Category: Types of Law

Posted on

Secwepemc Land Grab Of Kamloops: Going On For A Decade

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

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

For context, consider this:

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

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

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

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

Elenore Sturko: MLA Willing To Stand Up For Truth

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

For starters, how and when did she find out?

What Do They Actually Want?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

12. Interest and costs; and

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

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

Court Case Making Relatively Little Progress

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

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

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

Expect a follow-up as things progress.

Sturko MLA Letter Kamloops Action

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

Posted on

CSASPP Certification Refused, Appeal Being Considered

A long overdue ruling has finally come for the Canadian Society for the Advancement of Science in Public Policy, or CSASPP. This is the Proposed Class Action filed in Vancouver, back in January, 2021.

However, it’s not what many had been hoping for, as certification was refused. Justice Crerar referred to the case as an “abuse of process”.

An obvious question is why it took 2 1/2 years to issue a decision, if the defects were so clear cut. The hearings concluded in April, 2023, and it’s now October, 2025. The case had been under reserve the entire time.

While the Judge seemed disinclined to issue costs over the unsuccessful certification, the Defendants are still able to request them anyway.

The status update on CSASPP’s website goes into detail about issues with the decision. It’s more detailed than here, and worth reading. The update concludes as follows:

“If we are to appeal the ruling, we have 30 days to do so from the date of the ruling. We have not made any decision and will continue to analyze your options. If you would like us to pursue an appeal, you can show your support in donating. As usual, we will continue to keep you apprised in the meantime.”

Here are a few points to consider.

1. Justice Crerar Critical Of Several Versions Of Pleadings

[47] To be fair to the plaintiff, to some extent the factual basis has evolved in real time: as more public health orders were issued, it was not wholly unreasonable for the plaintiff to amend its pleadings to particularise those new orders. Further, the evolving Covid jurisprudence rendered many of the plaintiff’s legal claims and arguments untenable. That said, many of the amendments could have been anticipated and pleaded at an early stage of the litigation. To give two critical and fundamental examples: as discussed below, the plaintiff was in a position to properly identify and define the subclasses at an early stage, and it was always ill-conceived to have the Society serve as the proposed representative plaintiff.

[133] The plaintiff’s constantly moving pleadings target has consumed a grossly disproportionate amount of time of the parties and the Court: it is near-impossible to respond to or adjudicate on a pleading that is so mutable. Such constant amendments constitute in themselves an abuse of process.

The Judge would go on at length how the Notice of Civil Claim had been amended several times. He said there were 8 versions in total. However, he offers a reasonable justification for most of it: Bonnie Henry issued new health orders over time, and older ones became obsolete. As such, changes would be necessary, in order to avoid mootness becoming an issue.

Yes, it was something of a “moving target”, but that was the result of a steady stream of new orders.

The case was filed in January 2021. Travel restrictions within the Province wouldn’t be introduced until April, and terminate in June. Injection passes wouldn’t become a reality until September or October for most people. It’s difficult to litigate issues prior to their existence.

And if having the Society itself was such a problem, it would have been better to know that sooner. Alternatives were offered.

2. Justice Crerar Critical Of Multiple Proceedings

[163] As a further basis for striking the claim as an abuse of process, the plaintiff Society has filed three proceedings against the same defendant—Dr. Bonnie Henry—each concerning various health orders. It is an abuse of process for the plaintiff to bring this action against these defendants when it has already brought other proceedings in relation to the same subject matter (one petition of which has now been dismissed, and the other abandoned).

The Judge would cite 2 Petitions that CSASPP had filed against Bonnie Henry. One was to challenge the limit on public gatherings, and the other was the new injection mandate for health care workers. He had a point in that they did have overlapping issues.

However, these were limited challenges, and ones that couldn’t wait years for the Court to act in the larger case.

And it’s not as if he was efficient in handing down this ruling.

3. Justice Crerar Preferred Petition Over Claim

[195] First, as set out above, the present claim is a thinly-veiled challenge to administrative decisions that would be appropriately brought as a judicial review. In Ernst, the existence of judicial review as a more appropriate remedy to address the essence of the plaintiff’s complaints weighed heavily against the continued survival of a claim based in Charter damages:

[199] Declaratory relief is a more appropriate remedy than Charter damages in a case like this one that deals with broad questions of policy, public health, and medical and epidemiological judgment. Of course, the plaintiff would prefer to avoid that administrative law remedy, as it appropriately requires deference to the expert decision maker entrusted by the legislature with those decisions, as seen in Hoogerbrug and Beaudoin, and many other Covid-related decisions.

A Petition, or Judicial Review, is a limited challenge to existing orders or decisions. Unlike a Civil Claim, this isn’t meant to be broad, or to have much of an evidence gathering process. There’s also no opportunity to pursue a Class Action.

Moreover, there’s typically a high degree of deference given to the “expert decision makers”, which often renders Petitions ineffective.

4. Justice Crerar Takes Shots At CSASPP’s Lawyer

[399] I wish to emphasise that nothing in this section should be read as casting any aspersion on the competence or ethics on plaintiff’s counsel, who has proven herself to be a skilled, eloquent, and zealous advocate in court. The plaintiff’s serial failures to meet court deadlines, and the ever-changing parameters of the proposed class proceeding, from proposed plaintiffs, to claims, to common issues, may well be the fault of the plaintiff Society and its principals rather than her law firm. The point is that a plaintiff and a law firm proposing what will be the largest and most complicated class proceeding in Canadian history must establish a commensurate degree of competence and experience, as exhibited through impeccable prosecution of the claim, to have any hope of certification.

While designed to be tactful, this comes across as insulting. And just because a case is complicated, that’s not grounds to throw it out. Such a suit would be an immense amount of work for a single lawyer, but it’s not as if more couldn’t be retained if certification was successful.

Of course, Bonnie Henry and the Government of British Columbia have an almost inexhaustible supply of money, courtesy of taxpayers. They are forced to contribute to the defence regardless of their views.

5. Alternative Representative Plaintiffs Were Offered

[381] As set out above, Ms Leppky is cited as a representative of the religious subclass: her religious beliefs prohibit her from getting vaccinated, thus affecting her ability to work, and to access various locations. Ms Gauthier is cited as a representative of the proposed medical subclass: her surgery was cancelled, affecting her pain, stress and ability to work. In contrast to the other two, Mr Parihar is not cited as a representative of any of the subclasses, but he presumably represents the vaccination subclass: the FANCC avers that he was unable to attend certain events and locations, and was shunned due to his unvaccinated status.

In the event that the Society itself was considered unsuitable, an alternative was offered that would see 3 individuals become Representative Plaintiffs. That was refused.

Timeline Of Major Events In Case

January, 2021: The case was initially filed in January 2021 as a Proposed Class Action.

March, 2021: The B.C. Government responds to the lawsuit.

June, 2021: Plaintiffs bring their proposal for case management.

July, 2021: Defendants bring their own proposal to manage the case.

September, 2021: Notice of Civil Claim is amended.

December, 2022: Certification hearings start, but take longer than originally anticipated. They were intended to be completed over a single week.

April 2023: Certification hearings resume, taking up another week. The decision is under reserve, meaning it will be issued later. However, Justice Crerar would still make several subsequent requests for submissions based on related cases happening elsewhere.

July, 2023: Ingram, the disaster of a ruling, is brought to Justice Crerar’s attention. This is the Alberta ruling that struck down orders on a technicality (Cabinet interference), but otherwise okayed them in principle.

September, 2023: Bonnie Henry’s lawyer objects to CSASPP filing a Petition against the vaccine passport for health care workers, claiming the existing litigation amounts to a duplication, and hence, abuse of process.

April, 2024: Justice Crerar sends notice that he will likely be issuing a decision on the Certification Application within a month or so. As a result, CSASPP forwards several recent rulings on related issues. But, the ruling is further delayed.

October, 2025: The Certification Application is dismissed.

Will This Ruling Be Appealed?

There’s a 30 day time limit to decide, and there’s no official word yet.

Justice Crerar was extremely critical of CSASPP for unnecessarily delaying the case. He then takes 2 1/2 years to hand down a ruling that should — by his own remarks — have been straightforward. The 144 page ruling is bloated, and could easily have been 30 or 40.

He seemed to imply at paragraph 14 that a Class Action would be less efficient than having Plaintiffs bring individual suits, which of course defies the wisdom of bringing one.

He dwelled about a lawsuit that Kip Warner had been involved with against Google. While minor, it was irrelevant to this case.

The Judge’s preferred avenue — a Petition — wouldn’t address many of the concerns raised in the Claim. Nor would there be an opportunity for any deep dive into the evidence. CSASPP also wouldn’t be able to challenge the declaration of emergency, which started this in the first place.

Interestingly, this proceeding was declared to be an “abuse” of the legal system. However, Action4Canada’s case, the most poorly drafted suit in B.C. history, wasn’t ruled to be one. Neither the Supreme Court, nor the Court of Appeal called it that.

RULING ON CERTIFICATION
(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2025/2025bcsc2051/2025bcsc2051.html
(2) https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2025/2025bcsc2051/2025bcsc2051.pdf

DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE FROM CASE
(A) CSASPP 20210126 Notice of Civil Claim
(B) CSASPP 20210321 Request for Assignment of Judge
(C) CSASPP 20210331 Response to Civil Claim
(D) CSASPP 20210531 Cease and Desist Letter to Regulators
(E) CSASPP 20210621 CSASPPs Case Plan Proposal
(F) CSASPP 20210621 Dr Bonnie Henrys availability requested
(G) CSASPP 20210731 Defendants Case Plan Proposal
(H) CSASPP 20210813 Requisition for JMC for 1 October 2021
(I) CSASPP 20210817 Demand for Particulars
(J) CSASPP 20210821 Plaintiffs Response to Demand for Particulars
(K) CSASPP 20210913 Oral Reasons for Judgment Short Leave Application Seeking Stay
(L) CSASPP 20210915 Amended Notice of Civil Claim
(M) CSASPP 20211025 Affidavit No 2 of CSASPP Executive Director
(N) CSASPP 20211028 Proceedings in Chambers Defendants Application for Further Particulars
(O) CSASPP 20221101 Affidavit No 3 of Redacted Deponent Redacted
(P) CSASPP 20221102 Dr Henry and HMTKs Application Response for Webcast Application
(Q) CSASPP 20221115 Respondents Requisition Seeking 16 Nov 2022 CPC to Be Held by MS Teams

Posted on

Adelberg Amended: “Wrongful Termination” Claim Alleges Arbitrary Detainment

Today we get a 3-in-1: Adelberg, Action4Canada and Dorceus.

The infamous Adelberg Federal case has finally been amended. There’s quite the story behind it.

Readers have commented at times asking why this subject is covered to such a degree. In short: it’s a multimillion dollar grift that is still ongoing. Desperate clients and donors are still being taken advantage of by unscrupulous lawyers. No one else reports on it.

While the main focus here is on Adelberg, the others will be briefly discussed as well.

February, 2023: the Federal Court struck the case in its entirety as “bad beyond argument”. Furthermore, the Schedule “A” Plaintiffs (members of the Government) were barred because of a grievance requirement. However, the Schedule “B” Plaintiffs (those in Federally regulated industries) could at least theoretically refile.

June, 2024: the Federal Court of Appeal did something interesting. Although the suit was primarily about employment, it ruled EVERYONE could technically bring travel claims, despite them likely being moot. It also tentatively allowed the RCMP Plaintiffs to proceed with employment claims for the time being. It did confirm that the initial filing was grossly deficient, inadequately pleaded, and “bad beyond argument”.

January, 2025: the Supreme Court of Canada refused to hear an Appeal that would allow the Schedule “A” Plaintiffs to file employment claims.

September, 2025: The remaining Plaintiffs file a new Statement of Claim. Aside from minor tweaks, it’s basically the same as before. That said, there is a 100 page “Schedule” attached. It includes: (a) names; (b) birthdates; (c) employment dates; (d) vaccination status; and (e) if any travel claims are being advanced. It still falls far short of the necessary information to proceed.

***Note: to prevent doxing, the personal information in the “Schedule” will not be published.

Aside from the bare-bones nature of the information, it’s now only being provided in September, 2025. The original Claim was filed in May, 2022. And it still covers less than half of the remaining Plaintiffs. Why wasn’t client information sought out 4 years ago?

But that is only the beginning of the problems here.

“Wrongful Termination” Suit Alleges Arbitrary Detention

At its core, Adelberg is a mass Tort for wrongful termination. It claimed that some 600+ Federal employees and employees of Federally regulated industries were fired or forced out for refusing vaccination. There were also vague claims about travel rights being infringed.

However, for some unknown reason, counsel has decided to plead that Plaintiffs’ Section 9 Charter rights were also violated in the process. This is the prohibition against arbitrary arrest or detention.

The Statement of Claim is very disjointed, so it’s hard to follow at times. But it appears to state that requiring the injection pass to obtain goods or services, or to travel, amounts to arbitrary detention. Apparently it violated Plaintiffs’ rights to address this by way of habeas corpus.

***Apologies for not catching it before, as it was in the earlier version. However, there were so many flaws that it got overlooked.

The pleading goes off on tangents about topics unrelated to work or travel. Despite those being the priorities, they receive little attention.

Lawsuit Fails To IDENTIFY All Plaintiffs

There are 46 “John Does” in the Statement of Claim, and another 23 “Jane Does”. Quite literally, there are dozens of Plaintiffs asking for money who refuse to identify themselves. Amusingly, it includes 17 current and former police officers who won’t give their names.

As should be obvious, this is complete nonsense.

Amended Claim Doesn’t Plead Necessary Facts Or Particulars

JURISDICTION PLEAD FACTS PLEAD PARTICULARS
Federal Court Rule 174 Rule 181
Alberta Rule 13.6 Rule 13.7
British Columbia Rule 3-1(2)(a) Rule 3-7(17)
Manitoba Rule 25.06(1) Rule 25.06(11)
Nova Scotia Rule 38.02(2) and (3) Rule 38.03(3)
Ontario Rule 25.06(1) Rule 25.06(8)

Frequent readers will have seen this chart.

“Pleading facts” means laying out who said or did what, when and where. It doesn’t mean arguing caselaw, or trying to test evidence.

“Pleading particulars” is required when Plaintiffs are alleging fraud, malice, malfeasance, etc… There’s an extra burden to spell out the nature of the allegation.

No Facts Pleaded For s.2(a) Freedom Of Religion Torts

Despite the sweeping declarations, not a single Plaintiff actually pleads any detail about how their religious freedoms were violated with introduction of vaccine mandates. This tort has specific elements to plead, and it’s not optional.

(1) that he or she sincerely believes in a practice or belief that has a nexus with religion, and
(2) that the impugned state conduct interferes, in a manner that is non‑trivial or not insubstantial, with his or her ability to act in accordance with that practice or belief

https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2017/2017fc1092/2017fc1092.html#22
https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2017/2017scc54/2017scc54.html#par68

No Facts Pleaded For s.6, Mobility Rights Torts

Despite allegations that travel and mobility rights had been violated, no Plaintiff specifies any instance of this happening. This is regardless of whether international travel, s.6(1), or interprovincial travel, s.6(2) is considered. No one pleads either tort.

For Section 6(1), Canadian citizens have the right: (a) to enter; (b) remain in; and (c) leave Canada. Litigants would have to prove that at least one of these was violated.

For Section 6(2), citizens and permanent residents have interprovincial mobility rights to obtain a livelihood in any Province they wish. They would have to claim that discrimination comes from where they reside.

(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.

https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2013/2013scc47/2013scc47.html#par18
https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1997/1997canlii17020/1997canlii17020.html#par51

No Facts Pleaded For s.7, Security Of The Person Torts

No Plaintiff pleads any facts to establish that their safety was in danger from these mandates. It’s worth pointing out that Courts have consistently refused to find “practicing a specific profession” as worthy of s.7 protections. This dates back to the 1990s. Unsurprisingly, lawyers argue torts they know will be thrown out.

(1) Plaintiff must plead facts to establish a deprivation of their right to life, right to liberty or right to security of the person, and
(2) the claim must then set out facts to show that any deprivation of these rights was effected in a manner contrary to the principles of fundamental justice.

https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2022/2022onsc2732/2022onsc2732.html#par69
https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2017/2017onsc2312/2017onsc2312.html#par30

No Facts Pleaded For s.9, Arbitrary Detention/Imprisonment Torts

As stated earlier, there’s no indication that any Plaintiffs are claiming that they were detained, let alone arbitrarily. This tort doesn’t apply in the context of wrongful dismissal. Supposedly it applies when dealing with people obtaining goods or services, or travelling, but it’s not explained how.

(1) Plaintiff must have been detained or imprisoned, and
(2) that detainment or imprisonment must have been arbitrary

No Facts Pleaded For s.15, Equality Rights Torts

Not a single Plaintiff pleads any facts that they were subjected to any humiliating or dehumanizing treatment from their “unvaccinated” status. Theoretically, it may be able to get it added as an “analogous ground”, but counsel makes no effort to do that.

Enumerated grounds: explicitly stated in the Charter
Analogous grounds: other ones Courts have endorsed over the years.

ENUMERATED GROUND ANALOGOUS GROUND
Explicitly In Charter Recognized By Courts
Race Sexual Orientation
National/Ethnic Origin Marital Status
Colour Off-Reserve Band Member
Religion Citizenship
Sex –
Age –
Mental/Physical Disability –

(1) on its face or in its impact, the state action creates a distinction based on a prohibited ground (either enumerated or analogous); and
(2) the state action imposes burdens or denies a benefit in a manner that has the effect of reinforcing, perpetuating or exacerbating disadvantage

https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2022/2022onsc2732/2022onsc2732.html#par80
https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2021/2021onca534/2021onca534.html#par133

No Facts Pleaded For Miscellaneous Torts

There are several general torts included in the Statement of Claim.
(a) Malfeasance of public office
(b) Intimidation (through 3rd parties)
(c) Conspiracy
(d) Intentional infliction of mental anguish

However, there’s still the same problem. Not a single Plaintiff pleads anything that would theoretically support such claims advancing. The “Schedule” attached covers less than half the Plaintiffs, and is limited to:

  • Name
  • Employer
  • Birthdate
  • Date employment started
  • Date required to take injections
  • Date sent home without pay
  • Date fired or resigned
  • Damages (if quantifiable)
  • Travel restrictions

There’s nothing to indicate what religious beliefs any of the Plaintiffs follow, and how they were impacted. There’s nothing specific outlining any travel plans that were disrupted. No one describes how the security of their bodies was threatened if they refused. There’s no information that clearly explains how any tort is engaged.

And of course, no Plaintiff alleges details of arbitrary arrest.

The Claim still fails to include nearly all of the required information. For all the declarations of a “conspiracy”, there’s very little concrete information to go off of. From a procedural point of view, Defendants need to know what they are being accused of.

Now, let’s move on to the other cases: Action4Canada and Dorceus.

Action4Canada Faces Another Application To Strike

In August, 2022, Action4Canada’s pleading was struck as “bad beyond argument“. Then it was appealed, unsuccessfully, for no coherent reason. Now, there is a shorter version available, but the same problems remain.

(1) A4C Amended Claim Application To Strike VIHA
(2) A4C Amended Claim Application To Strike Kwok Translink
(3) A4C Amended Claim Application To Strike Federal Defendants
(4) A4C Amended Claim Application To Strike Provincial Defendants

Dorceus Appeal Will Go Absolutely Nowhere

December, 2024, a massive healthcare workers case in Ontario was struck as “bad beyond argument“. All claims against the Government and unionized employers were completely struck, though the non-union ones could be sued individually.

While this is being appealed, it seems unlikely to change anything.

(1) Dorceus Appellants Factum
(2) Dorceus AG Respondents Factum

Limitation Period Expires For CSASPP Defamation Appeal

As an aside, the 60 day limitation period has lapsed to seek permission to appeal with the Supreme Court of Canada. Free speech prevails here.

Frivolous Cases Waste Donor/Client Money

These grift lawsuits date back to 2020, and continue to waste time, money and energy. Filing Claims that fail to meet any basic level of professionalism does no one any favours — except Government officials.

Appealing, instead of amending, doesn’t help clients. It only works to delay and derail opportunities to hold people accountable.

Is there merit to the Plaintiffs’ demands? Quite likely, yes. When they say they were forced out of their jobs, or prohibited from travelling, most (if not all) are telling the truth. On the surface, there’s no reason to doubt the sincerity of any of them.

That said, these pleadings are so poorly written that none of these cases will ever get to Trial. It is entirely the fault of the people drafting the papers.

And groups like The Democracy Fund and JCCF are publicly silent about all this.

But there is a solution: go after lawyers’ insurance money.

(1) Adelberg Fresh As Amended Statement Of Claim NO SCHEDULE

Posted on

Bill S-224: Lowering The Burden To Prosecute Human Trafficking (Died In Last Session)

Senator Salma Ataullahjan introduced Bill S-224 back in late 2021. It cleared the Senate, and Second Reading in the House of Commons. In fact, it came very close to getting passed.

Put simply, it would have amended the Criminal Code to make it easier for police to lay charges in cases of suspected human trafficking. It would have removed an element of the offence — fear for one’s safety — thus lowering the burden. There was a surprisingly vocal set of opponents fighting against it.

Broadly speaking, “trafficking” would fall into 2 major categories: (a) sex work, such as pornography or prostitution; or (b) forced labour in general. Participants in the 2023 study focused on the former.

***It’s true that this Bill died when the last session of Parliament ended. That being said, legislation that doesn’t advance is often brought back at later times. This may be one such case.

What Would Bill S-224 Actually Change?

Exploitation
279.04 (1) For the purposes of sections 279.01 to 279.03, a person exploits another person if they cause them to provide, or offer to provide, labour or a service by engaging in conduct that, in all the circumstances, could reasonably be expected to cause the other person to believe that their safety or the safety of a person known to them would be threatened if they failed to provide, or offer to provide, the labour or service.

Factors
279.04 (2) In determining whether an accused exploits another person under subsection (1), the Court may consider, among other factors, whether the accused
(a) used or threatened to use force or another form of coercion;
(b) used deception; or
(c) abused a position of trust, power or authority.

The proposed Bill S-224 would remove the requirement that victims fear for their safety if they don’t comply with the demands.

Exploitation
279.‍04 (1) For the purposes of sections 279.‍01 to 279.‍03, a person exploits another person if they engage in conduct that
(a) causes the other person to provide or offer to provide labour or a service; and
(b) involves, in relation to any person, the use or threatened use of force or another form of coercion, the use of deception or fraud, the abuse of a position of trust, power or authority, or any other similar act.
(2) Subsection 279.‍04(2) of the Act is repealed.

Critics claim that taking out that requirement will make it easier for police to charge third parties for the so-called “legitimate” work they may be involved with.

Opposition To S-224 Framed As “Protecting Rights”

Some of the “solutions” being proposed are:

  • Reject Bill S-224 in its entirety.
  • Decriminalize/legalize sex work.
  • Support non-carceral forms of safety, including decent and affordable housing for all, restorative and transformative justice initiatives, and community-based anti-violence programs geared toward preventing gendered violence and supporting survivors.
  • Invest in community initiatives run by and for people working in the sex industry that are non directive and based in human rights, and not focused on “exiting” sex work. Programs contingent on people stopping or “exiting” sex work or that have eligibility requirements fail to address the complexity of sex workers’ lives.
  • Invest in Indigenous community initiatives, migrant worker community initiatives, and youth based initiatives that furnish people with networks of community support that undercut the precarity and vulnerability that place people in vulnerable situations.
  • Ensure full and permanent immigration status for all in Canada, without exception.

Advocates who oppose Bill S-224 are quick to point out that sex work isn’t necessarily exploitative by nature. They then go on to demand housing for all, and immigration status for all.

Bill S-224 Opposed By Ford Government

Bizarrely, one of the strongest opponents is the Ontario Government, currently headed by Doug Ford.

Keep in mind, Ford had no problem spending endless amounts of money a few years back. He sent the police to shut down businesses, enforce stay-at-home orders, mask mandates, vaccine mandates, etc…. But his administration objects to changes of law that would make it easier to pursue human traffickers.

In their brief to Parliament, it’s lamented how the inevitable legal challenges would be wasteful, and a poor use of taxpayer money. It’s rationalized that because the current laws are constitutional, they don’t need to be tweaked.

Overall, this is a very strange hill to die on. One would think that special interest groups would be fighting for more aggressive laws to jail such people. Considering the focus on how much exploitation there is in immigrant and poorer communities, wouldn’t such changes be welcomed?

Sure, other groups sent in brief in support of S-224, but they’re not the concern.

It’s worth mentioning that organizations opposing this Bill receive taxpayer subsidies.

(1) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/44-1/s-224
(2) https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/S-224/third-reading
(3) https://sencanada.ca/en/senators/ataullahjan-salma/
(4) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Committees/en/JUST/StudyActivity?studyActivityId=12111640
(5) https://parlvu.parl.gc.ca/Harmony/en/PowerBrowser/PowerBrowserV2/20230612/-1/39495?gefdesc=&startposition=20230612164645
(6) Bill S-224 Brief Butterfly HIV Legal
(7) Bill S-224 Brief CASWLR
(8) Bill S-224 Brief Joint Criminologists
(9) Bill S-224 Brief Ontario Government
(10) Bill S-224 Brief Ontario Native Women
(11) Bill S-224 Brief Vincent Wong
(12) Bill S-224 Brief West Coast LEAF

Private Member Bills In PREVIOUS Session:
(1) Bill C-206: Decriminalizing Self Maiming To Avoid Military Service
(2) Bill C-207: Creating The “Right” To Affordable Housing
(3) Bill C-219: Creating Environmental Bill Of Rights
(4) Bill C-226: Creating A Strategy For Environmental Racism/Justice
(5) Bill C-229: Banning Symbols Of Hate, Without Defining Them
(6) Bill C-235: Building Of A Green Economy In The Prairies
(7) Bill C-245: Entrenching Climate Change Into Canada Infrastructure Bank
(8) Bill C-250: Imposing Prison Time For Holocaust Denial
(9) Bill C-261: Red Flag Laws For “Hate Speech”
(10.1) Bill C-293: Domestic Implementation Of Int’l Pandemic Treaty
(10.2) Bill C-293: Concerns Raised In Hearings Over Food Supplies
(10.3) Bill C-293: Lobbying Interests Behind Nathaniel Erskine-Smith
(11) Bill C-312: Development Of National Renewable Energy Strategy
(12) Bill C-315: Amending CPPIB Act Over “Human, Labour, Environmental Rights”
(13) Bill C-367: Removing Religious Exemptions Protecting Against Antisemitism
(14) Bill C-373: Removing Religious Exemptions Protecting Against Antisemitism 2.0
(15) Bill C-388: Fast Tracking Weapons, Energy, Gas To Ukraine
(16) Bill C-390: Expanding Euthanasia Into PROVINCIAL Frameworks
(17) Bills C-398/C-399: Homeless Encampments, Immigration “Equity”
(18) Bill C-413: Prison Time Proposed For Residential School “Denialism”
(19.1) Bill S-210: Women’s Legal Action & Education Fund
(19.2) Bill S-210: Yukon Status Of Women Council Against Restrictions
(20) Bill S-215: Protecting Financial Stability Of Post-Secondary Institutions
(21) Bill S-243: Climate Related Finance Act, Banking Acts
(22) Bill S-248: Removing Final Consent For Euthanasia
(23) Bill S-257: Protecting Political Belief Or Activity As Human Rights
(24) Bill S-275: Adding “Sustainable And Equitable Prosperity” To Bank Of Canada Act

Posted on

Boulachanis: Murderer, Trafficker And Escapee Sent To Women’s Prison

It’s bad enough that male convicts can simply game the system to ensure they’re placed with women. It seems that even being a convicted murderer, a narcotics trafficker, or having a history of escaping isn’t necessarily enough to prevent it. Nor are allegations of sexual assault while in custody. Regardless of circumstances, women simply don’t have rights to assert.

This covers John Boulachanis, who now goes by Jamie Boulachanis. He had previously been involved in drug trafficking, and murdered an accomplice he feared would turn him in.

Bagnald, Blackplume and Patterson were looked at previously.

In a convoluted decision, Justice Sébastien Grammond of the Federal Court allowed him to be transferred, at least until the issue was finally worked out. However, the Federal Court of Appeal stayed that decision.

Boulachanis Is Murderer With Previous Escape

[17] Upon her return to Canada, Ms. Boulachanis was charged with first‑degree murder and detained in provincial custody. In 2013, she managed to escape while being transported in a prison van, but was caught soon after. After going through a metal detector, she handed over saw blades, handcuff keys and part of a screwdriver hidden in her body cavities. In 2015, a search of her cell turned up a variety of objects and instruments that could be used to escape, including braided ropes, handmade handcuffs and tools. She was also convicted of obstructing justice for inducing witnesses to lie during her murder trial.

From Justice Grammond’s own reasons, Boulachanis had escaped custody previously, and had the tools to do so another time. He was still allowed to be in a women’s jail. Additionally, he had fled the country, and was only apprehended when he returned.

According to the Federal Court, Boulachanis lived under false identities in Greece, the United States, and elsewhere in Canada. Another reason to view him as a security risk.

Tortured Logic Coming From Federal Court

[30] To determine whether Ms. Boulachanis presented a strong prima facie case, it can be helpful to begin by reviewing the positions of the parties. Ms. Boulachanis’s position is straightforward: keeping her in a men’s institution is discriminatory, and in addition, this violates the interim policy. Since she is legally a woman, she has the strict right to be accommodated in a women’s institution.

[31] On the contrary, the Attorney General’s argument is based on the exception that appears in the interim policy. He argues that Ms. Boulachanis’s case, because of her high risk of escape, raises “overriding health or safety concerns which cannot be resolved.” The decision to keep Ms. Boulachanis in a men’s institution would be the result of weighing her right to equality against the objectives of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, SC 1992, c 20 [the CCRA], namely those regarding public safety. Citing the decision in Doré v Barreau du Québec, 2012 SCC 12, [2012] 1 SCR 395 [Doré], the Attorney General argues that the outcome of this weighing exercise was reasonable.

[35] In our society, certain facilities or areas are often reserved for men or for women. Reconciling these deeply entrenched practices with the right to equality of trans people often raises challenges. Nevertheless, there is prima facie discrimination when a trans person is forced to use facilities reserved for people of their anatomical sex, when they do not correspond to their gender identity or expression: see, for example, Sheridan and Kavanagh. Such an approach is consistent with a perspective based on individual autonomy in gender identity and expression.

[36] Thus, Ms. Boulachanis was subject to prima facie discrimination because of her gender identity or expression, given that she was denied a transfer to a women’s institution, even though that is what corresponds to her current gender identity and expression and the designation of sex that now appears on her act of birth. That was also the conclusion of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal in Kavanagh, at paragraph 141. The interim policy the Service adopted in December 2017 was also based on the idea that respecting the right to equality of trans people required that their choice to be in a men or women’s institution be respected.

[37] Ms. Boulachanis was also subject to prima facie discrimination from another perspective. While all inmates undergo a risk assessment to determine their security classification, it is only in the case of trans women inmates that the Service use this assessment to deny them the possibility of being accommodated in a women’s institution. A cisgender woman who presented just as great a risk as Ms. Boulachanis would automatically be sent to a women’s institution. That is another reason for a finding of prima facie discrimination.

[40] In this case, the Attorney General is not claiming that the simple presence of trans women in women’s institutions would cause undue hardship. It appears that the adoption of the interim policy, which clearly provides for this presence, implicitly set aside the arguments that, more than fifteen years ago, led to the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal’s finding in Kavanagh, at paragraphs 155–160.

[41] What the Attorney General is arguing is that accommodating trans women inmates in a women’s institution must be subject to an assessment of the level of risk to health and safety. To justify this condition that would be applied only to trans women inmates, the Attorney General strongly insists on the fact that men and women’s institutions do not meet the same security requirements. In particular, the evidence clearly shows that the construction standards are different and that the use of firearms to ensure safety is prohibited in all women’s institutions, whereas it is allowed in men’s institutions, depending on their security level. These differences in the design and operation of the two categories of institution apparently reflect the fact that men are, in general, more dangerous than women, that the criminal behaviour of men and women is different, and that women may benefit from a different correctional approach based on their specific needs. In this regard, the policy adopted by the Service is largely inspired by the report of Justice Louise Arbour concerning the riot that occurred at the Kingston women’s prison in 1994 (Commission of Inquiry into Certain Events at the Prison for Women in Kingston, Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada, 1996).

[42] I have no difficulty accepting the fact that it is appropriate to separate men and women in a correctional environment and that it is appropriate to implement less strict security measures in response to the different situation of women. But that is not the issue. The real issue is to determine whether, in a context where it is justified to keep separate institutions for men and women, Ms. Boulachanis should be treated as a man or as a woman.

[45] I find it hard to believe that physical capability is so important in assessing the risk posed by an inmate that, for that reason alone, trans women inmates must be treated as men. Furthermore, I note that the assessment to determine Ms. Boulachanis’s security classification makes no mention of her physical capabilities.

[48] In the absence of a reliable scientific basis, we are reduced to speculation, which is fertile ground for discriminatory prejudice. At the hearing, the Attorney General made certain hypotheses about the physical and psychological effects of the various phases of the sex reassignment process on risk and dangerousness. I have serious doubts about the validity of such hypotheses. Moreover, we should also consider the social effects of this process, in particular on the ability to maintain relationships with potential accomplices or criminal networks.

It’s worth pointing out that the Attorney General isn’t challenging the policy in any way. In other words, there’s no issue in principle with men being in women’s prisons. It’s only that this specific one cause security risks.

The Judge doesn’t think that just because Boulachanis is a man, that he should be treated as such.

Another noteworthy point is that there appears to be no concern for the well being of the female inmates at the prison.

Timeline Of Major Events In Case

August 9, 1997: John Boulachanis is charged with first degree murder of Robert Tanguay.

1998 to 2011: Boulachanis lives under various assumed names, and in other countries. He is eventually arrested after returning to Canada.

September 2016: Over several days, a Jordan Application is argued. The Defendant says that his rights have been violated due to the extensive delays in prosecuting him.

October 6th, 2016: The Quebec Court denies the Jordan Application to stay the case.

October 27th, 2016: Quebec Superior Court permitted the testimony of a certain witness to be admitted at Trial, but with limiting instructions to be issued when the time came.

November 29th, 2016: The Quebec Court refuses a request to get certain prosecution statements removed from the record.

December 17th, 2016: Boulachanis is convicted, receives automatic life sentence.

January 20th, 2017: Quebec Court of Appeal agrees to expedite a challenge to the sentence.

January, 2019: Now serving a life sentence, Boulachanis begins taking synthetic hormones.

April 11th, 2019: Boulachanis has a hearing Federal Court. The prison staff refused his request to be transferred to a female prison. They do however refer to him as “Jamie”.

April 15th, 2019: Federal Court orders that Boulachanis can be transferred to a women’s prison for the time being.

April 23rd, 2019: Federal Court of Appeal hears argument that Boulachanis should stay where he is, and that female prisons are not designed to hold someone like him.

April 24th, 2019: Federal Court of Appeal stays the transfer pending final determination of the original Application.

January 8th, 2020: Quebec Court of Appeal rejects an Appeal of 2016 decision that refused the Jordan Application.

January 11th 2021: Boulachanis is transferred to Joliette Women’s Institution. Despite the FCA overturning Justice Grammond’s ruling, he’s in with women. Presumably, it was settled internally.

December 16th, 2021: Supreme Court of Canada grants an extension of time to file material for an Application for Leave to Appeal, but denies the Application itself. This was over the order which refused to stay his case for delay.

September 25th, 2024: CSC conducted a reassessment of his security clearance, which was currently at a “moderate” level.

The case didn’t end in 2021. Boulachanis filed a Habeas Corpus Application, which was refused. His security classification was raised, due to an incident of him trafficking morphine within the prison. As a result, he risked being sent back to a men’s prison.

Ultimately, the Court refused to get involved in the case, stating they were not the “arbiters of the institutional day-to-day”.

In any event, he never had any business being locked up with women, regardless of the other security risks he posed.

COURT DECISIONS (TRANSFER):
(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2019/2019fc456/2019fc456.html
(2) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fca/doc/2019/2019fca100/2019fca100.html
(3) https://www.canlii.org/fr/qc/qccs/doc/2025/2025qccs1049/2025qccs1049.html

COURT DECISIONS (MURDER CASE):
(1) https://www.canlii.org/fr/qc/qccs/doc/2016/2016qccs6867/2016qccs6867.html
(2) https://www.canlii.org/fr/qc/qccs/doc/2016/2016qccs6876/2016qccs6876.html
(3) https://www.canlii.org/fr/qc/qccs/doc/2016/2016qccs6877/2016qccs6877.html
(4) https://www.canlii.org/fr/qc/qccs/doc/2016/2016qccs6879/2016qccs6879.html
(5) https://www.canlii.org/fr/qc/qcca/doc/2017/2017qcca66/2017qcca66.html
(6) https://www.canlii.org/en/qc/qcca/doc/2020/2020qcca4/2020qcca4.html
(7) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc-l/doc/2021/2021canlii129761/2021canlii129761.html

Posted on

“Lucy” Blackplume: Declared A Dangerous Offender By ABCA In 2021

In early 2021, the Court of Appeal for Alberta overturned a Provincial Court ruling which spared a man an indeterminate sentence. Although this case is a few years old, it’s worth reminding people what some men are capable of, all while masquerading as women.

The perpetrator is Josiah Jerome Blackplume, who now goes by the name Lucy Blackplume.

It’s implied that the Gladue-Ipeelee principles are what kept Blackplume (at least in part) from initially being declared a dangerous offender. However, the Court of Appeal seems to disagree on the extent.

[15] The sentencing judge reviewed Gladue-Ipeelee sentencing principles for Indigenous offenders, and noted the link between residential schools and the over-representation of Indigenous peoples in corrections. Correctional institutions, in the sentencing judge’s view, have failed to develop humane secure housing and treatment for Indigenous and mentally ill offenders. Citing the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal decision in R v CPS, 2006 SKCA 78 for its factual similarities, the sentencing judge endorsed the perspective that offenders such as Ms Blackplume are more appropriately treated from a mental health rather than correctional perspective. Referring to the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Ewert v Canada, 2018 SCC 30, she observed that psychological risk assessment tools may be culturally biased when evaluating Indigenous offenders. In Ewert (at paras 59-60), the Court stated that correctional institutions must provide programs that are culturally responsive to the needs and circumstances of Indigenous offenders.

Here’s the short version: following his latest convictions, the Crown sought to have Blackplume declared a dangerous offender. The Provincial Court Judge refused, despite meeting the criteria, and his extensive history of violence. He was instead given a 10 year sentence. That was overturned by the Court of Appeal, issuing an indeterminate one instead.

His criminal record includes the following:

  • October 24th, 2008 (conviction date): Aggravated Sexual Assault on a Minor
  • May 10th, 2012: Attempted Sexual Assault with a Weapon
  • May 23th, 2012: Sexual Assault
  • October 6, 2014 (conviction date): Fraud over $5,000, receiving benefits while incarcerated
  • February 12th, 2015: Sexual Assault with a Weapon
  • February 12th, 2015: Assault Causing Bodily Harm
  • August 14th, 2015: Assault Causing Bodily Harm

Keep in mind, both the Provincial Court of Alberta and the Alberta Court of Appeal will continuously refer to this person as a “woman”. This is beyond insulting.

[26] Ms. Blackplumes’s first conviction was recorded in Youth Court on October 24, 2008. As a 17-year old, she (Josiah) committed an aggravated sexual assault on a three-year-old girl. Intoxicated and walking to her girlfriend’s home in Standoff, Josiah noticed an open door in the victim’s home. Josiah entered and saw the victim on a living room couch. She approached and penetrated the child’s vagina with an index finger and the penis, also striking the child three times on the face with the back of the hand. The child’s aunt returned and Josiah fled out the front door. The young girl was naked, crying and bleeding from the vaginal area. Ms. Blackplume pled guilty to the offence and was sentenced to 18 months’ Intensive Rehabilitative Custody and 18 months’ conditional supervision.

[30] Ms. Blackplume has almost a 12-year history of life in these institutions: Calgary Young Offender Centre (CYOC), Alberta Hospital, Edmonton, Calgary Remand Centre (CRC), Edmonton Remand Centre (ERC), Saskatoon Corrections Centre (SCC), Saskatchewan Penitentiary, Bowden Institution, Southern Alberta Forensic Psychiatry Centre (SAFPC) and Regional Psychiatric Centre. Her time in these institutions is notable for many periods of segregation, isolation or observation, most often in response to Ms. Blackplume’s anxiety, depressed mood or suicidal ideation, gestures, threats or attempts, but also when she has been assaultive or sexually inappropriate with other inmates, or found trafficking, sometimes with her own stockpiled medications.

[31] On her Youth Court IRCS sentence, she (Josiah) was discharged early from Alberta Hospital, Edmonton, due to repeated inappropriate contact with female patients, in what was seen to be grooming behaviour.

The ruling itself is extremely graphic, and states in considerable detail the crimes Blackplume has both been convicted of, and otherwise suspected of.

At 17 years old, Blackplume beat and raped his girlfriend’s toddler child.

He has committed other sexual assaults, and has used weapons in doing so.

There are also references to drug trafficking, in the form of selling his medications.

While in prison, Blackplume was psychologically evaluated. The reports make it pretty clear that he will never be an asset to society, and will always be a danger.

  • Static encephalopathy, Ms. Blackplume’s brain damage, never changes, is a lifelong condition.
  • For her safety and the safety of others, Ms. Blackplume requires an external adult brain supervising her 24 hours a day for the rest of her life.
  • She does not have the ability to rely on past experience to guide future choices.
  • Ms. Blackplume appears to be much higher functioning than she is.
  • Cognitive Behavioural Therapy will not benefit Ms. Blackplume (despite all indications that she may have understood the programming).
  • Play therapy, pet therapy and music therapy can be used to fill her days and therefore manage her behaviour.
  • She is incapable of developing insight or empathy.
  • She is not able to understand that the act of forced sex on an unwilling or uncooperative person is wrong.
  • She is not able to understand that sex with minors is wrong.
  • With careful social scripting to participate in structured social outings, such as going fishing, working on fence posts on a farm, or playing the guitar with another person, she would be very successful.
  • The Wellspring program, although designed for lower functioning participants, is cognitive behavioural therapy and, therefore, will not work for Ms. Blackplume.
  • Pet, play and music therapy are not available in a secure hospital setting due to a lack of funding.

While the evaluations (accurately) point out the many defects and dysfunctions that Blackplume has, there is the elephant in the room: he’s a man, but thinks he’s a woman. It would be interesting to know to what degree these synthetic “hormones” have messed with his cognitive function.

Much of the Court submissions hinged on whether it could be considered cruel and unusual punishment (a Section 12 Charter violation) to indefinitely lock someone up with such limited intellect. Ultimately though, the Court of Appeal did just that.

In an odd twist, the court decisions don’t state that Blackplume has expressed any desire to go to a women’s prison. And all for the best, anyway.

If he really is mentally deficient to the point that he doesn’t understand that forcing sex on unwilling people (especially children) is wrong, then euthanasia probably is the best option for everyone.

(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abpc/doc/2019/2019abpc273/2019abpc273.html
(2) https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abca/doc/2021/2021abca2/2021abca2.html

*Disclaimers, Ethics* Proudly powered by WordPress