How I.C.B.C. Discriminates Against Drivers Born Out-Of-Province

(I.C.B.C., which holds a monopoly on car insurance in BC)

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

Please sign this: PETITION E-1906 CLICK HERE

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

(1) Some Background Information About the Issue
(2) Written Response From I.C.B.C. Staff
(3) Written Response From I.C.B.C. Lawyer Alandra Harlengton
(4) What The Constitution Says On The Matter
(5) About The Case: Canada Egg Market Agency v. Richardson, (1998) 3 S.C.R.
(6) The Limitations Act
(7) Would This Work In Court?

(1) Some Background Information About the Issue

The Insurance Corporation of British Columbia (I.C.B.C.), is a government crown corporate that holds a legal monopoly on automobile insurance in the province. Although additional coverage is available privately, those wishing to legally drive must buy the $200,000 3rd party liability insurance through I.C.B.C.

Needless to say, since this is a government monopoly, there is no incentive to operate efficiently, or to provide good service. Even so, they routine post huge losses. No worries, just jack up rates on the drivers. It’s a captive market. They can complain, but there is no avenue of recourse.

But this article is about a specific grievance: that I.C.B.C. has different rules for drivers when it comes to calculating the base rate, SEE HERE. In short, new drivers start at a CRS of zero ”0”, and it is adjusted up or down depending on whether you have accidents, or drive claims free.

But here is the difference:

(a) A BC-born driver immediately begins accruing years of ”claims free driving” as soon as he/she gets a license. No experience or skill is required. If you got a license at age 16, but don’t get insured until age 30, you would begin at -14, or the maximum 43% discount.

(b) A driver born in another province who moves to BC is subjected to different rules. Here, you don’t get ”claims free driving” for mere possession of a license. You can get up to 8 years from another jurisdiction, but only for time which you actually held insurance. If you came from Ontario, Alberta, Saskatchewan, etc… you may have had a license since age 16, but will still start at 0 when you finally get insurance.

Note: should you move to BC a a year or more prior to getting insurance, that time will be considered ”claims free driving”.

Since simple possession of a BC license means ”experience” and of ”claims free driving” then actual experience is irrelevant. It is this double standard that is illegal.

(2) Written Responses From I.C.B.C. Staff
From Customer Service Rep Catherine Dixon:

”…Under the CRS system the maximum discount on compulsory basic insurance is 43 per cent, and that discount percentage applies to policies that reflect nine or more claim-free years. If you, as a new resident with a 40 per cent discount, stay claims-free for one more year, you will have the best discount on Basic, which is three percent more than the out of province entry point.

“New residents” are defined as customers whose auto insurance history with insurers is outside British Columbia or when they return to British Columbia after an absence of more than eight years. Since January 1, 2001, new certificates of ICBC insurance issued to new residents are subject to the following:
Each full year of being claim-free represents a five per cent discount on the base premium up to a maximum of 40 per cent.
The maximum discount allowed is level -8 (40 per cent) effective the ICBC history start date.

When a customer has been outside of British Columbia for more than eight years, ICBC follows the Basic Insurance Tariff, which has the force of a Regulation in the province of British Columbia. The Tariff outlines that ICBC will start from the date of the application for insurance and count backwards the number of “full chargeable claim payment free years” to a maximum of 8 years. The Tariff states that a new resident applying for a discount must provide verification letters from each previous insurer documenting a continuous record of the applicant’s coverage history. This history is a maximum of eight years and must immediately precede the date of the application for insurance in British Columbia. The Basic Insurance Tariff can be found on ICBC’s website:

Information on moving to British Columbia can be found on the ICBC website, at:

Ms. Dixon confirms in writing that out of province drivers are subjected to different rules.

While she is careful to avoid expressing saying ”double standard”, she goes on at length to explain how I.C.B.C. treats non-BC born drivers differently. She is also careful to avoid answering the question of Sections 6 (Mobility) and 15(1) (Equality) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Those will be addressed later.

CLICK HERE, for Basic Insurance Tariff

(3) Written Response From I.C.B.C. Lawyer Alandra Harlengton
From I.C.B.C. Lawyer Alandra Harlengton

“….The distinct roles of ICBC and the British Columbia Utilities Commission
Section 2 of the Insurance (Vehicle) Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 231, provides that, if the Insurance Corporation Act authorizes ICBC to operate a plan of universal compulsory vehicle insurance, ICBC must operate the plan of universal compulsory vehicle insurance in accordance with the Insurance (Vehicle) Act and regulations.
The Insurance (Vehicle) Act provides ICBC the authority to establish classes and subclasses of vehicles and drivers of vehicles, and basic premiums that apply to those classes as well as premium discounts and additional premiums based on, among other things, the accident record of the owner or driver: Insurance (Vehicle) Act, ss. 34(1) and 35.

The Utilities Commission Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 473, applies to and in respect of ICBC’s rates for basic insurance as if it were a public utility, except where expressly precluded under the Insurance Corporation Act.

The British Columbia Utilities Commission (the “Commission”) is a statutory body continued under s. 2 of the Utilities Commission Act.

ICBC and the Commission have distinct but interrelated roles. The Commission may determine and set adequate, efficient, just and reasonable standards, practices or procedures to be used by ICBC in providing universal compulsory vehicle insurance and may order ICBC to comply with those standards, practices or procedures: Insurance Corporation Act, s. 45(2).

ICBC must make available universal compulsory vehicle insurance in a manner, and in accordance with practice and procedures, that the Commission considers are in all respects adequate, efficient, just and reasonable: Insurance Corporation Act, s. 45(1).

The Commission may exercise its powers and duties under the Insurance Corporation Act in relation to ICBC’s provision of universal compulsory vehicle insurance, but not in relation to the provision of insurance to any one customer: Insurance Corporation Act, s. 45(5).

The rates to be applied to applications for basic insurance premiums are approved by the Commission pursuant to s. 46.2 of the Insurance (Vehicle) Act, ss. 44 and 45 of the Insurance Corporation Act, ss. 58 to 60 of the Utilities Commission Act, and the Special Direction IC2 to the British Columbia Utilities Commission, B.C. Reg. 307/2004, which provides direction to the Commission regarding ICBC.

The Insurance (Vehicle) Act specifically confers jurisdiction on the Commission to approve, require replacement of, or to override and replace, classes and subclasses of vehicles and drivers, basic premiums, additional premiums, and discounts for universal compulsory vehicle insurance: Insurance (Vehicle) Act, s. 46.2.

The Special Direction IC2 to the British Columbia Utilities Commission, as amended, provides that, subject to certain exceptions, the Commission may not determine rates based on age, gender, or marital status (s. 3(1)(i)). Under the Insurance Corporation Act and Utilities Commission Act, an insured’s driving history is not a protected ground.

As part of its mandate, the Commission is empowered to inquire into, hear and determine any application by or on behalf of any interested party or on its own motion regarding whether ICBC is administering the universal compulsory vehicle insurance in a manner that is adequate, efficient, just and reasonable. Upon doing so, the Commission may make an order granting the whole or part of the relief applied for or may grant further or other relief, as the Commission considers advisable: Insurance Corporation Act, s. 45(2); see also, Utilities Commission Act, ss. 2.1, 58, 72, 99 to 105.

The rates for basic insurance premiums contained in the Basic Insurance Tariff
and applied to the plaintiff were approved by the Commission, after ICBC received a direction from the Province of British Columbia to prepare and implement a basic insurance rate design plan that required ICBC to, among other things, retain the CRS until at least the 2011 rate year.

ICBC cannot charge a rate for universal compulsory vehicle insurance other than the rates approved by the Commission. The Utilities Commission Act stipulates that rates approved by the Commission are the only lawful enforceable, and collectable rates of ICBC for universal compulsory insurance, and no other rate may be collected, charged, or enforced: Utilities Commission Act, s. 61(3)…”

It is interesting that Ms. Harlengton goes on to ”deny” that there is any double standard of how non-BC born drivers are treated. She very explicitly denies this.

She then spends a lot of time ”justifiying” why this double standard exists, citing the: 1/ Basic Insurance Tariff; 2/ Insurance Corporation Act; and 3/ Utilities Commission Act.

Here’s the thing: when you start explaining why a double standard exists, you are no longer denying the double standard. Rather you are justifying it.

Logically, once you start justifying an action, you are in fact admitting that action.

As an example: Suppose a robber breaks into my home, and I shoot him to protect my family. I then call the police. I am not denying that I did the shooting, but rather, am justifying or explaining why it happened.

Justifying involves admitting the underlying facts.

And again, if all one needs for claims-free driving is a BC driver’s license, then actual experience is not needed. So a license from any province should be suitable.

(4) What The Constitution Says On The Matter

Enforcement of guaranteed rights and freedoms

24. (1) Anyone whose rights or freedoms, as guaranteed by this Charter, have been infringed or denied may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction to obtain such remedy as the court considers appropriate and just in the circumstances.

So, if you believe that other constitutional rights are being violated, under Section 24, you may seek a remedy in the courts. In this case, BC Supreme Court is the place

Note #1: Even though the Civil Resolution Tribunal covers very small amounts, they will not get involved in any case that involves a government body.

Note #2: Although Small Claims Court would be suitable for small amounts, they will not get involved in cases that involve questions of law.

Mobility of citizens
6. (1) Every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada.

Marginal note:Rights to move and gain livelihood
(2) Every citizen of Canada and every person who has the status of a permanent resident of Canada has the right

(a) to move to and take up residence in any province; and

(b) to pursue the gaining of a livelihood in any province.

Marginal note:Limitation
(3) The rights specified in subsection (2) are subject to

(a) any laws or practices of general application in force in a province other than those that discriminate among persons primarily on the basis of province of present or previous residence; and

(b) any laws providing for reasonable residency requirements as a qualification for the receipt of publicly provided social services

Note, there is a specific case Canada Egg Market Agency v. Richardson, (1998) 3 S.C.R., that addresses this issue, but in an unrelated case. That will be covered in the next part.

I.C.B.C also violates Section 15(1), Equality.

Equality Rights

Marginal note:Equality before and under law and equal protection and benefit of law
15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

Before anyone gets fussy, the wording means this list is not exclusive, and may include other grounds.

Furthermore, the Canadian Constitution is supreme over these provincial acts I.C.B.C. relies on. Here are 2 more sections, 32 and 52:

Application of Charter
32. (1) This Charter applies

(a) to the Parliament and government of Canada in respect of all matters within the authority of Parliament including all matters relating to the Yukon Territory and Northwest Territories; and

(b) to the legislature and government of each province in respect of all matters within the authority of the legislature of each province.


Primacy of Constitution of Canada
52. (1) The Constitution of Canada is the supreme law of Canada, and any law that is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution is, to the extent of the inconsistency, of no force or effect.

Marginal note:Constitution of Canada
(2) The Constitution of Canada includes

(a) the Canada Act 1982, including this Act;

(b) the Acts and orders referred to in the schedule; and

(c) any amendment to any Act or order referred to in paragraph (a) or (b).

Marginal note:Amendments to Constitution of Canada
(3) Amendments to the Constitution of Canada shall be made only in accordance with the authority contained in the Constitution of Canada.

(6) About The Case: Canada Egg Market Agency v. Richardson, (1998) 3 S.C.R.

for the case of: Canada Egg Market Agency v. Richardson, (1998)

49 Section 6 of the Charter states:

Mobility Rights

6. (1) Every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada.

(2) Every citizen of Canada and every person who has the status of a permanent resident of Canada has the right

(a) to move to and take up residence in any province; and

(b) to pursue the gaining of a livelihood in any province.

(3) The rights specified in subsection (2) are subject to

(a) any laws or practices of general application in force in a province other than those that discriminate among persons primarily on the basis of province of present or previous residence; an

(b) any laws providing for reasonable residency requirements as a qualification for the receipt of publicly provided social services.

(4) Subsections (2) and (3) do not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration in a province of conditions of individuals in that province who are socially or economically disadvantaged if the rate of employment in that province is below the rate of employment in Canada.

The scope given to these words has significant implications for the exercise of the federal and provincial powers enumerated in ss. 91 and 92 of the Constitution Act, 1867, respectively. This context makes it necessary to consider carefully the purpose and role of the mobility section, and of the Charter itself in our constitutional order. The necessity of returning to first principles is heightened by the scarcity of both jurisprudence and academic commentary on s. 6.

(a) The Nature of the Right

50 The specific sections of the Charter raised in this case are s. 6(2)(b) and s. 6(3)(a). A preliminary problem is whether the two paragraphs should be read together as establishing a single right which is internally qualified, or whether, alternatively, the first paragraph establishes a self-contained right which is externally qualified by the second paragraph. Section 6(2)(b) guarantees the right to “pursue the gaining of a livelihood in any province”. Section 6(3)(a) then dramatically narrows the ambit of that right, making it subject to laws of general application in the province, except those which discriminate against individuals “primarily on the basis of province of present or previous residence”. In our view, it is impossible to ascertain the purpose of the extremely broad statement in s. 6(2)(b) without importing the limitation contained in s. 6(3)(a).

51 In Malartic Hygrade Gold Mines Ltd. v. The Queen in Right of Quebec (1982), 1982 CanLII 2870 (QC CS), 142 D.L.R. (3d) 512 (Que. Sup. Ct.), the relationship between the two paragraphs is explained according to the following dialectic, at p. 521:


(a) The principle: The right to pursue the gaining of a livelihood in any province;

(b) The exception: This right is subject to any laws or practices of a general application in force in that province;

(c) The exception to the exception: Except if these laws discriminate among persons primarily on the basis of the province of residence.

On close examination, it will be observed that (b) almost entirely undermines the guarantee set out in (a); meaning, scope and purpose can only be attributed to (a) by reading it in conjunction with (c). The correctness of this general approach was recognized in both of the major Supreme Court decisions on s. 6, Law Society of Upper Canada v. Skapinker, 1984 CanLII 3 (SCC), [1984] 1 S.C.R. 357, and Black v. Law Society of Alberta, 1989 CanLII 132 (SCC), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 591.

Although the circumstances of the case are quite different than I.C.B.C. and auto insurance, the principle outlined here still applies.

(a) The principle: The right to pursue the gaining of a livelihood in any province;

(b) The exception: This right is subject to any laws or practices of a general application in force in that province;

(c) The exception to the exception: Except if these laws discriminate among persons primarily on the basis of the province of residence.

Here, the principle would be the right of any Canadian citizen to move to any province, including that of British Columbia.

The exception would be that all those wishing to drive must go through I.C.B.C., regardless of what their previous insurance rules were.

The exception to the exception is that drivers new to BC would not be subjected to the ”moving to BC” guidelines that I.C.B.C. lays out, since they financially punish drivers for the crime of not being born in BC.

Once more, since simply having a BC driver’s license counts as ”claims free driving”, then actual experience becomes irrelevant.

(6) The Limitations Act

What about illegal overpayments from a long time ago?

Division 1 — Establishment of Basic Limitation Period

Basic limitation period
6 (1) Subject to this Act, a court proceeding in respect of a claim must not be commenced more than 2 years after the day on which the claim is discovered.

(2) The 2 year limitation period established under subsection (1) of this section does not apply to a court proceeding referred to in section 7.

Admittedly, this is trickier. However, there are other things to consider (Note: a Court may not agree)

General discovery rules
8 Except for those special situations referred to in sections 9 to 11, a claim is discovered by a person on the first day on which the person knew or reasonably ought to have known all of the following:

(a) that injury, loss or damage had occurred;

(b) that the injury, loss or damage was caused by or contributed to by an act or omission;

(c) that the act or omission was that of the person against whom the claim is or may be made;

(d) that, having regard to the nature of the injury, loss or damage, a court proceeding would be an appropriate means to seek to remedy the injury, loss or damage.

Limitation periods extended if liability acknowledged
24 (1) If, before the expiry of either of the limitation periods that, under this Act, apply to a claim, a person acknowledges liability in respect of the claim,

(a) the claim must not be considered to have been discovered on any day earlier than the day on which the acknowledgement is made, and

(b) the act or omission on which the claim is based is deemed to have taken place on the day on which the acknowledgement is made.

(2) An acknowledgement of liability in respect of a claim for interest is also an acknowledgement of liability in respect of a claim for

(a) the outstanding principal, if any, and

(b) interest falling due after the acknowledgement is made.

Other possible arguments would involve that I.C.B.C. commits fraud (section 380 of criminal code) with their policies, or that it is a corrupt enterprise.

Note: These arguments, even if they fail, does not mean the claim would not be valid, just that a person couldn’t go further back to make a claim for over payment.

(7) Would This Work In Court?
Difficult to say, as Judges don’t always behave in consistent or logical ways. However, consider this:

THE FACTS are on the side of the non-BC born driver. I.C.B.C. admits they have different sets of rules. They justify them at great length, but then deny there is actually a double standard.

THE LAWS are on the side of the non-BC born driver. Sections 6 (mobility) and 15 (equality) are spelled out quite clearly in the Charter. Sections 32 (applicability) and 52 (supremacy) show that the constitution is supreme to other laws. Other laws that conflict have no effect and are unenforceable. To be fair, the Limitations Act may make older overpayments hard to collect on.

I.C.B.C. is proposing changing this rule anyway. SEE HERE. Among the new proposals would change the rules so that all you need is a driver’s license, regardless of province.Pretty hard to argue their current policies are justified.

Very interesting to see how this will play out in such a case.

Representing Yourself in Court (Review)

(How to Win Your Own Case, by Devlin Farmer)

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

Please sign this: PETITION E-1906 CLICK HERE

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

This is basically an instructional book written in 2015 for those wishing to represent themselves in court.

Unlike An Advocacy Primer, covered in September, the Farmer book contains much more basic information, and is much more simplified. It assumes that the readers have little to no knowledge about how the court proceedings work, and is a lot more reader friendly.

An interesting Supreme Court ruling, Pintea v. Johns, came out in 2017. It codified the obligations of Justices, Judges, Masters, and Deputy Judges to ensure that self-represented litigants are getting fair treatment in court. In fairness to the author, it was 2 years after the book was published.

A Brief Outline of The Book
Part 1: Alternatives to court
Part 2: Learning the law
Part 3: Filing
Part 4: Lawyers
Part 5: Discovery
Part 6: Motions and temporary orders
Part 7: Pre-trial prep
Part 8: Trial proceedings
Part 9: Witnesses
Part 10: Exhibits
Part 11: Closing arguments
Part 12: Intro to appeals

By no means does the book actually prepare someone for the court. However, by explaining what is happening and why, the self-rep is able to prepare him/herself and more thoroughly understand the process.

The book is written a very basic level, yet contains a wealth of information necessary for a potential self-represented litigant to face the court. It also avoid legalese and jargon. As such, it is very readable to anyone with adult reading skills.

This book stays away from specific forms and names, which in this case is a blessing. Better to understand the process more than to be bogged down with memorization.

The book is published by “Self-Counsel Press”, which releases many self-help and how-to books on a range of topics. Overall, they are very readable. They are not tedious or intimidating at all. This publisher releases some very good content.

If you are facing (or initiating) a court case, this book will do well to helping the average reader understand what is happening. At a minimum, if you do choose to get legal counsel at some point, reading this book beforehand will enable you to make better choices. Also, you are less likely to be gouged for fees.

Overall, this is a highly recommended read for anyone with any interest in court procedures.

Progress In Legal Challenge To UN Global Migration Compact

(Liberal business sense, much like Liberal immigration policy)

(Calgary, on a beautiful, but chilly Friday evening)

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

Please sign this: PETITION E-1906 CLICK HERE

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

Update To Original Story
It appears that the wrong paper work has been filled out to initiate the proceedings in Calgary. It should have been written up as an ”application for judicial review”, as opposed to starting a claim. More to be posted as it develops.


Section 18 of Federal Courts Act

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

Extraordinary remedies, members of Canadian Forces
(2) The Federal Court has exclusive original jurisdiction to hear and determine every application for a writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum, writ of certiorari, writ of prohibition or writ of mandamus in relation to any member of the Canadian Forces serving outside Canada.
Marginal note:

Remedies to be obtained on application
(3) The remedies provided for in subsections (1) and (2) may be obtained only on an application for judicial review made under section 18.1.
R.S., 1985, c. F-7, s. 18; 1990, c. 8, s. 4; 2002, c. 8, s. 26.
Previous Version
Marginal note:

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

Time limitation
(2) An application for judicial review in respect of a decision or an order of a federal board, commission or other tribunal shall be made within 30 days after the time the decision or order was first communicated by the federal board, commission or other tribunal to the office of the Deputy Attorney General of Canada or to the party directly affected by it, or within any further time that a judge of the Federal Court may fix or allow before or after the end of those 30 days.
Marginal note:

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

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

Defect in form or technical irregularity
(5) If the sole ground for relief established on an application for judicial review is a defect in form or a technical irregularity, the Federal Court may
(a) refuse the relief if it finds that no substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has occurred; and
(b) in the case of a defect in form or a technical irregularity in a decision or an order, make an order validating the decision or order, to have effect from any time and on any terms that it considers appropriate.


Text Of Original Article
A formal legal challenge (via Statement of Claim), has been initiated against Canada’s participation in the UN Global Migration Compact. Here is where things currently stand.

(1) Statement of Claim: Filed and already served
(2) Motion Record: Finished and being served
(3) Notice of Constitutional Questions: Finished and being served

For more information, see the sections below.

(1) Statement of Claim

This was filed on Thursday, December 6. Cheeky piece done here, but nearly all of the details still apply.

(a) Relief sought: permanent injunction UN Global Migration Compact

(b) Parties: Plaintiff (you) v. Defendant (Her Majesty, the Queen)

(c) Facts alleged: Trudeau going to sign the deal, and promote globalism. Note, you can cite specifics of the UN Global Compact here, or later.

(d) Law being relied on
-Section 2(b) of Charter: Free speech
-Section 3 of Charter: Right to participate in democracy
-Section 7 of Charter: Security of the person
-Section 15 of the Charter: Equality
-Section 24 of the Charter: Remedies available in Court
-Section 32 of the Charter: Applicability of the Charter
-Section 38 of the Constitution: How to amend the Constitution
-Section 52 of the Constitution: Supremacy of the Constitution
-Sections 91 & 92 of the Constitution: Federal v. Provincial domain
-Criminal Code 380: Fraud
-Essentials of a valid contract lacking
-Doctrine of unconscionability

One correction from the last article: if you are ”only” filing against Her Majesty, the Queen, use form 48, instead of 171A. $2 filing fee instead of $150.

(2) Motion Record Compiled

This was prepared and filled out Friday, December 7, with the Court Clerk stamping the necessary forms. Service going out soon. Motion record contains:

-Notice of motion (Form 359)
-Affidavit (Form 80)
(Exhibit A) Email from Liberal M.P. Stephen Fuhr
Click here for more detail
(Exhibit B) Maclean’s article from Immigration Minister Hussen
Click here, for the article
(Exhibit C) UN Global Migration Compact
Click here, for the 23 objectives.
-Written submissions (a.k.a. Arguments)

The Motion Record is to attempt a temporary injunction against the ”non-binding” UN Global Migration Compact. Given I was only visiting Calgary, a hearing by teleconference is preferable.

(3) Notice of Constitutional Questions

This is being served on all Provincial Attorney Generals/Deputy Attorney Generals. (Form 69)

See above section: 2(b); 3; 7; 15; 24; 32; 38; 52; 91/92 all being subjected to challenge.

Note: Each AG has the opportunity to: (a) support; (b) oppose; (c) be neutral

(4) Where Things Stand Now

Other than finishing with the mailings, there isn’t much to do at this point.

Currently waiting on responses from the Feds and the Provinces.

The story will be updated as progress is made


Update To Original Story
It appears that the wrong paper work has been filled out to initiate the proceedings in Calgary. It should have been written up as an ”application for judicial review”, as opposed to starting a claim. More to be posted as it develops.


Kevin O’Leary Sues Elections Canada Over Fundraising Limits

(Kevin O’Leary, former candidate for CPC, to replace Stephen Harper)

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

Please sign this: PETITION E-1906 CLICK HERE

CBC published an article announcing that former Conservative Party leadership candidate, Kevin O’Leary, is suing Elections Canada over ruling relating to how he can pay back campaign debt. During the election campaign, O’Leary accumulated about $2,000,000 in debt. Approximately $400,000 is still outstanding.


A quote from the article states that:

In his claim, O’Leary said that it is proving too difficult to raise the necessary funds in the three-year timeframe set by Elections Canada laws because people are understandably “uninterested” in contributing to a failed campaign that is long over.

He has a good point. No one would be interested in contributing to a political campaign that has long since ended. So it does posse serious challenges for him to do so.

Further, the article raises an interesting question:

“If you’re out of the race, and you’re not a politician any more and you owe money to a fellow citizen, where is it right that the law protects you from ever paying it back? That’s un-Canadian. That’s unconstitutional. That’s simply wrong,”

Again, this is valid. O’Leary’s brief political career is finished. He claims to never wish to run for office again, so what is the issue with him simply paying the debts and moving on with his life? O’Leary states that he has the funds available to do so, but is prohibited from doing so under the Canada Elections Act.

The claim filed is available here, and let’s go through some of the better arguments.

Regarding the applicable laws, the claim states:

1. A declaration that subsections 367(1)(d), (6) and (7), 478.756), and 500(1) of the Canada Elections Act, SC. 2000, c. 9 (the ?Act?) (collectively referred to herein as the impugned provisions) infringe on and deny the rights and freedoms guaranteed by sections 3 and 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the Charter)

and are not saved by section 1 thereof;

2. A declaration that, insofar as the impugned provisions infringe on and deny the rights and freedoms guaranteed by sections 3 and/or 7 of the Charter and cannot be justified under section 1 of the Charter, those provisions are invalid and of no force and effect, to

the extent of the inconsistency;
3. In addition, or in the alternative:

a. A declaration that the impugned provisions violate the constitutional principle of the rule of law, which requires that laws be written and interpreted according to an intelligible legal standard that gives individuals fair notice of the conduct that will

attract imprisonment by the state;

b. A declaration that, insofar as the impugned provisions fail to meet the constitutional standard of legislative precision required by the rule of law, these provisions are invalid and of no force and effect or, in the alternative, must be read down so as to

satisfy this standard;

Okay, let’s dissect this word salad. O’Leary claims that portions of the Canada Elections Act, violate several provisions of the Canadian Charter. The “reasonable limitation is the Charter (section 1) would not apply and justify the C.E.A. Further, he implies that the C.E.A. is written in a too confusing standard to be followed.

Here is the Canada Elections Act.

Contribution limits
367 (1) Subject to subsection 373(4), no individual shall make contributions that exceed

(a) $1,500 in total in any calendar year to a particular registered party;
(b) $1,500 in total in any calendar year to the registered associations, nomination contestants and candidates of a particular registered party;
(c) $1,500 in total to a candidate for a particular election who is not the candidate of a registered party; and
(d) $1,500 in total in any calendar year to the leadership contestants in a particular leadership contest.

Contributions — candidates and leadership contestants
(6) Subject to subsection (7), no candidate in a particular election and no leadership contestant in a particular leadership contest shall make a contribution out of their own funds to their own campaign.
Marginal note:

Exception — certain contributions to own campaign
(7) The following contributions are permitted:
(a) contributions that do not exceed $5,000 in total by a candidate for a particular election out of their own funds to their own campaign; and
(b) contributions that do not exceed $25,000 in total by a leadership contestant in a particular leadership contest out of their own funds to their own campaign.

Okay, 367(1)(d) has to do with individuals making contributions being limited to $1,500 per year to any leadership contestant. Sections (6) and (7) have to do with overall individual limits. It is definitely reasonable that there should be contribution limits, in order to avoid having candidates “BOUGHT AND PAID FOR”. However, should that apply to former candidates who have since moved on.

3 potential counter arguments against O’Leary though:
(a) What if a person “hasn’t” moved on, and intends to use this relief for future campaigns?
(b) Would removing this cap be an end-run around spending limits?
(c) Would this restriction be necessary to ensure “smaller candidates” get a fair shot?

There is no 478.756 in the Canada Elections Act. It appears to be a type in the claim. However, this is the provision that I believe O’Leary was referring to. That is 478.75.

Payment within three years
478.75 (1) If a claim for a leadership campaign expense is evidenced by an invoice or other document that has been sent under section 478.74, or if a claim for repayment of a loan is made to the leadership contestant under section 373, the claim shall be paid within three years after the day on which the leadership contest ends.

Once more this seems to make a good point. The C.E.A requires repayment within 3 years. However, if former candidates must: (I) pay in 3 years or less; (II) are not actually able to raise more donations because they are not running; and (III) have strict limits as to how much of their personal wealth they can use, then there seem to be few, if any options.

Now, for section 500 of the C.E.A.:

Marginal note:
Punishment — strict liability offences
500 (1) Every person who is guilty of an offence under any of subsections 484(1), 486(1), 489(1), 491(1), 492(1), 495(1), 495.1(1), 495.2(1), 496(1), 497(1), 497.1(1), 497.2(1), 497.3(1), 497.4(1), 497.5(1) and 499(1) is liable on summary conviction to a fine of not more than $2,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than three months, or to both.

I’m not going to quote the entirety of Section 500. The point is that O’Leary is correct, the C.E.A. does in fact threaten jail time as a punishment for failing to comply.

One the surface, Kevin O’Leary’s claim seems to be valid, given the strict rules the C.E.A. sets out. But let’s now check out the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms which the lawsuit references as relief.

Democratic rights of citizens
3. Every citizen of Canada has the right to vote in an election of members of the House of Commons or of a legislative assembly and to be qualified for membership therein.

Life, liberty and security of person
7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

Rights and freedoms in Canada
1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

O’Leary makes the argument that fairly large campaigns are necessary to be elected as part of a legislative assembly. Without debating the merits of “big money”, it is a fact. Campaigns and elections are expensive to run.

Section 7 has to do with punishments, which Section 500 of the C.E.A. establishes can be up to 90 days in prison for violating provisions of the act.

Section 1 is often invoked as a “reasonable justification” for restricting Charter rights. Obviously, in order to restrict, there must be some societal overall good. While Elections Canada will obviously argue differently, O’Leary is attempting to preempt the defence by stating there is none.

Thoughts And Conclusions
Obviously, this is only beginning. The claim has been filed, but no response or defence has yet been made.

On the surface, the claim makes valid points. O’Leary, like all Canadian citizens, is allowed to run for any legislative assembly or body he wishes to. Today’s reality is that campaigns are long, expensive, and a financial drain to run. However, candidates may find themselves hamstrung by campaign finance rules, which seem overly complex and tedious.

As stated earlier, I see a few possible defences for Elections Canada
(a) What if a person “hasn’t” moved on, and intends to use this relief for future campaigns?
(b) Would removing this cap be an end-run around spending limits?
(c) Would this restriction be necessary to ensure “smaller candidates” get a fair shot?

Politicians (and aspiring politicians) across the country will likely be tracking this case, as it will have real impact on future elections and party leadership races.

As a side note: CBC published the article a month after the case was filed. Not that it is relevant to the case, but did they not know about it until then?

Supreme Court Will Hear Woman Arrested for Not Holding Handrail

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

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

Please sign this: PETITION E-1906 CLICK HERE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

” BY-LAW R-036




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

Subsection I – Citizenship

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Supreme Court Appeal Panel will now decide the case.

CNN Sues White House Over Banned ”Journalist” Jim Acosta

(CNN announces legal action, after correspondent Jim Acosta banned)

CNN’s White House Correspondent, Jim Acosta had his press access to the White House revoked on November 8th. Now his network, CNN, is suing President Donald Trump and several aides.

However, Acosta is arguably not a journalist, but an activist. People are supposed to be there to cover the news and the White House, not to be antagonistic and grandstand. Here are some examples:

(Jim Acosta compilation)

(Acosta, on August 2, 2017)

(Acosta, July 1, 2018)

(Acosta, on October 29, 2018)

(November 6, 2018, which was Acosta’s last day)

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

Please sign this: PETITION E-1906 CLICK HERE

The lawsuit claims that by revoking Acosta’s media access, his 1st and 5th Amendments (freedom of the press, and due process), were violated.

Here is the 1st Amendment:

Freedom of Religion, Speech, and the Press

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Here is the 5th Amendment:

Protection of Rights to Life, Liberty, and Property

No person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.

CNN released the full text of the lawsuit, shown here. But let’s go through some of the more interesting sections. (Quotes in bold, comments in italics)

2. But on November 7, 2018, Defendants revoked Acosta’s White House credentials because, in the President’s own words, Acosta failed to “treat the White House with respect” at a White House press briefing.

Except if you watch that November 6 video, he wasn’t being respectful. He was being antagonistic.

4. And the revocation of Acosta’s credentials is only the beginning; as the President explained, there “could be others also” who get their credentials revoked.

The slippery-slope argument except it is unwarranted here. There aren’t other journalists in the press core who act the way Acosta does. Blatant fearmongering.

5. The Framers of our Constitution embraced a “profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials.” N.Y. Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 270 (1964). The President lacks the authority to quash “[t]he sort of robust political debate encouraged by the First Amendment”— debate that is “bound to produce speech that is critical of those who hold public office.” Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46, 51 (1988). That is why the D.C. Circuit has been clear that “the protection afforded newsgathering under the first amendment guarantee of freedom of the press requires that . . . access [to White House press facilities] not be denied arbitrarily or for less than compelling reasons.” Sherrill v. Knight, 569 F.2d 124, 129 (D.C. Cir. 1977). And “notice . . . of the factual bases for denial [of access to White House press facilities] with an opportunity to rebut is a minimum prerequisite for ensuring that the denial is . . . [not] based onarbitrary or less than compelling reasons.” Id. at 131.

This conflates a number of things: First, the press is there to cover the White House, not to DEBATE. Second, the 1st Amendment is to enshrine public talks and even unpleasant sharp attacks, but it doesn’t say that public figures MUST engage with you. Third, given Acosta’s frequent behaviour, it would be easy to rebut ”arbitrary or less than compelling reasons quite easily. Fourth, the 1st Amendment doesn’t guarantee access to the White House.

Jim Acosta seems to want a blank cheque to confront and badger White House staff at will.

27. The President dislikes CNN’s and Acosta’s coverage of him and his administration, and has made that clear since before he took office. At a news conference on January 11, 2017, for example, then-President-elect Trump told Acosta, “your organization is terrible.” Acosta responded: “You’re attacking us. Can you give us a question?” The President replied: “Don’t be rude. No, I’m not going to give you a question . . . . You are fake news.”

While these claims are true, Acosta’s frequent behaviour does make it clear he is there to agitate, rather than report on the news. But since CNN raised the issue of the 1st Amendment, would this not be going against TRUMP’S right to free speech?

33. Speaking through a hand-held microphone, as did all the White House journalists who asked questions, Acosta asked a question about one of President Trump’s statements during the midterm campaign—namely, whether a caravan making its way to the United States from Central America constitutes “an invasion” of the country, a significant feature of the President’s messaging during the just-ended campaign. The President declined to respond, instead remarking: “You know what? I think you should . . . I think you should let me run the country. You run CNN. And if you did it well, your ratings would be much better.”

34. When Acosta attempted to ask a follow-up question, President Trump refused to take it. A White House staffer then approached Acosta and attempted to grab the microphone. The staffer reached all the way across Acosta’s body, successfully latched onto the microphone, and physically attempted to remove it from Acosta’s right hand. Acosta held onto the microphone, stated “Pardon me, ma’am,” and continued to ask his question.

This is a distortion of the truth. Acosta attempted to ask several questions, and was argumentative the entire time. Footage available refutes these assertions.

39. Hours after the press conference concluded, Press Secretary Sanders issued an official statement announcing that “the White House is suspending the hard pass of [Acosta] until further notice.” The Press Secretary accused Acosta of “placing his hands” on the White House staffer who attempted to take the microphone from Acosta during the press conference. The Press Secretary added that the alleged conduct “is absolutely unacceptable” and stated “[w]e will not tolerate this inappropriate behavior.” The White House’s statement indicated that this alleged “incident” was the basis of its decision to revoke Acosta’s credentials.

Whether this was deliberate or not is up for debate in the video. However, it was clear that Acosta was making a nuisance of himself.


57. Defendants have deprived Plaintiffs of their right to access the White House grounds by revoking Acosta’s White House credentials. Without those credentials, Acosta cannot access the White House and cannot effectively serve as a White House correspondent, thus depriving Plaintiff CNN of its chief White House correspondent.

CNN is not prohibited from covering White House press briefings, only Acosta is. Do they not have anyone else on staff who could do it?

59. Defendants’ justifications for impeding Plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights are hollow and hardly sufficiently compelling to justify the indefinite revocation of Acosta’s White House credentials. Consequently, the only reasonable inference from Defendants’ conduct is that they have revoked Acosta’s credentials as a form of content- and viewpoint-based discrimination and in retaliation for Plaintiffs’ exercise of protected First Amendment activity.

Except Acosta wasn’t banned for his views. He was banned for regularly disturbing press conferences.


65. Acosta received no direct notice from the White House that his credentials had been revoked, let alone any notice prior to the revocation. Instead, the White House announced the revocation itself via Twitter after Defendants already decided to effectively ban Acosta from the White House grounds.

66. Defendants did not provide Plaintiffs a written explanation, nor any explanation at all, before revoking Acosta’s press credentials. The only written explanation was a short statement posted on Twitter that Acosta was suspended because he “plac[ed] his hands” on a White House staffer. Even if this tweet were accurate—and it is not, as the reportedly doctored video Defendant Sanders posted would later show—it would not suffice to demonstrate prior notice of the revocation.

Okay, giving him notice would have been courteous, but is not grounds for suing. Nor is oral notification over written notification

Some Thoughts
While many media heads are supporting Acosta’s reinstatement, I believe this claim to be completely bogus.

(1) Acosta has been repeatedly rude and antagonistic to the White House staff. He is clearly being an activist, not a journalist. This is seen again and again on tape. No one else behaves this way, and it is surprising that his behaviour has been tolerated for so long.

(2) Acosta is not banned or restricted from exercising free speech at home or in public. He is just not allowed into White House briefings

(3) CNN is not banned from covering the White House. They just need a new correspondent.

(4) Not being given notice is rude, but not a constitutional violation.

The judgement is expected any day, and a followup will be provided.

Update to the Story
On Friday, November 16, a DC Judge ordered the press credentials to be temporarily returned to Jim Acosta while the matter is formally resolved. Personally, this was a surprise.

From CNN’s reporting on the story:

Trump said the same thing during a Q&A with reporters in the Oval Office.

“People have to behave,” he said, when asked about the administration’s defeat in court.
“If they,” meaning reporters like Acosta, “don’t listen to the rules and regulations, we’ll end up back in court and we’ll win. But more importantly, we’ll just leave,” meaning, stop taking questions from the press. “And then you won’t be very happy. Because we do get good ratings.”

While Acosta seems to be allowed back in, there is nothing to stop the White House from: (a) simply refusing to call on Acosta; (b) cancelling press conferences; or (c) throwing Acosta out for the day.

Voting Eligibility (Part 1) — Crime & Citizenship

(Image by WordPress)

Who is allowed to vote?

Well, depending on where you go, you will get a very different answer. Do you have to be of good character? Can you currently vote while in prison? Do you even have to be a citizen?

This topic could fill several books, but this is just a starter piece. The article focuses on 2 main areas: criminality and non-citizenship

Canada, Criminality:
The Canada Elections Act of 1985 used to prohibit a person from being able to vote if they are serving a federal sentence (2 years or more). However, that was struck down in 2002. The Crown conceded it violated Section 3 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, that everyone had the right to vote in elections to govern the country. To be fair though, the dissenting Justices thought that the violations were reasonable. As things stand now, even persons in custody are allowed to vote, and jail officials must make accommodation for them to do so.

American, Criminality
The case of Richardson v. Ramirez (1974), held that the 14th Amendment, Section 2, was not violated in barring felons form voting (called felony disenfranchisement). Since then, the 50 states have written their own laws, and they widely vary widely, from Maine, which allows voting while incarcerated, to voting after release, to Idaho and voting after probation ends, to never voting, to Florida requiring a petition.

Australian, Criminality
Things are a bit different here. For starters, voting is mandatory. There are arguments both for and against it. In the past, anyone serving a sentence of 1 year or more was unable to vote. As it stands now, only those serving a sentence of at least 3 years cannot vote until the sentence is finished.

British, Criminality
The UK is having to revise their policies on letting prisoners and convicts vote, because of the European Court of Human Rights. Originally, they couldn’t, but that is changing. Interestingly, Members of Parliament can keep their seat if they have been sentenced to 1 year or less. So they could hold office, but not vote.

Much Europe has some restriction of voting rights, such as type of offense, and is the sentence fully served.

Laws vary widely around the world. However, the main argument against letting cons, or ex-cons vote is that they have violated the social contract with the people, and hence should not be a part of forming its laws.

Voting by Non-Citizens

While this list is too extensive to go through, many countries do allow permanent residents to vote if they have lived their for a long enough period.

Also many cities, such as San Francisco, Toronto, Hamilton, Calgary, Vancouver, allow voting for permanent residents.

One argument against letting non-citizens vote is that it weakens what it means to be a citizen. What then, distinguishes a citizen from a resident? A second is that the longer time to obtain citizenship is necessary to fully adapt to the new homeland. A third is that it leads to divided loyalty from Members of Parliament/Congress, who will look towards future voters more than current ones. All have some merit.

A push over the years from leftist politicians has been to let “undocumented immigrants” (a.k.a.) “illegal immigrants” vote in elections, as well as to reduce or eliminate voter identification requirements.

Note: Women are now allowed to vote in Western countries as well as many others. New Zealand and Australia led the way.

Author’s Views:
However, things do, or at least should have a limit.

(1) There have been many challenges to Voter ID laws, claiming that it discriminates against people who can’t get identification. The usual claim is wither poverty, or that the community lacks these services. Really, a legal citizen, or at least permanent resident can’t get I.D.?! Of course, if they are “undocumented”, that may be why they can’t get “documents”.

(2)So-called “Sanctuary Cities” are letting illegal immigrants vote which seems bizarre. Why should people in the country illegally be helping to vote in people to draft laws? Seems like a serious conflict of interest here.

It seems that items (1) and (2) are very much linked. Could objecting to voter I.D. requirements be to enable, or help cover up, illegal immigrants voting? Hard to say, there is no “documentation”. Could it be to help “elect” candidates who would push for more immigration and easier citizenship paths?

As for convicts voting, obviously everyone has different ideas. My personal choice would be: (a) not while in jail or parole; and (b) not for serious crimes such as murder/treason/terrorism/drug trafficking/sex offenses.

Review of the Book “The New Nationalism”

(Conservative writer and YouTuber, Dr. Steve Turley, promoting his new book)

The New Nationalism, How the Populist Right is Defeating Globalism and Awakening a New Political Order” was just released and is available online. The title is pretty self explanatory, as nations across the world are pushing hard to maintain their identities and sovereignties. Not only do nations and people want autonomy over their lands, they want to see their own cultures intact and thriving. It is a fairly quick at 78 pages, but is packed with information. While he acknowledges that globalists do make occasional advances, they are more of the exception, and that the general trend is towards nationalism.

Before getting too much into the book, let’s take a moment to acknowledge 2 sets of ideas hotly debated currently:

(a) Nationalism (Identity) v.s. Multiculturalism (Values)
(b) Ethno Nationalism (Identity) v.s. Civic Nationalism (Values)

In many ways they are same argument: Is a nation defined as “who the people are” or by “what they believe”?

Those pushing for a greater unity, ethno-nationalist, argue that who the people are matters, be it: heritage, culture, common language, traditions, way of life, and often ancestry, are the necessary elements for a cohesive society. EN is commonly thought to be a racial supremacist ideology, but that just isn’t the case.

Those pushing for greater freedom and individuality, civic nationalist, are much more likely to believe in the multicultural way of life. The cohesive unity that ethno-nationalists stress is not nearly as important as more abstract beliefs such as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of association, and acceptance rather than assimilation of newcomers.

Civic nationalists claim (rightly), that their society promotes tolerance and diversity. Ethno nationalists claim (rightly), that there is nothing that holds them together, and that people will just form groups which do reflect their identities. These 2 ideologies are in fact arguing different things.

Within ethno-nationalism, there is a segment that believes that blood is the single biggest unifier (race). This is often referred to as “the Alt-Right”. Another group believer that other shared traits (culture), are what holds societies together, sometimes called “the Alt-Lite”. One group believes the other to be racist, while the other believes that group to be unrealistic.

In the book, “The New Nationalism”, Dr. Turley is quite clearly arguing a form of nationalism that focuses on a shared culture and traditions, while race itself is not important (Alt-Lite).

The book covers in depth 9 countries across the world: (1) Hungary; (2) Poland; (3) Bulgaria; (4) Italy; (5) Denmark; (6) Russia; (7) Turkey; (8) India; and (9) the United States. Now, for some key passages:

All over the world, a nationalist revolution is underway. In the past 17 years, the actual number of nationalist and populist parties across the European continent has nearly doubled, growing from 33 to 63.1 And these parties are seeing extraordinary electoral success. The share of votes won by populist parties in Europe has tripled in the course of such time, from 8.5 percent of the European vote to nearly 25 percent.

FIRST TAKEAWAY: The opening paragraph gets right to the point. Using Europe as a model, nationalism is on the rise, and that the # of political parties is rising, as is the % of the popular vote they are receiving. In fact, the first five Chapters deal with European countries where nationalism is still rising: Hungary; Poland; Bulgaria; Italy; and Denmark.

However, for what I’m calling here the New Nationalism, the communist threat is of course gone, as is any notion of biological racial superiority.

SECOND TAKEAWAY: That the growing nationalism here is built on shared customs, cultures, etc… and that race is not the driving motivation.

Because globalization eclipses the nation-state with wider transnational economic and political processes, many scholars believe that globalization is bringing an end to the whole concept of distinct nations.

THIRD TAKEAWAY: Globalism is a threat to nations because it attempts to break down what actually makes nations distinct.

…. that Orban wants to create an authoritarian theocracy. In fact, nothing can be farther from the truth. As Orban makes clear, Christian democracies absolutely affirm a separation of powers between church and state. The church and the state are wholly unique and distinctive institutions. But what makes Christian democracies different from globalist societies is that while they recognize a separation of powers between church and state, they don’t recognize a separation of purpose.

FOURTH TAKEAWAY: While nations like Hungary may want to maintain a Christian nation, it will not lead to autocratic rule.

open borders mean open values. And so, what does this mean for the EU’s immigration quotas? Very simply, mass unfettered immigration fulfills the political precondition for more liberal democratic social policies. The less secure a nation’s borders, the less secure a nation’s customs and culture.

FIFTH TAKEAWAY: Mass immigration will actually lead to the break down of society. If any and all people and their customs are welcome, then what makes a nation unique? This is actually the main argument against multiculturalism.

However, Poland has no shortage of detractors, particularly in Brussels. One critic accused Poland of “abdicating” its leading role in Central Europe by refusing to bend to the EU’s demands on migrant quotas and internal judicial reforms. But in the process of making these observations, she ended up admitting that the nation of Poland poses a greater existential threat to the EU than does Brexit.22

When the Poles didn’t, Article 7 was enacted to try to strip Poland’s voting rights away.

SIXTH TAKEAWAY: Interesting, that for all the praise that the EU gives to diversity and multiculturalism, it seems they have to force member states like Poland to comply. This is an attempt to overrun their sovereignty and impose laws on them. How exactly is Poland an independent country if it “bends the knee”?

What Salvini is advocating here is but the latest chapter of a history of what scholars call the internationalizing of the nationalist right. While leaders in the nationalist right have focused primarily on local and national elections, they all recognize that transnational politics are in many ways just as equally important, because the ultimate adversary in all of this is globalization, and globalization is by definition transnational.

SEVENTH TAKEAWAY: While individual nations are taking back their autonomy, there is a collective good in such nations working together to do so.

With communism dead, something even more compelling, more deeply rooted in the Russian soul would have to take its place. And that is the real contribution of Vladimir Putin; he found that the way forward for Russians would be a return, a retraditionalization that would involve reawakening Russia’s pre-Soviet history, her culture, traditions, customs, and Orthodox religion that would serve as the foundation for a rebirth and renewal of Russian civilization.

EIGHTH TAKEAWAY: Russia, facing more and more break off portions, was able to keep itself fairly intact because it focused on what the various regions and people had in common. Putin has said many times, “we are of many ethnicities, but we are Russian first.”

Putin does not celebrate a secularized vision of human rights irrespective of culture; he doesn’t affirm a notion of civil rights that favors certain races, genders, and sexual orientations. Rather, the rights, protections, and freedoms experienced by citizens of the Russian Federation are the direct result of a distinctively Russian culture, religion, society, and sentiments.

NINETH TAKEAWAY: Identity politics is bad. Focusing on collective identity is good. Simple enough.

However, there is one section that seems puzzling.

For example, there have been reports of forced conversion attempts on Christian families in Indian villages by Hindu nationalists, the desecration of churches, and actual physical violence and assaults against Christians, Muslims, and Buddhists. These are of course unacceptable in any humane society. But what we have to understand is that, unfortunately, such acts of religious persecution are really just par for the course given the fact that secularism is seen more and more as that ideology that persecutes a nation’s dominant religious identity….. To just defer to good ol’ fashioned secular human rights such as religious freedom, as our Western elites like to do, does absolutely nothing to remedy this problem, but I believe has the reverse effect; it employs rhetoric that only exasperates it.

Perhaps I am missing something, but wouldn’t this be a compelling argument in favour of secularism? If physical violence and religious persecution are “par for the course”, wouldn’t taking religion out of the way of life make things safer for everyone? For example, the Western World has seen repeatedly what “devout practitioners” from Islam are capable of doing.


The New Nationalism is a very informative read. 9 countries are gone through in depth, although many more are mentioned in the introduction. The author has clearly put a lot effort into the research and presentation. While there are exceptions, the overall path seems to be towards nationalism and against globalism.

    RELEVANCE TO THIS SITE is founded on the idea of discussing and examining comparative law. As such, ideas and systems — good and bad — are looked at. If nationalism is to be the major trend (and the evidence says it will), then new laws are certain to be introduced. Likewise, there are likely to be many court challenges and appeals, as the nationalists and globalists fight it out. This should be a fertile source for research and commentary.


Dr. Turley covered the election of Doug Ford in June 2018. Worth a watch. (Update: on October 2, he covered the Nationalist Win in Quebec).

Currently, we have: (1) Parliament appoints to cabinet based on gender quotas; (2) criticism of Islam is banned; (3) compelled speech for gender pronouns; (4) Pro-Life candidates are banned from running for office in certain parties; (5) summer jobs grants are denied for wrongthink; (6) opposition to ISIS fighters returning is considered islamophobia; (7) asking about costs for illegal immigration is considered racist; (8) murders of citizens by “Syrian refugees” is laughed off; (9) Diversity is entropy, and apparently, breaking down society is our strength; (10) discussing the challenges of multiculturalism gets condemned by “Conservatives”; (11) $10.5 Million for a this terrorist; (12) $31 million for these accused terrorists; (13) Canada apparently has no core identity; (14) “Old -Stock” Canadians should apparently be replaced; (15) Pride parades which are outright lewd; (16) Showing tolerance and inclusion at Pride, by banning police; (17) Statues of our founder Sir John A. MacDonald taken down; (18) Parks named after foreign founders; (19) ”Gender neutral” national anthem; (20) ”peoplekind” instead of mankind, and so on….

Back to the Nationalism (Identity) v.s. Multiculturalism (Values) mentioned earlier, it was mused that globalists don’t want an identity, that there only be certain “values”. However, it seems that many don’t even want “values”, as they would require logic and consistent standards to apply them.

There are some interesting postings from Candice Malcom: CLICK HERE, and CLICK HERE,

Canada has a federal election on October 19, 2019. If there is a nationalist candidate who might win, it would look something like this, or this, or this, or possibly this or this or this, or this, or maybe this.

Canada needs a rise in nationalism. If multiculturalism actually worked — anywhere — we would not need an ever expanding set of laws telling us how to live, and how to accommodate radically different people. Perhaps Dr. Turley can one day do such a book (or a second edition) on Canada

European Union Censorship

(Provocative, but you get the point)

September 12, 2018 — the European Union passed this law, the “Copyright Directive”, in a 438-226 vote.

Other media on the subject can be found: here, here, here, and here.

The “Copyright Directive” was originally stopped in July of this year, primarily over concerns over Articles 11 and 13. And to a degree, the concerns were over the same thing. Responding to, or critiquing another’s work is very common, and makes way for advancement of discussion of ideas. As long as there is some educational, critical or reporting use (and not blatant copyright), then using portions of a person or institution’s work is fine. In fact, this very website,, cites Canadian “Fair Dealing“, and American “Fair Use” provisions.

Article 11, a.k.a. the “link tax”, concerned ways for original content creators to get paid via taxes or royalties. In practice though, how would one know who the original content creator was? Perhaps the royalties would be going to someone who is at least in part responding to another person’s work.

Article 13 had to do with platforms such as Facebook and YouTube being blocked from sharing protected content. Apparently there is to be a huge database on protected material, which by itself sounds creepy. To be fair though, the law says that encyclopedia-type platforms like Wikipedia will be exempt. However, as many images, text and music can sound similar, how would the original creator be identified?

Further, copyrighted material does not last forever. For example, the book “1984”, written by George Orwell (a.k.a. Eric Arthur Blair was written in 1949, so after 1999, a Canuck should be free to use it freely. Under Canadian Copyright Law, 50 years after death, copyright protection would disappear. Yes, ironic to use the Orwewll book here. However, would this EU driven database(s) know when copyright on each image, unique, phrase, text, etc… lapse?

On a semi-related note: there is an academic database — which college and university students would upload digitial copies of essays and other papers. This is an anti-plagiarism site which was to ensure that students were handing in original work. The site would compare and contrast the student paper against millions of others and look for regions of overlap. Sounds great, except for problems those arose in this.

At its core, the Copyright Directive seems to nullify what may be considered Fair Dealing/Fair Use exemptions (by listing the original content creator as the copyright owner of any and all of its content, and responses. CLICK HERE, for an article on the proposed revisions of Article 11 and 13.

Some accidental incidents of censorship occurred here, here, and here.

While the E.U. has passed this Copyright Directive, there are reasons to be cautiously optimistic:

First, even if nothing is done, this seems absurd on its face to implement. (See the earlier criticism on logistical issues). Yes, content is still getting blocked, even the most innocuous stuff. While this is done under the guise of “protecting” creators, the complications that will arise will cause more and more headaches. Oddly, creators will “lose” money if research and ad revenue plummet.

Second, the law will undoubtedly face legal challenges and be tied up in the courts for years.

Third, each memberstate will implement their own version of this law, and that will likely not happen for a year or 2. Harder to enforce when the rules aren’t uniform. And on a related note: what about the UK, who is leaving the E.U.? What about any other member who may leave? What happens if governments change and their successors don’t agree with what they see? And won’t any inconsistencies in member laws make it easier to challenge the law?

Fourth, what if any E.U. members decide to just ignore the directive altogether? The EU has shown itself to be rather toothless in enforcing its own rules and orders.

Fifth, how will this be enforced when using material from, or creating new content in countries that do not have these laws, or subscribe to this version of them?

Online creators decry this EU directive, and they do have reason to be worried. However, there are many options available to fight it, and many hurdles it will face.

Review of the Book ”An Advocacy Primer”

(3rd edition of the book by Lee Stuesser)

This book was released in 2005 by Lee Stuesser, a law professor at the University of Manitoba. It is basically a reference book for how to litigate different types of cases.

The book itself was written for law students in how to work for clients. However, the information provided is very straightforward, and many self-represented persons could get a leg up simply by reading through and following along. Self representation, as discussed here, is possible by many people, on the more simplistic cases.

”An Advocacy Primer” details: (a) how to go about the many steps in litigation; (b) gives many tips on how to prepare documents; (c) organize arguments; and (d) common pitfalls to avoid.

A brief outline of the book:

Chapter 1: Developing a Trial Plan
Chapter 2: Draft of the Pleadings
Chapter 3: Civil Case — Disclosure
Chapter 4: Criminal Case — Discovery
Chapter 5: Making Submissions
Chapter 6: A Trial Notebook
Chapter 7: Running a Civil Trial
Chapter 8: Running a Criminal Trial
Chapter 9: Opening Arguments
Chapter 10: Closing Arguments
Chapter 11: Your Case — Direct Examination
Chapter 12: Using Exhibits
Chapter 13: Principles of Cross Examination
Chapter 14: Impeachment
Chapter 15: Objections at trial
Chapter 16: Special Witnesses
Chapter 17: Appellate Advocacy
Chapter 18: Ethics of Advocacy

Stuesser’s work can be used in one of two ways. First, it can be read straight through as a non-fiction book. Second, it can be used in pieces, as needed for a representative in a legal matter. This 475 page book also gives many templates of legal forms, and exact wordings to include.

The second option is obviously far more practical. The first is possible, although it would be a very tedious read to do in one sitting.

Overall, the book is great source of information, both for self-reps and other legal enthusiasts.