assistance of the medical officer of health in eliminating or decreasing the risk to health presented by the communicable disease.

This is a bit of rabbit hole, but the Ontario Health Protection and Promotion Act is part of a much larger picture. The source material is extensive, but an informative read. To sum it all up:

  • Canada signed on to the WHO’s legally binding Constitution in 1946
  • The International Sanitation Regulations came into effect in 1951
  • The International Health Regulations (1st Ed.) came into effect in 1969
  • The International Health Regulations (2nd Ed.) came into effect in 1995
  • The International Health Regulations (3rd Ed.) came into effect in 2005
  • Bill C-12, the Quarantine Act, is Canada’s domestic implementation of WHO-IHR 3rd Ed.
  • The Provinces implemented their own version of the Quarantine Act, such as HPPA
  • The HPPA (really) came from the WHO

See parts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 from the Canuck Law site.

Now, with all of this in mind, it seems pretty obvious that the Reopening Ontario Act didn’t just happen. It was brought in to compliment and help enforce existing public health measures. Our politicians are actors, reading scripts. They weren’t responsible for drafting any of this, but they did pass it.

The Concerned Constituents of Canada, or CCOC, is putting this case together, and the documents are readily available. Given that the hearing isn’t for several months, there will certainly be updates.

COURT DECISIONS:
(1) Skelly – Restraining Order Deferred Matter
(2) Skelly – Restraining Order Decision, December 2020
(3) Skelly – Criminal Court Limits What He Can Post Online
(4) Skelly – Judge Lacks Jurisdiction To Hear Case, June 2021
(5) Skelly – Costs Of $15,000 Ordered For Failed Motion
(6) Skelly – Costs From 2020 Kimmel Decision, Previously Deferred
(7) Skelly – Motion For Security For Costs Decision, September 2023

2020/2021 COURT DOCUMENTS:
(1) Skelly – Application Record Restraining Order (Michael Swinwood)
(2) Skelly – Notice of Constitutional Question (February)
(3) Skelly – Amended Notice Of Constitutional Question (June)
(4) Skelly – Book of Transcripts – Respondents (Applicants)
(5) Skelly – Book of Transcripts – Respondent on Motion – HMTQ
(6) Skelly – 2021 Motion Factum
(7) Skelly – 2021 Motion Amended Factum – Respondents (Applicants)
(8) Skelly – 2021 Motion Responding Factum
(9) Skelly – 2021 Motion Reply Factum

(1) Skelly – RBC Default Judgement Order

MALPRACTICE SUIT AGAINST MICHAEL SWINWOOD:
(1) Skelly – Swinwood Malpractice Statement Of Claim

NEW APPLICATION DOCUMENTS:
(1) Skelly – Notice Of Application (Ian Perry)
(2) Skelly – Costs – Notice of Motion – Moving Party (Respondent) HMTK
(3) Skelly – Costs – Motion Record-Moving Party (Respondent)
(4) Skelly – Costs – Applicant Responding Motion Record Security For Costs
(5) Skelly – Costs – Factum – Moving Party – HMK
(6) Skelly – Costs – Responding Factum Applicants Skelly et al

EXPERT REPORTS:
(1A) Skelly – Byram Bridle Resume
(1B) Skelly – Byram Bridle Expert Report
(1C) Skelly – Byram Bridle Expert Reply Report

(2A) Skelly – Douglas Allen Resume
(2B) Skelly – Douglas Allen Expert Report
(2C) Skelly – Douglas Allen Expert Report

(3A) Skelly – Gilbert Berdine Resume
(3B) Skelly – Gilbert Berdine Expert Report
(3C) Skelly – Gilbert Berdine Expert Reply Report

(4A) Skelly – Harvey Risch Affidavit
(4B) Skelly – Harvey Risch Expert Report

(5A) Skelly – Joel Kettner Resume
(5B) Skelly – Joel Kettner Expert Report
(5C) Skelly – Joel Kettner Expert Reply Report

(6A) Skelly – William Briggs Resume
(6B) Skelly – William Briggs Expert Report
(6C) Skelly – William Briggs Expert Reply Report

Posted on

Adam Skelly, Part 2: Swinwood Malpractice Claim

This is the second part on William Adamson Skelly, (a.k.a Adam Skelly). He made national headlines back in 2020, for refusing to capitulate to Doug Ford and Christine Elliott. A restraining order was granted against him in December, but a “come-back Motion” was allowed to go ahead to challenge it in an ad-hoc manner.

For background information on this, see Part 1. It outlines many of the major events that led up to this moment. This is hardly exhaustive of what happened.

Anyhow, his highly anticipated challenge was derailed due to the gross incompetence of then lawyer Michael Swinwood. Despite all of the time, money and effort that had gone into the challenge, it didn’t follow the basics of procedure.

Specifically, the purpose of the come-back Motion was to challenge the December order. Instead, Swinwood filed a Motion for damages, something that wouldn’t have been allowed at this stage anyway. Justice Akbarali ruled that there was no jurisdiction to hear it, but gave permission to refile the papers correctly.

When a litigant wants to make changes to their Notice of Motion, the correct method is to serve an AMENDED Notice of Motion. Instead, a second Notice was issued, and it wasn’t clear which the Court was supposed to consider.

Neither Notice set out that the point of the Motion was to challenge the December order, and any basis for issuing it. That was brought up afterwards. And it’s pretty common knowledge that a Notice has to spell out what is being asked for.

Apparently, there was no Notice placed in the Motion Record (a book of documents), which is a pretty basic oversight.

Despite this being a Motion, Skelly was listed as an Applicant on Court documents. He should have been referred to as a Moving Party. Just because a Notice of Constitutional Question is included, it doesn’t change this reality. Again, this is amateurish.

If damages were sought, then an “originating process” such as a Statement of Claim, or a Notice of Application would have to have been filed. This Motion was not the way to do it. Still Justice Akbarali allowed another attempt to fix things.

However, that never happened. So, what did Skelly do?

He sued his lawyer for negligence and professional malpractice, demanding $200,000. It’s always interesting to hear when such a thing happens. From the Statement of Claim:

22. In late 2020 or early 2021, Mr. Skelly learned about Mr. Swinwood and retained him to pursue a constitutional challenge against the public health measures.

23. Mr. Skelly was under the impression that Mr. Swinwood was not only a reasonably competent lawyer but also one who had significant experience in constitutional and civil matters.

24. Throughout the duration of his retainer, Mr. Swinwood representing Mr. Skelly, acted with complete disregard for the Rules of Civil Procedure and in a manner that can only be described as completely incompetent and negligible.

25. In an Endorsement of the Honourable Justice Myers dated February 26, 2021, His Honour reprimanded Mr. Swinwood for sending an unsolicited letter to Justice Kimmel asking that she remain seized of the matter. Justice Myers highlighted that she was never seized of the matter to begin with and explicitly ordered that “Mr. Swinwood is to comply with Rule 1.09 in any future communication with the Court.”

26. In Her Honour’s Direction dated March 9, 2021, the Honourable Justice Akrabali set out a timetable for the hearing of the constitutional issues raised by Mr. Skelly, with the hearing to take place on June 28 and 29, 2021 (the “June Hearing”).

27. In the Direction, Justice Akrabali made a point to tell Mr. Swinwood to make sure he files his materials with the proper style of cause as the materials he submitted failed to do so. A hearing for the come-back motion contemplated by Justice Kimmel and Mr. Skelly’s constitutional challenge was scheduled for June 28 and 29th, 2021.

31. In her Endorsement dated June 28, 2021, Justice Akrabali pointed out various flaws in the
steps taken by Mr. Swinwood resulting in the court not having the issues properly raised before it (the “June Endorsement”). These flaws are listed below:
i. Not seeking to vary or set aside the Order of Justice Kimmel based on unconstitutionality in the Notices of Motion making it deficient rendering the proceeding procedurally unfair;
ii. Not properly placing the February Notice of Motion before Her Honour;
iii. Not having the February Notice of Motion initially placed in the respondent’s Motion Record and adding it only after the applicant brought up the issue in an attempt to fix the defect;
iv. The relief in the February Notice of Motion is not based on any Notice of Constitutional Question;
v. Having two Notices of Motion for the same motion instead of amending the document;
vi. Not making it clear to Ontario which Notice of Motion the hearing was to proceed on;
vii. Not giving appropriate notice of the relief sought in the Notice of Motion;
viii. The Notice of Constitutional Question did not raise the issue of setting aside the legislative scheme on the basis of unconstitutionality until its third iteration on June 8, 2021, which was well after the date of cross-examinations and the finalization of the evidentiary record;
ix. Neither Notice of Motion sought an Order setting aside the legislative scheme on the basis of unconstitutionality;
x. Failing to put before Her Honour the Affidavits of Service for Mr. Swinwood’s June 24, 2021, Motion Record; and,
xi. No originating process for the damages or declaration of invalidity sought.

32. At paragraph 44 of Justice Akrabali’s June Endorsement she states the following: “This is not a case where the respondents are self-represented parties. They were represented at the hearing by two counsel, at least one of whom has been practicing for many years. Earlier in the proceedings, when the Notices of Motion were being prepared, the respondents were represented by four counsel. I cannot explain why none of them considered these very basic issues, or if they did, why they did not address the deficiencies in the proceeding which could have been done easily and efficiently in February or March 2021…”

38. In the six months that passed Mr. Skelly obtained new counsel to issue the correct originating process Mr. Swinwood failed to issue and to bring Mr. Skelly’s challenge back for a hearing on the merits.

39. During this time, neither Mr. Skelly nor his new counsel received any correspondence regarding the desire of Ontario to receive the December Costs

It’s hard to imagine that a veteran lawyer could repeatedly make such basic errors unless done intentionally. Not only did Swinwood mess up, he never went ahead with another attempt. He effectively let the case die. Even with the trouble and expense of having 6 expert witnesses, Swinwood didn’t try again.

The Notice of Constitutional Question (all iterations of it) were also very poorly written. Instead of briefly outlining the issues, Swinwood appears to try to turn it into a Factum and make full arguments. 27+ pages was excessive.

All sorts of theories were floated, including that Swinwood had been bribed and/or threatened. However, without proof, those are just theories.

To date, there has been no activity in this malpractice suit other than the Claim itself being issued.

Now, there is a new Application scheduled to go ahead in October 2024. The 1st, 2nd and 7th are set aside for it. The Concerned Constituents of Canada, or CCOC, is putting that together. Mootness may be an issue — or at least the Province will argue it — given how much time has passed, but we’ll have to see. The R.O.A. hasn’t been formally rescinded.

COURT DECISIONS:
(1) Skelly – Restraining Order Deferred Matter
(2) Skelly – Restraining Order Decision, December 2020
(3) Skelly – Criminal Court Limits What He Can Post Online
(4) Skelly – Judge Lacks Jurisdiction To Hear Case, June 2021
(5) Skelly – Costs Of $15,000 Ordered For Failed Motion
(6) Skelly – Costs From 2020 Kimmel Decision, Previously Deferred
(7) Skelly – Motion For Security For Costs Decision, September 2023

2020/2021 COURT DOCUMENTS:
(1) Skelly – Application Record Restraining Order (Michael Swinwood)
(2) Skelly – Notice of Constitutional Question (February)
(3) Skelly – Amended Notice Of Constitutional Question (June)
(4) Skelly – Book of Transcripts – Respondents (Applicants)
(5) Skelly – Book of Transcripts – Respondent on Motion – HMTQ
(6) Skelly – 2021 Motion Factum
(7) Skelly – 2021 Motion Amended Factum – Respondents (Applicants)
(8) Skelly – 2021 Motion Responding Factum
(9) Skelly – 2021 Motion Reply Factum

(1) Skelly – RBC Default Judgement Order

MALPRACTICE SUIT AGAINST MICHAEL SWINWOOD:
(1) Skelly – Swinwood Malpractice Statement Of Claim

NEW APPLICATION DOCUMENTS:
(1) Skelly – Notice Of Application (Ian Perry)
(2) Skelly – Costs – Notice of Motion – Moving Party (Respondent) HMTK
(3) Skelly – Costs – Motion Record-Moving Party (Respondent)
(4) Skelly – Costs – Applicant Responding Motion Record Security For Costs
(5) Skelly – Costs – Factum – Moving Party – HMK
(6) Skelly – Costs – Responding Factum Applicants Skelly et al

EXPERT REPORTS:
(1A) Skelly – Byram Bridle Resume
(1B) Skelly – Byram Bridle Expert Report
(1C) Skelly – Byram Bridle Expert Reply Report

(2A) Skelly – Douglas Allen Resume
(2B) Skelly – Douglas Allen Expert Report
(2C) Skelly – Douglas Allen Expert Report

(3A) Skelly – Gilbert Berdine Resume
(3B) Skelly – Gilbert Berdine Expert Report
(3C) Skelly – Gilbert Berdine Expert Reply Report

(4A) Skelly – Harvey Risch Affidavit
(4B) Skelly – Harvey Risch Expert Report

(5A) Skelly – Joel Kettner Resume
(5B) Skelly – Joel Kettner Expert Report
(5C) Skelly – Joel Kettner Expert Reply Report

(6A) Skelly – William Briggs Resume
(6B) Skelly – William Briggs Expert Report
(6C) Skelly – William Briggs Expert Reply Report