Category: Tort/Contract

Posted on

Kulvinder Gill’s Frivolous And Vexatious Claim Dismissed As A SLAPP

“[17] I also conclude that these claims are precisely ones that are of the kind that s. 137.1 is designed to discourage and screen out. ”

“[58] For greater clarity, I view all of the expressions or statements complained of by the Plaintiffs to have been made on matters of public interest. The test required by s. 137.1 has been applied to each in order to determine the appropriate result. In each case, I should be taken to have accepted and adopted fully the submissions advanced on behalf of each of the Defendants.” – Justice Stewart

A $12.75 million defamation lawsuit filed in December 2020 has been ended. The Ontario Superior Court ruled that it fully met the criteria for being classified as a SLAPP, and was dismissed. Kulvinder Gill and Ashvinder Lamba demanded millions in damages from online words. They literally tried to bankrupt people they disagreed with on platforms like Twitter.

Perhaps bragging about it in the national papers wasn’t the best idea.

The substance of this came from online postings related to restricting people’s freedoms, and what pharmaceuticals were best during a “pandemic”. (It’s fake, but that’s a discussion for another time).

In a 51 page ruling, Justice Elizabeth Stewart said that it was exactly the sort of case which anti-SLAPP laws were designed for. The sheer number of Defendants, 23, and the amount of money sought was staggering. Despite this, the Plaintiffs never produced any real evidence of damages to justify the millions they demanded.

To be blunt, this case appears to be frivolous and vexatious.

Considering how this came about, and all of the racism accusations leveled in the Statement of Claim, Gill and Lamba are very lucky they weren’t countersued for defamation. The Defendants would have had a much stronger case. Nonetheless, this lawsuit never stood a chance, if it even made it to trial.

A Quick Introduction To Civil Procedure

There are several sections of the Rules of Civil Procedure for Ontario which permit cases to be ended early. Truly meritless Claims and Applications clog up the system, and deserve to be removed.

  • Rule 2.1.01(6) this allows the Registrar to stay or dismiss a proceeding if the proceeding appears on its face to be frivolous or vexatious or otherwise an abuse of the process of the court
  • Rule 20: this covers Summary Judgement Applications. Either side can file for one, if it appears that either there is no case, or no valid defense. Appropriate when there are no major issues to resolve
  • Rule 21.01: in order to expedite a case, permits: (a) for the determination, before trial, of a question of law raised by a pleading in an action where the determination of the question may dispose of all or part of the action, substantially shorten the trial or result in a substantial saving of costs; or (b) to strike out a pleading on the ground that it discloses no reasonable cause of action or defense
  • Rule 24: if Plaintiffs are unnecessarily delaying the proceedings, and this can happen in different stages, the Court has the discretion to dismiss it
  • Rule 25.11: an option to strike the pleadings — which does not amount to trying the case — if a pleading is frivolous, scandalous, vexatious, or otherwise an abuse of process

Rule 2.1.01(6) is meant for a Registrar, or low-level official. This is restricted to the very obvious cases. The others involve higher standards, and are meant for Justices, Judges or Associate Judges.

In the case of defamation lawsuits, Section 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act provides another remedy. If a Plaintiff is using the Courts as a weapon to silence discourse on an important public issue, this can be stopped by filing an anti-SLAPP Motion.

SLAPP Means Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation

This isn’t unique to Ontario. There are other Provinces and U.S. States which have very similar laws on the books, and the principles are much the same.

Prevention of Proceedings that Limit Freedom of Expression on Matters of Public Interest (Gag Proceedings)
.
Dismissal of proceeding that limits debate
.
Purposes
.
137.1 (1) The purposes of this section and sections 137.2 to 137.5 are,
.
(a) to encourage individuals to express themselves on matters of public interest;
(b) to promote broad participation in debates on matters of public interest;
(c) to discourage the use of litigation as a means of unduly limiting expression on matters of public interest; and
(d) to reduce the risk that participation by the public in debates on matters of public interest will be hampered by fear of legal action.

Once a SLAPP Motion is brought forward, it freezes everything else. Nothing can happen until this is resolved, which includes possible appeals to the higher Court(s).

It’s important to note that anti-SLAPP applies to speech that’s of a public interest matter. It doesn’t apply to disputes over private issues. Once the Defendant(s) satisfy the Court that the speech is of a public matter, the burden then shifts to the Plaintiff(s). To prevent dismissal, Judge or Justice must be convinced there are grounds to believe that:

  1. the proceeding has substantial merit, and
  2. the moving party has no valid defence in the proceeding; and
  3. the harm likely to be or have been suffered by the responding party as a result of the moving party’s expression is sufficiently serious that the public interest in permitting the proceeding to continue outweighs the public interest in protecting that expression.

If the Plaintiff cannot meet all 3 parts of this test, then the case qualifies as a SLAPP. Here, the Court found that they didn’t meet even a single prong of the test. As such, the Court had no choice but to dismiss the case. And as the Justice stated, the laws were designed for cases like this.

The Ontario Libel & Slander Act has built in provisions which allow for the protection of certain categories of speech. These include fair comment and qualified privilege, which were heavily referenced in the Decision.

Justification
.
22 In an action for libel or slander for words containing two or more distinct charges against the plaintiff, a defence of justification shall not fail by reason only that the truth of every charge is not proved if the words not proved to be true do not materially injure the plaintiff’s reputation having regard to the truth of the remaining charges

Fair comment
.
23 In an action for libel or slander for words consisting partly of allegations of fact and partly of expression of opinion, a defence of fair comment shall not fail by reason only that the truth of every allegation of fact is not proved if the expression of opinion is fair comment having regard to such of the facts alleged or referred to in the words complained of as are proved.

Fair comment
.
24 Where the defendant published defamatory matter that is an opinion expressed by another person, a defence of fair comment by the defendant shall not fail for the reason only that the defendant or the person who expressed the opinion, or both, did not hold the opinion, if a person could honestly hold the opinion.

Communications on Public Interest Matters
Application of qualified privilege
.
25 Any qualified privilege that applies in respect of an oral or written communication on a matter of public interest between two or more persons who have a direct interest in the matter applies regardless of whether the communication is witnessed or reported on by media representatives or other persons.

It’s important to know that there are safeguards written into the Act. These are just some of them. A free society can’t function properly if speech is weaponized like this.

Could This Dismissal Be Appealed?

In theory, yes. Rule 61.04 allows 30 days to file a Notice of Appeal. However, given how badly the case went, Gill and Lamba would have to be pretty dense to even try. It’s a high burden.

Housen v. Nikolaisen, 2002, sets out the standard for review of a decision. Broadly speaking, Appeals are heard because of an alleged error of fact or law.
(i) The standard of review for findings of fact is such that they cannot be reversed unless the trial judge has made a “palpable and overriding error”. A palpable error is one that is plainly seen.
(ii) By contrast, a possible error of law is treated “de novo”, and looked at as if hadn’t been ruled on before. It might be viewed as a lower standard.

The reasoning behind “giving deference” to the factual findings is that the Judge is there, and more able to assess what’s going on. Also, there has to be some presumption of competence.

The Justice stated that there was no evidence of damages, the tweets were about public interest matters, and not defamatory. These are findings of fact, and unless something obvious is missed, not easy to challenge. In short, a hypothetical appeal would go absolutely nowhere.

What About Costs For The Defendants?

In the ruling, the Justice gave the Defendants 30 days to make submissions for costs. And here’s where things get more interesting.

There are 19 lawyers listed for the Defendants in the REASONS FOR DECISION. While it’s unclear how much the total fees are, it’s likely a lot. This case involved depositions, and a SLAPP Motion. Both of these are expensive and time consuming. Estimating an average $30,000 each — which may be at the low end — this case would have cost them over half a million to defend.

It’s quite possible that the Plaintiffs could each be on the hook for well over $100,000. Although most allegations didn’t involve Ashvinder Lamba, she clearly participated in the suit.

The final ruling made it clear that there was no evidence of damages, and that the issues addressed were public matters. Despite the tone in some of the messages, they were protected speech. The suit was frivolous and vexatious, so a stiff award can be expected.

What Exactly Started All Of This?

In the case of Gill and Lamba, this case arose largely over Twitter spats. The Plaintiffs (primarily Gill), got into arguments with people on Twitter, which later ended with her blocking them. I guess there’s a little Rempel in all of us.

These other people — who they later sued — were promoting vaccines and martial law measures, for a non-existent virus. Gill, to her credit, opposed these restrictions, but promoted alternative medicines, again for a non-existent virus. However, this was Twitter nonsense, and shouldn’t be taken seriously.

Instead of ignoring people if there was such a disagreement, Gill, Lamba, and their representative were documenting and archiving social media posts. To a casual observer, it appears as these may have been planned as a way of generating evidence. In the end, Gill and Lamba sued 23 doctors, media personalities, and media outlets, over relatively harmless comments.

One has to wonder if this was just an overreaction, or a calculated way to silence differing views. Most people supporting freedom want more speech available, not less.

Even on the miniscule chance that this lawsuit had been successful, what was the goal? Suing private parties doesn’t result in changes to public policy. There’s no way that any money (besides a nominal amount) would ever have been awarded. If anything, it makes lockdown objectors appear unprincipled, despite claiming to support freedom.

After the costs are paid, this won’t really be the end. Expect this decision to be a standard for dismissing meritless defamation claims. We now have a precedent of lockdown opponents trying — and failing — to silence and bankrupt their critics. Gill and Lamba will become very well known by lawyers, but for all the wrong reasons.

This isn’t to defend people like Abdu Sharkawy, and the quackery promoted. This site has exposed many of the hacks, and media payoffs. Nonetheless, this lawsuit did an enormous disservice to real resistance in Canada. The Plaintiffs can honestly say that they fought, and won, a baseless lawsuit.

If there is something positive in all of this, it’s that the Ontario Superior Court did throw out an abusive case because of the chilling effect it would have on public discourse. Read both the Statement of Claim, and Decision for more context. As absurd as these “health measures” are, throwing the suit out really was the right decision.

(1) Gill & Lamba v. Maciver decision CV-20-652918-0000 – 24 Feb 2022
(2) Gill & Lamba Defamation Lawsuit
(3) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/regu/rro-1990-reg-194/latest
(4) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-c43/latest/rso-1990-c-c43.html
(5) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2002/2002scc33/2002scc33.html
(6) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-l12/latest/rso-1990-c-l12.html
(7) https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-lawsuit-thrown-out-after-anti-vaccine-doctors-sue-over-challenges-to/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
(8) https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/doctor-who-said-canada-doesnt-need-covid-vaccine-calls-online-critics-hyenas-in-6-8m-libel-suit

Posted on

Delay Prevents Action4Canada Case From Being Immediately Thrown Out

Action4Canada and other Plaintiffs were supposed to be in Court on February 3rd, in order to address 2 Applications (here and here) filed back in January. But due to an extremely convenient medical illness, this has been pushed back until April 5th. It’s unclear why Lawrence Wong didn’t simply step up, as he’s been a B.C. lawyer since 1987.

Private matters generally aren’t worth covering. However, their August 2021 lawsuit is a very public case, and has involved soliciting public donations since 2020. It’s fair that people know its true status: that it’s on the verge of being struck.

For all the money that was sunk into getting this lawsuit off the ground, it never stood a chance.

It feels odd to have a previous piece age so well. Back in August 2021, this site critiqued the 391 page lawsuit filed by Action4Canada in Vancouver. The basic premise was that the Notice of Civil Claim was drafted so poorly, it didn’t stand a chance in hell of making it to trial.

To be more specific, the Notice of Claim didn’t follow (at all) Rules 3-1, and 3-7 of BC Civil Procedure. These outline how pleadings are to be drafted. The logical remedy — from the Defendants’ position — would be to file a Motion or Application to strike based on Rule 9-5. This rule allows cases to be struck for a number of reasons, including for being “frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process”. Pleadings can also be struck if they don’t disclose a reasonable cause of action.

To make a distinction here: dismissing and striking are not the same thing. Dismissing a case usually means a Judge has made a determination about the merits of the case. By contrast, striking means attacking the pleadings themselves.

For those wondering what “struck without leave to amend” means, here’s an explanation. Sometimes, the Court will “give leave” or permission, to make changes to the pleadings (allowing content to be added or deleted). This is typically meant for very minor issues. For serious problems, such as with this lawsuit, the defects are so extensive that the Court won’t allow it.

Anyone with a rudimentary understanding of civil procedure would have looked at Action4Canada’s case and saw where this was going.

Now the other shoe has dropped, and at least 2 Applications have been filed. The first is from the various Provincial Defendants, and the other from Vancouver Island Health Authority and Providence Health Care. They are trying to strike the case for essentially the same reasons outlined on this site back in August, 2021.

To state the obvious: this doesn’t mean supporting or advocating for the medical martial law measures that have gone on in the last 2 years.

Nonetheless, it’s pretty difficult to argue with the premise of the Application. Specifically, Defendants are trying to get the case struck as being “frivolous, scandalous, vexatious, prolix, and an abuse of process”. This isn’t just written in a shoddy manner, but it’s over-the-top ridiculous.

The Claim contains many pages of completely irrelevant material, seeks remedies outside the Court’s jurisdiction, and makes allegations against people who aren’t parties (and presumably haven’t been subpoenaed). It’s also extremely disjointed and difficult to follow along with.

It’s hard to believe that 2 very senior, very experienced lawyers could draft this garbage. Combined, they have nearly 70 years of legal work completed. While the Claim does contain a fair amount of truthful information, it’s written so badly that no Judge will ever consider it.

By contrast, the Notices of Application were extremely well written, to the point, and raised many fatal defects in the Notice of Civil Claim. Again, this isn’t to defend the Horgan/Henry regime, but their lawyers make a compelling case as to why this should be thrown out. Although there are 2 Applications, the content is very similar.

3. The Claim is a prolix and convoluted document that is replete with groundless accusations against public officials, inflammatory language, and conspiracy theories.

6. The Plaintiffs’ Claim is deficient in form and substance. It is a scandalous, frivolous, and vexatious pleading that fails to meet the basic requirements for pleadings and is an abuse of the Court’s process. The Claim should be struck in accordance with Rule 9-5(1) of the Supreme Court Civil Rules, without leave to amend.

Pleadings Generally
7. Supreme Court Civil Rule (the “Rules”) 3-1 provides, in part:
Contents of notice of civil claim
(2) A notice of civil claim must do the following:
(a) set out a concise statement of the material facts giving rise to the claim;
(b) set out the relief sought by the Plaintiff against each named defendant;
(c) set out a concise summary of the legal basis for the relief sought;
…
(g) otherwise comply with Rule 3-7. [emphasis added]

8. Rule 3-7 provides, in part:
Pleading must not contain evidence
(1) A pleading must not contain the evidence by which the facts alleged in it are to be proved.
…
Pleading conclusions of law
(9) Conclusions of law must not be pleaded unless the material facts supporting them are pleaded.
…
General damages must not be pleaded
(14) If general damages are claimed, the amount of the general damages claimed must not be stated in any pleading. …

9. The function of pleadings is to clearly define the issues of fact and law to be determined by the court. The plaintiff must state, for each cause of action, the material facts. Material facts are those facts necessary for the purpose of formulating the cause of action. The defendant then sees the case to be met and may respond to the plaintiff’s allegations in such a way that the court will understand from the pleadings what issues of fact and law it will be called upon to decide.
.
Homalco Indian Band v. British Columbia, [1998] B.C.J. No. 2703 (S.C.), para. 5

10. As the Court of Appeal recently held in Mercantile Office Systems Private Ltd. v. Worldwide Warranty Life Services Inc., 2021 BCCA 362, para 44:
None of a notice of claim, a response to civil claim, and a counterclaim is a story. Each pleading contemplates and requires a reasonably disciplined exercise that is governed, in many instances in mandatory terms, by the Rules and the relevant authorities. Each requires the drafting party to “concisely” set out the “material facts” that give rise to the claim or that relate to the matters raised by the claim.
None of these pleadings are permitted to contain evidence or argument.

Application to Strike
11. Rule 9-5(1) provides:
Scandalous, frivolous or vexatious matters
(1) At any stage of a proceeding, the court may order to be struck out or amended the whole or any part of a pleading, petition or other document on the ground that
(a) it discloses no reasonable claim or defence, as the case may be,
(b) it is unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous or vexatious,
…
(d) it is otherwise an abuse of the process of the court …

12. A pleading may be struck under Rule 9-5(1) if it is plain and obvious that the pleading contravenes any of Rule 9-5(l)(a) through (d).
.
Knight V. Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd, 2011 SCC 42 at para. 17

Rule – 9-5(l)(a)-The Notice of Civil Claim Discloses No Reasonable Claim
14. The Claim is premised upon non-justiciable questions and relies heavily upon international treaties, Criminal Code provisions, and unknown causes of action that are incapable of disclosing a reasonable cause of action for the purposes of Rule 9-5(1)(a).

16. The Plaintiffs allege numerous violations (and non-violations) of the Criminal Code that are not properly raised in a civil action (Simon v. Canada, 2015 BCSC 924, para. 45); including:

17. The Plaintiffs allege numerous violations of international legal instruments, unwritten constitutional principles, and causes of action unknown to law that are not actionable in Canadian courts (Li v. British Columbia, 2021 BCCA 256, paras. 107-109; Toronto v. Ontario, 2021 SCC 34, para. 5), including the following:

19. The general rule that facts pleaded should be accepted as true for the purposes of a strike application does not apply in a “case like this where the notice of civil claim is replete with assumptions, speculation, and in some instances, outrageous allegations. The law is clear that allegations based on assumption and speculation need not be taken as true.”
.
Willow v. Chong, 2013 BCSC 1083, para. 19
See, also, Simon v. Canada, 2015 BCSC 924 [“Simon”], para. 54

20. The Plaintiffs have failed to plead the concise statement of material facts that is necessary to support any complete cause of action. The Charter claims are inextricably bound up in a prolix, argumentative, and wildly speculative narrative of grand conspiracy that is incapable of supporting a viable cause of action. It is impossible to separate the material from the immaterial, the fabric of one potential cause of action or claim from another, or conjecture and conspiracy from asserted facts.
.
Fowler v. Canada (Attorney General), 2012 BCSC 367, para. 54
Simon, supra, paras 54-59

9-5(l)(b) The Notice of Civil Claim is Scandalous, Frivolous and Vexatious
Scandalous and Embarrassing
22. A pleading is scandalous if it does not state the real issue in an intelligible form and would require the parties to undertake useless expense to litigate matters irrelevant to the claim.
.
Gill v. Canada, 2013 BCSC 1703 [“Gill”], para. 9

23. A claim is also scandalous or embarrassing if it is prolix, includes irrelevant facts, argument or evidence, such that it is nearly impossible for the defendant to reply to the pleading and know the case to meet. Pleadings that are so prolix and confusing that it is difficult, if not impossible, to understand the case to be met, should be struck.
.
Gill, supra para. 9
Strata Plan LMS3259 v. Sze Hang Holding Inc., 2009 BCSC 473, at para. 36
Kuhn v. American Credit Indemnity Co., [1992] B.C.J. No. 953 (S.C.)

24. The Claim is a scandalous pleading because it is prolix, confusing, and nearly impossible to respond to:
a. The 391 page Claim attempts to plead dozens of causes of action and Charter breaches and seeks over 200 declarations. It is, as a result, nearly impossible to know the case to be met.
b. The Claim contains extensive passages of completely irrelevant information, including:

Rule 9-5(l)(a) and (d) – The Claim is Vexatious and an Abuse of Process
28. Little distinction exists between a vexatious action and one that is an abuse of process as the two concepts have strikingly similar features.
.
Dixon v. Stork Craft Mamifacturing Inc., 2013 BCSC 1117

29. Abuse of process is not limited to cases where a claim or an issue has already been decided in other litigation, but is a flexible doctrine applied by the court to values fundamental to the court system. In Toronto (City) v. Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 79 (CUPE), [2003] 3 S.C.R. 77, the court stated at para. 37:
.
Canadian courts have applied the doctrine of abuse of process to preclude relitigation in circumstances where the strict requirements of issue estoppel (typically the privity/mutuality requirements) are not met, but where allowing the litigation to proceed would nonetheless violate such principles as judicial economy, consistency, finality and the integrity of the administration of justice.

30. Vexatious actions include those brought for an improper purpose, including the harassment and oppression of other parties by multifarious proceedings brought for purposes other than the assertion of legitimate rights. Where it is obvious that an action cannot succeed, or if the action would lead to no possible good, or if no reasonable person can reasonably expect to obtain relief, the action is vexatious.
.
Lang Michener Lash Johnston v. Fabian, [1987] O.J. No. 355 [“Lang Michener”], at para. 19

33. The Applicants submit the Claim has been brought for an improper purpose. The Plaintiffs and their counsel must know, or ought to know, that a 391 page Claim seeking over 200 declarations concerning alleged criminal conduct and the efficacy of public health measures “cannot succeed … [and] would lead to no possible good”: Lang Michener, supra.

34. The Claim is intended, at least in part, to intimidate and harass health authorities, public officials and politicians, including the Provincial Health Officer, by advancing spurious, public allegations of criminal conduct, conflicts of interest, and ulterior motives. This intention is further corroborated by the Plaintiff Action4Canada’s simultaneous campaign to encourage individuals to serve government officials and politicians with “Notices of Liability” for their actions in responding to the COVID-19 pandemic (Affidavit #1 of Rebecca Hill, Ex. G, I).

35. The Claim is also intended, at least in part, to consolidate, publicize, and amplify COVID-19 conspiracy theories and misinformation. The Claim is a book-length tirade against the entirety of British Columbia’s response to the pandemic, with dozens of quotes from, and hundreds of footnotes to, anti-mask, anti-lockdown, and anti-vaccine resources. Both Action4Canada and its counsel have promoted the Claim online and on social media
.
(Affidavit #1 of Rebecca Hill, Ex. D, K).

36. These are improper purposes to file and prosecute a civil action. There can be no question that the Claim is an abuse of process. Permitting this litigation to proceed would violate the principles of judicial economy and the integrity of the administration of justice.

The above quotes came from the January 17 Notice of Application. Re-read the original Notice of Civil Claim and ask: what are they wrong about?

The Applications get into allegations that Action4Canada is causing harassment of Government Officials as a result of their behaviour. This is where things get more interesting:

This Application also contains an Affidavit from Rebecca Hill. She apparently works for Mark Witten, the lawyer for the B.C Defendants. She’s alleging that the “Notices of Liability” that Action4Canada provides have led to the bombardment of Government Officials. From the information provided, it’s strongly implied that this is done in order to drive up the donations.

By extension, it wouldn’t take much to argue that the entire Notice of Claim was a stunt to get more people handing out money.

Remember those notices you downloaded, filled out, and submitted? Guess what? Many of them, and the emails, are now saved as evidence by the B.C. Government.

Author’s note: since the Vancouver Court has apparently not scanned the entire Affidavit, the attachments are not available. That may be for the best, as there is contact information.

It’s also worth pointing out: the Defendants are asking for costs as well. This is pretty much inevitable, once the case is thrown out. It seems unlikely that any Plaintiff has given this serious thought. For a reference point, Adam Skelly was hit with a $15,000 cost award, just for trying to open his restaurant. Given the size and vexatious nature of the Action4Canada case, it’s quite possible for everyone to be on the hook for several thousand dollars each. Keep in mind, court costs aren’t dischargeable in bankruptcy.

Once more, this isn’t an attempt to defend the B.C. Government. That said, the Claim was written in such a convoluted way, it never stood a chance. One has to ask why it really happened.

Back in October, Action4Canada posted a reply to the response they received from the B.C. Government. It’s amusing that they act indignant that Rule 9-5 was quoted verbatim. Spoiler: if you want a Court to toss a case, you have to cite the law that allows it.

Whether this case is decided on April 5, or is set back again, the ultimate result is the same. Once a Judge sits down with the lawsuit, it’s getting struck without leave to amend.

It’s not just the B.C. case that will be struck. The Ontario ones will be soon as well. Many will remember this filing from July 6, 2020. More than a year and a half later, there are still no defenses filed, no motions, no applications, no scheduled appearances.

In fact, under Rules 14 and 24 of civil procedure in Ontario, all of these idling cases could probably be dismissed at any time for unnecessary delay.

One other thing to consider is the Statute of Limitations. For most things in Ontario and B.C., a person has 2 years to commence legal action. Now, if a case is filed, but sits for years and is simply dismissed, it may be too late to start another. This doesn’t stop the clock. Something to think about.

Prediction: once the B.C. case is struck (for the reasons listed above), the Ford regime will then make similar Applications for the Ontario cases.

Other than wasting a lot of time and money, what has this actually accomplished?

COURT DOCUMENTS
(1) A4C Notice of Civil Claim
(2) A4C Response October 14
(3) A4C Legal Action Update, October 14th 2021 Action4Canada
(4) A4C Notice of Application January 12
(5) A4C Notice of Application January 17
(6) A4C Affidavit
(7) A4C Response VIH-Providence January 17
(8) A4C Response to Application BC Ferries January 19

Posted on

Law Firms & Bar Associations Receiving Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy (CEWS)

Don’t you find it strange that there are no lawyers posing any serious challenge to the tyranny of Trudeau, Ford, Legault, Kenney, Horgan and the others? Ever wonder why people who (theoretically) are best placed to challenge this are sitting on the sidelines? Perhaps, this may explain some of them.

Note: several duplicate and irrelevant entries were omitted.

  • 0914819 B.C. LTD. ( Magellan Real Estate Lawyers)
  • Aasara Lawyers Professional Corporation
  • AGB Lawyers Professional Corporation
  • Alam Law Firm, Professional Corporation
  • Alberta Lawyers’ Assistance Society (The Assist Program)
  • Alpert Law Firm Professional Corporation
  • Andre J. Boudon Professional Corporation
  • Antoine Mailloux Avocat Inc.
  • Armoured Suits Professional Corporation
  • Aulis Law Firm Professional Corporation
  • Avocats Cragmore Inc.
  • Avocats sans frontières Québec / Lawyers without borders Quebec
  • Ayoub A. Ali Professional Corporation
  • Bakshi Law Firm Firm Professional Corporation
  • Barapp Law
  • Barteaux Labour And Employment Lawyers Inc.
  • Benoit Roussy, Avocat Inc.
  • Blacklock Law Firm, Professional Corporation
  • Blouin Avocat S.A. Blouin Lawyer Corp
  • Borders Law Firm, Professional Corporation
  • Brooks Professional Corporation
  • Brown Lawyers Professional Corporation
  • Brunet Avocats Inc. / Brunet Lawyers Inc.
  • Bryshun Mace Law Corporation
  • BSS Law Firm Professional Corporation
  • Burrows Professional Corporation
  • Buzaker Law Firm Professional Corporation
  • Cabinet d’avocats NOVAlex Inc. / NOVAlex Law Firm Inc.
  • Canadian Defence Lawyers Association
  • Capelle Kane Immigration Lawyers Professional Corp.
  • Charney Lawyers Professional Corporation
  • Charthouse Law Corporation
  • Chinneck Law Professional Corporation
  • Cizan Suliman Professional Corporation
  • Corporate Immigration Law Firm Professional Corporation
  • Costa Law Firm Professional Corporation
  • Counter Tax Lawyers Professional Corporation
  • Cubicle Fugitive Inc.
  • D3B Avocats Inc.
  • D’Alessio Romero Law Firm Professional Corporation
  • David M. Piccolo Professional Corporation
  • Derstine Penman Professional Corporation
  • Di Stasio Avocats Inc.
  • Dietrich Professional Corporation
  • Disability Lawyers of Ontario
  • Douglas J. Lord Professional Corporation
  • DPJP Professional Corporation
  • Drayton Law Firm Law Corporation
  • Dube Latreille Avocats Inc.
  • Duford, Dion Avocats Inc.
  • Duncan F. Smith Law Corporation
  • Elkouby avocats inc. Elkouby lawyers Inc.
  • Étude légale N. Touma inc./ N. Touma law firm Inc.
  • Farley Avocats Inc.
  • Fife Cameron Trial Lawyers Professional Corporation
  • Foundation Law Corporation
  • Frank MacDonald Lawyer Inc.
  • Fresh Life Canada, Immigration Lawyers Inc.
  • Friedman Law Professional Corporation
  • Gary R. Armworthy, Lawyer Incorporated
  • Girones Lawyers Professional Corporation
  • GKS Law Corporation
  • Gladysz Camet Avocats Fiscalistes Inc.
  • Gluckstein Personal Injury Lawyers Professional Corporation
  • Gobran Law Firm Professional Corporation
  • Goldfinger Injury Lawyers Professional Corporation
  • Gosselin Law Firm Professional Corporation
  • Grandmaitre Virgo Evans Professional Corporation
  • Grinhaus Law Firm Professional Corporation
  • Gupta Law Firm Professional Corporation
  • Guzun And Associates, Lawyers Inc.
  • H. Zhang Professional Corporation
  • Haber & Associates Lawyers Professional Corporation
  • Hadayt Nazami Professional Corporation
  • Hagel Law Firm Professional Corporation
  • Harris Law, Personal Injury Lawyers Professional Corporation
  • Holmberg Watson Professional Corporation
  • Home & Castle law Firm Professional Corporation
  • Hum Law Firm, A Professional Corporation
  • Iacobelli Law Firm Professional Corporation
  • Jae Park Law Professional Corporation
  • James Bennett Law Firm PLC Inc.
  • Jane Poproski Professional Corporation
  • Jay G. Meunier Professional Corporation
  • JFB Avocats Criminalistes Inc.
  • John A De Bakker Professional Corporation
  • John M. Richter Law Corporation
  • Jonathon Kahane-Rapport Professional Corporation
  • Joseph T. Santoro Professional Corporation
  • JP Mann Law Firm Professional Corporation
  • Justin James Walsh Law Professional Corporation
  • Kapoor Law Firm Professional Corporation
  • Kelly D. Jordan Professional Corporation
  • Kelly + Kelly Lawyers Professional Corporation
  • Kennedy Schofield Lutz Lawyers Inc.
  • Kenneth Peacocke Professional Corporation
  • Kinder Law Professional Corporation
  • KMH Lawyers Professional Corporation
  • KPA Lawyers Professional Corporation
  • KRB Avocats Inc. / KRB Lawyers Inc.
  • Kruse Law Firm Professional Corporation
  • Lak Law Firm Professional Corporation
  • LaLande Law Professional Corporation
  • Lamoureux, Avocat & Fiscaliste Inc.
  • Lang Lawyers Professional Corporation
  • Larson Lawyers Professional Corporation
  • Lauze, Avocate Inc.
  • Law Firm Of Shikha Sharda, Professional Corporation
  • Lawyerlocate.ca Inc.
  • Liang Tax Law Corporation
  • Lisa C. Gilvesy Professional Corporation
  • Lomax Law Firm Professional Corporation
  • Longo Lawyers Professional Corporation
  • M. Chuchla Law Firm Professional Corporation
  • Mack Professional Corporation
  • Mauro Palumbo Law Corporation
  • Mayes Law Firm Professional Corporation
  • Melville, Krotz Lawyers Professional Corporation
  • Millars Lawyers Professional Corporation
  • Minkin & Associates Professional Corporation
  • Mirian Law Firm, Professional Corporation
  • Monkhouse Law Professional Corporation
  • MPH Avocats Inc.
  • Mulligan Defence Lawyers Law Corporation
  • N3 INC.
  • Neinstein Personal Injury Lawyers
  • Nanda & Associate Lawyers Professional Corporation
  • Natalie L. Hebert Law Corporation
  • Nimegeeers, Schuck, Wormsbecker & Bobbitt
  • NLCI Your Real Estate Lawyer Professional Corporation
  • NSWB Law Firm P.S. Inc.
  • Oldham Law Firm, A Professional Corporation
  • Ontario Trial Lawyers Association
  • Pace Law Firm Professional Corporation
  • Pappas Law Firm Professional Corporation
  • Peter Yi Law Corporation
  • Petitt Schwarz Professional Corporation
  • Philip J. Gerler Professional Corporation
  • Pilkington Law Firm Professional Corporation
  • Pranzitelli Law Firm Professional Corporation
  • R C Di Bella Law Corporation
  • R. Farhat, Professional Corporation
  • R.W.J. Professional Corporation
  • R.Z. Skibinski Professional Corporation
  • Rajdeep Singh Deol Law Corporation
  • Rar Litigation Lawyers Professional Corporation
  • Renaud Lebuis Avocat d’Affaires Inc. Renaud Lebuis Business Lawyer Inc.
  • RH Law Professional Corporation
  • Roadlawyers Inc.
  • Rocco Galati Law Firm Professional Corporation
  • Roger J. Baker Professional Corporation
  • Ronald S. Williams Lawyer Professional Corporation
  • Rui Zhen Feng Law Corporation
  • Salina Chagpar Professional Corporation
  • Seif Law Firm Professional Corporation
  • Shaikh Law Professional Corporation
  • Sultan Lawyers Professional Corporation
  • The Kahler Personal Injury Law Firm, Professional Corporation
  • Top Law Firm Professional Corporation
  • Verraich Law Firm Professional Corporation
  • Wennie Lee Law Firm Professional Corporation
  • WN Law Firm Inc.
  • Y.L. Law Professional Corporation
  • Y. Liu Law Firm
  • Yixi Legal Firm Corporation
  • YuSheng Immigration Law Firm
  • Zafar Law Firm Professional Corporation
  • Zayouna Law Firm, Professional Corporation

Note: if you search under the heading “LEGAL”, another 300 names come up. These are not exclusively law firms, but include other companies who are involved in the industry. Looking up “BARRISTER” results in 68 more matches in the CEWS database.

Of course, the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy is just one program. There’s also the rental subsidy, which countless businesses applied for. Given how these programs keep getting different names, it can be difficult to track exactly who’s getting what.

While this certainly doesn’t include every firm, it’s still a lot of them.

Considering that the industry never shut down, it’s unclear what money was lost. Sure, there was a delay in 2020, but everything seems to run virtually now. In fact, since law can be done online, it probably led to a significant decline in expenses.

Wild idea, but perhaps not everyone wants to see the gravy train end.

There have also been claims (though it’s hard to grasp the magnitude) of lawyers and law firms being retained by the Government as ghost representatives. This would be done for the sole purpose of taking them out of the game. If such a person or company takes money in this manner, they’d be prohibited from taking on cases against Trudeau or his ilk. This would apply even if the lawyers never do anything to earn that original amount.

It’s been covered ad nauseum about how the media is being subsidized to dupe and mislead Canadians into going along with the psychological warfare. Maybe that’s not the only industry that can be bought off. And on the subject:

The Canadian Bar Association, as well as its counterparts in Nova Scotia, Ontario and Quebec have all been receiving the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy. Of course, it’s quite likely they’ve received funds under different programs as well.

There’s no real urgency within the legal community to end these martial law dictates. Strange, since few lawyers will pass up on the opportunity to grandstand. But perhaps there are other factors. No accusations are being made, just some curious observations.

Do you get it now, stupid lemmings? They’re all in it together, or, at least that’s how it looks on the surface.

CANADA EMERGENCY WAGE SUBSIDY SEARCH
(1) https://apps.cra-arc.gc.ca/ebci/hacc/cews/srch/pub/bscSrch
(2) https://apps.cra-arc.gc.ca/ebci/habs/cews/srch/pub/dsplyBscSrch?request_locale=en

RESOURCES FOR MEDIA ACTING AS COUNTER-INTELLIGENCE
(A) https://canucklaw.ca/media-subsidies-to-counter-online-misinformation-groups-led-by-political-operatives/
(B) https://canucklaw.ca/taxpayer-grants-to-fight-misinformation-in-media-including-more-pandemic-bucks/
(C) https://canucklaw.ca/counter-intelligence-firms-to-influence-elections-canada-and-abroad-registered-as-charities/
(D) https://canucklaw.ca/more-pandemic-bucks-for-disinformation-prevention-locally-and-abroad-civix/
(E) https://canucklaw.ca/disinfowatch-ties-to-atlas-network-connected-to-lpc-political-operatives/
(F) https://canucklaw.ca/phac-supporting-science-up-first-online-counter-misinformation-group/
(G) https://canucklaw.ca/rockefeller-spends-13-5-million-to-combat-misinformation-in-u-s-elsewhere/
(H) https://canucklaw.ca/poynter-self-claimed-factchecking-group-funded-by-media-giants/
(I) https://canucklaw.ca/journalism-trust-initiative-trusted-news-initiative-project-origin-the-trust-project/
(J) https://canucklaw.ca/coalition-for-content-provenance-and-authenticity-c2pa-project-origin-content-authenticity-initiative/
(K) https://canucklaw.ca/public-media-alliance-brussels-declaration-protecting-journalists-media-freedom/
(L) Institute For Strategic Dialogue: Partners, Funding

EVEN MORE MEDIA SUBSIDIES
(A) https://canucklaw.ca/media-1-unifor-denies-crawling-into-bed-with-government/
(B) https://canucklaw.ca/media-in-canada-obedient-to-govt-covid-narrative-largely-because-of-subsidies/
(C) https://canucklaw.ca/postmedia-subsidies-connections-may-explain-lack-of-interest-in-real-journalism/
(D) https://canucklaw.ca/postmedia-gets-next-round-of-pandemic-bucks-from-taxpayers-in-2021/
(E) https://canucklaw.ca/nordstar-capital-torstar-corp-metroland-media-group-more-subsidies-pandemic-bucks/
(F) https://canucklaw.ca/aberdeen-publishing-sells-out-takes-those-pandemic-bucks-to-push-narrative/
(G) https://canucklaw.ca/many-other-periodicals-receiving-the-pandemic-bucks-in-order-to-push-the-narrative/
(H) https://canucklaw.ca/cv-37i-tri-city-news-pulls-article-where-bonnie-henry-admits-false-positives-could-overwhelm-system/

Posted on

Pensions #1(B): Unsustainable, Underfunded, Takes Money Out Of Canada

(Canada Pension Plan Investment Board website)

(In 2019 Annual Report, the CPPIB claims that the fund is worth $392 billion as of March 31, 2019)

(2016, Chief Actuary claims CPP is sustainable)

(Ezra Levant of Rebel Media addresses CPP)

(Pension ponzi schemes explained)

1. More On Pension Plans/Funding

CLICK HERE, for #1: CPPIB invests $2B in Mumbai, India

2. Important Links

CLICK HERE, for Canada Pension Plan Investment Board (CPPIB).
CLICK HERE, for the 2019 CPPIB Annual Report.
CLICK HERE, for the 2018 CPPIB Annual Report.
CLICK HERE, for the 2017 CPPIB Annual Report.
CLICK HERE, for the 2016 CPPIB Annual Report.
CLICK HERE, for the 2015 CPPIB Annual Report.
CLICK HERE, for the 2014 CPPIB Annual Report.
CLICK HERE, for the 2013 CPPIB Annual Report.
CLICK HERE, for the 2012 CPPIB Annual Report.
CLICK HERE, for the 2011 CPPIB Annual Report.
CLICK HERE, for the 2010 CPPIB Annual Report.
CLICK HERE, for the 2009 CPPIB Annual Report.
CLICK HERE, for CPPIB reports on “SUSTAINABLE” investing.

CLICK HERE, for 2016 Triannual Report from Canada’s Chief Actuary.
CLICK HERE, for Chief Actuary’s 2016 Supplemental Report.
CLICK HERE, for information on Canada’s “Green Bonds”.
CLICK HERE, for a previous article on “green bonds.
CLICK HERE, for previous article, $2B in CPP funds sent to India.
CLICK HERE, for a Financial Post article suggesting CPP is being used to prop up public sector pensions.
CLICK HERE, for a Fraser Institute article on CPP unfunded liabilities.

CLICK HERE, for Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions, for sustainability of CPP. Using “closed door approach” there are $884.2B in unfunded liabilities. Turn to pages 46-50.

3. Glowing 2016 Press Release

The press release regarding, the Chief Actuary’s report on the sustainability of the Canadian Pension Plan.

Middle class Canadians are working harder than ever, but many are worried that they won’t have enough put away for their retirement. One in four families approaching retirement—1.1 million families—are at risk of not saving enough. That is why a stronger Canada Pension Plan (CPP) is a key part of the promise that the Government of Canada made to Canadians to help the middle class and those working hard to join it.

Today, Minister of Finance Bill Morneau tabled the Chief Actuary’s 28th Actuarial Report on the CPP in Parliament. The report confirms that the contribution and benefit levels proposed under the CPP enhancement agreed upon by Canada’s governments on June 20, 2016 will be sustainable over the long term, ensuring that Canadian workers can count on an even stronger, secure CPP for years to come.

On October 6, 2016, the Government of Canada delivered on its commitment to a stronger CPP with the introduction of legislation in Parliament to implement the agreement reached by Canada’s governments to enhance the CPP to give Canadians a stronger public pension that will help them retire in dignity.

This can’t really be taken at face value, as it is all self serving. The notice fails to even acknowledge the elephant in the room, which we will get into.

4. Quotes From Actuary’s 2016 Report

The Canada Pension Plan Investment Board (CPPIB) invests base CPP funds according to its own investment policies which take into account the needs of contributors and beneficiaries, as well as financial market constraints. It is expected that a separate investment policy will be developed by the CPPIB with respect to the additional CPP assets. Since at the time of the preparation of the 28th Report there is no such separate investment policy in existence, the real rate of return assumption was developed to reflect the financing objective of the additional Plan. As the actual CPPIB investment strategy for the additional CPP assets becomes known, it will be reflected in subsequent actuarial reports by revising the real rate of return assumption

This is a bit troublesome. It will become “known” to the public, or it will become “known” to the people doing the investments? (Page 15 of report.)

(Page 30 of report.) The CPPIB estimates that the percentage of base contributions from investment profits will creep up, and that the additional CPP will eventually become mostly funded from investment income by 2075.

The future income and outgo of the additional CPP depend on many demographic and economic factors. Thus, many assumptions in respect of the future demographic and economic outlook are required to project the financial state of the additional Plan. These assumptions impact the contribution rates, cash flows, amount of assets, as well as other indicators of the financial state. This section discusses the sensitivity of the minimum first and second additional contribution rates to the use of different assumptions than the best estimate.

Can’t fault the report for admitting it has to make assumptions. However, the trends of the current government are not great. Admitting large numbers of “refugees” who are and will remain a burden will not contribute to public coffers. Nor will vast amounts of seniors or others who won’t work. Furthermore, making industrial projects more difficult (Bills C-48 and C-69), means additional Canadians not working.

The actuarial projections of the financial state of the Canada Pension Plan presented in this report reveal that if the CPP is amended as per Part 1 of Bill C-26, the constant minimum first and second additional contribution rates that result in projected contributions and investment income that are sufficient to fully pay the projected expenditures of the additional Canada Pension Plan would be, respectively, 1.93% for the year 2023 and thereafter and 7.72% for the year 2024 and thereafter.

This report confirms that if the Canada Pension Plan is amended as per Part 1 of Bill C-26, a legislated first additional contribution rate of 2.0% for the year 2023 and thereafter, and a legislated second additional contribution rate of 8.0% for the year 2024 and thereafter, result in projected contributions and investment income that are sufficient to fully pay the projected expenditures of the additional Plan over the long term. Under these rates, assets of the additional Plan would accumulate to $70 billion by 2025, and to $1,330 billion by 2050.

No real surprise. The report concludes that the changes that the Government wants to bring in are exactly what are needed to make the plan sustainable.

5. CPPIB Claims Plan Sustainable Past 2090

Within this strategic framework, fiscal 2017 was a good year for CPPIB. Our diversified portfolio achieved a net return of 11.8% after all costs. Assets increased by $37.8 billion, of which $33.5 billion came from the net income generated by CPPIB from investment activities, after all costs, and $4.3 billion from net contributions to the CPP. Our 10-year real rate of return of 5.1%, after all CPPIB costs, remains above the 3.9% average rate of return that the Chief Actuary of Canada assumes in assessing the sustainability of the CPP. In his latest triennial review issued in September 2016, the Chief Actuary reported that the Base CPP is sustainable until at least 2090.

CPPIB toots its own horn, stating that the plan is sustainable at least until 2090. Page 5 is a quote from the 2017 annual report.

6. Quotes From 2019 CPPIB Annual Report

This is a graph included at the beginning of the report (page 3). It projects that by the year 2040, the Canada Pension Plan will have over $1.5 trillion in assets. This is in comparison to the $393 billion that there currently is.

It shows that actual assets have been higher than projected assets for the last 3 years.

The most recent triennial report by the Chief Actuary of Canada indicated that the CPP is sustainable over a 75-year projection period. Projections of the CPP Fund, being the combined assets of the base and additional CPP accounts, are based on the nominal projections from the 29th Actuarial Report supplementing the 27th and 28th Actuarial Reports on the Canada Pension Plan as at December 31, 2015.

The report shows a graph with projected assets. However, it doesn’t seem to address liabilities. Specifically, the pension contributions of much younger people who are paying into the system and are entitled to get it out when they retire.

This is impressive. Over the last decade, $239 billion has been added to the fund, an equivalent of 11% annual growth. Of course, one may be forgiven for asking why premiums are so high if it’s all just going into a government fund.

7. CPPIB Claims Fund Is Worth Billions

Note: The sources for this data is in all of the annual reports, going back a decade, which are linked up in SECTION 1.

Inv. Income refers to investment income. This is money CPPIB claims that the funds make annually. Notice the rate of return varies from 6-18%. That is money that CPPIB makes, not money that YOU will be making from the pension plan.

Year Value of Fund Inv Income Rate of Return
2010 $127.6B $22.1B 14.9%
2011 $148.2B $20.6B 11.9%
2012 $161.6B $9.9B 6.6%
2013 $183.3B $16.7B 10.1%
2014 $219.1B $30.1B 16.5%
2015 $264.6B $40.6B 18.3%
2016 $278.9B $9.1 6.8%
2017 $316.7B $33.5B 11.8%
2018 $356.B $36.7B 11.6%
2019 $392B $32B 8.9%

The value of the pension fund is skyrocketing? Isn’t it? Looking at the values from the annual reports, it has tripled in value in just a decade. This is incredible growth.

What then is the problem?

8. CPPIB Has Billions In Unfunded Liabilities

Not just billions, but hundreds of billions in liabilities.

While the CPPIB staff crow about how sustainable the system is, the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions had a very different conclusion.

The Plan is intended to be long-term and enduring in nature, a fact that is reinforced by the federal, provincial, and territorial governments’ joint stewardship through the established strong governance and accountability framework of the Plan. Therefore, if the Plan’s financial sustainability is to be measured based on its asset excess or shortfall, it should be done so on an open group basis that reflects the partially funded nature of the Plan, that is, its reliance on both future contributions and invested assets as means of financing its future expenditures. The inclusion of future contributions and benefits with respect to both current and future participants in the assessment of the Plan’s financial state confirms that the Plan is able to meet its financial obligations over the long term1 2

What is the difference between open group basis and closed group basis?

The open group approach addresses assets and liabilities with respect to their expectations v.s. reality. The closed group approach, however, measures total assets and liabilities. And to see how much of a difference it makes, see the following two screenshots.

If you use the open group approach, everything looks fine. Reality comes very close to what you are expecting. However, the “closed group approach” takes everything into account, not just expectations.

Remember, when younger workers are paying into CPP, the organization has the money, but it isn’t theirs. It belongs to the workers, even if they won’t retire for 20, 30, or 40 years. The only way “open group approach” works is if the CPPIB had no intention of paying younger workers back.

All things considered, Canada Pension Plan is short $884.2 billion (as of 2016). This is if you don’t use selective accounting.

Paying off current obligations, by taking money from new people. Isn’t that how a ponzi scheme works? To be fair though, there is “some” investing done by CPPIB. It’s just that the bulk of the new money comes from the younger suckersworkers.

Guess this partially explains why all parties are so pro-mass-migration. Workers are needed to be shipped in to contribute deductions to fund the shortfall.

9. Is CPP Used To Prop Up Public Pensions?

As the federal and provincial governments continue discussing changes to the Canada Pension Plan, it is worth recalling that there are no public discussions of the most important pension issue in Canada: The unsustainable gap between the pensions of public servants and most everyone else. In fact, some critics maintain that the push to expand the CPP is driven by an unspoken need to prop up public-sector pension plans a little longer. However, doing so will only delay the inevitable overhaul of both the benefits and the funding of public-sector pensions.

The key issues surrounding public-service pension-plan benefits are mostly unspoken, both to their members and to taxpayers. Public-sector unions allow their members to believe the fiction that members contribute a fair share of their own retirement benefits, when really, the vast majority is funded by taxpayers. Few people appreciate how the CPP is folded into public-sector pension benefits: since benefits are “defined” in advance, an increase in CPP benefits reduces the amount that a public-sector pension needs to pay out to retired workers (leaving unchanged the total benefit payout to public-sector retirees). Meanwhile, taxpayers are kept in the dark about the full measure of unfunded future benefits they will have to pay, even as they shoulder more of the burden for their own retirement.

That is a theory floated over the years. Unfortunately, it gets difficult to prove given how CPPIB will not be honest about their $884.2 billion in unfunded liabilities. Their annual reports seem designed to conceal the truth.

An interesting argument though. If public sector union workers are retiring (or are retired), then they have likely been promised a good pension. However, if those union funds can’t cover it, would CPP be dipped into to make up the difference?

10. CPPIB “Invests” 85% Outside Of Canada

(From page 11 of the 2019 report)

Our 2025 strategy With two decades under our belt, CPPIB has hit its stride and truly knows its potential as a global active manager of capital. Last year, I wrote about the Board-approved strategic direction for CPPIB in 2025. Over this past year, we’ve continued to refine this 2025 strategy, and chart the course for the coming years.

Pillars of our 2025 plan include investing up to one-third of the Fund in emerging markets such as China, India and Latin America, increasing our opportunity set and pursuing the most attractive risk-adjusted returns. We have reoriented our investment departments to deliver on this growth plan, to manage a larger Fund and to achieve our desired geographic and asset diversification.

To ask the obvious question: why is the CPPIB so eager to plow its money into FOREIGN ventures? Wouldn’t putting the bulk of it into Canadian projects make more sense?

This is not just a return-on-investment issue. Plowing that money into Canadian industries would help Canadians, and help drive Canadian employment, would it not? This is supposed to be a “Canadian” pension fund.

(From page 13 of the 2019 report). The CPPIB expects that by 2050, nearly 1/2 of all income to the pension plan will be from interest and dividends on its portfolio

For reference, the fund value is calculated using this rough formula
Employee & Employer CPP Contributions + Fund Investment Returns – CPP payouts = Value

So how much of CPPIB investments are in Canada?

That’s right, just 15.5% in Canada. The other 84.5% is invested abroad. Where specifically is this money going?

(1) Midstream joint venture United States US$1.34 billion Formed a joint venture with Williams to establish midstream exposure in the U.S., with initial ownership stakes in two of Williams’ midstream systems.
(2) Grand Paris development Paris, France Formed a joint venture with CMNE, La Française’s majority shareholder, to develop real estate projects linked to the Grand Paris project, a significant infrastructure initiative in Paris.
(3) Ultimate Software United States Total value: US$11 billion Acquired a leading global provider of cloud-based human capital management solutions, alongside consortium partners Hellman & Friedman, Blackstone and GIC.
(4) CPPIB Green Bond Issuance Canada and Europe C$1.5 billion/€$1.0 billion First pension fund to issue green bonds in 10-year fixed-rate notes. Our inaugural Green Bond was a Canadian dollar-denominated bond, followed by a eurodenominated bond.
(5) ChargePoint United States Total value: US$240 million Invested as part of a funding round in preferred shares of ChargePoint, the world’s leading electric vehicle charging network.
(6) European logistics facilities Europe €450 million Formed a partnership with GLP and Quadreal to develop modern logistics facilities in Germany, France, Italy, Spain, the Netherlands and Belgium.

(7) Companhia Energética de São Paulo (CESP) São Paulo, Brazil R$1.9 billion Together with Votorantim Energia, acquired a controlling stake in CESP, a Brazilian hydro-generation company.
(8) Pacifico Sur Mexico C$314 million (initial) Signed an agreement alongside Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan to acquire a 49% stake in a 309-kilometre toll road in Mexico from IDEAL.
(9) WestConnex Sydney, Australia Total value: A$9.26 billion Invested in WestConnex, a 33-kilometre toll road project in Sydney, alongside consortium partners Transurban, AustralianSuper and ADIA.
(10) Logistics facilities Korea Up to US$500 million Partnered with ESR to invest in modern logistics facilities in Korea.
(11) Challenger fund Australia and New Zealand A$500 million Partnered with Challenger Investment Partners to invest in middle-market real estate loans in Australia and New Zealand.
(12) Ant Financial China US$600 million Invested in Ant Financial, a company with an integrated technology platform and an ecosystem of partners to bring more secure and transparent financial services to individuals and small businesses.
(13) Renewable power assets Canada, U.S., Germany C$2.25 billion Acquired 49% of Enbridge’s interests in a portfolio of North American onshore wind and solar assets and two German offshore wind projects, and agreed to form a joint venture to pursue future European offshore wind investment opportunities.
(14) Berlin Packaging United States US$500 million Invested US$500 million in the recapitalization of Berlin Packaging L.L.C. alongside Oak Hill Capital Partners. Berlin Packaging is a leading supplier of packaging products and services to companies in multiple industries.

That’s right. Our Canadian pension fund is being used to prop up projects in: Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Germany, Italy, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, South Korea, Spain and the United States.

We won’t invest in Canadian industries, but we will bail them out. Great idea.

What about item #4, those green bonds?

11. CPPIB Endorses Climate Change Scam

So called green bonds are now available for sale. So state the obvious, if climate change were really a threat to humanity, then this is blatantly taking advantage of it.

Support for environmental companies or projects and clean technology is a strategic priority for EDC as demand rises for goods and services that allow for a more efficient use of the planet’s resources. Opportunities to create trade are abundant in this sector and Canada possesses a large pool of both established and emerging expertise in clean technology subsectors such as water and wastewater, biofuel, and waste to energy, to name a few.

Eligible transactions will include loans that help mitigate climate change with clean technology or improved energy efficiency. They also include transactions that specifically focus on soil, or help mitigate climate change. Our rigorous due diligence requirements ensure that all projects and transactions we support are financially, environmentally and socially responsible.

What happens when it becomes politically untenable for these globalist politicians to keep wasting taxpayer money on this hoax? Will it collapse? Will we have to perpetuate the lie in order to ensure that our “investments” don’t disappear?

Another factor that is reshaping the global investment environment is climate change. As a long-term investor, understanding environmental impacts on our investments is a key consideration and we continue to chart both the risks and opportunities stemming from climate change. This year, we launched our inaugural Green Bond, becoming the first pension fund to do so. We followed that with a euro-denominated offering. These issuances provide additional funding for CPPIB as it increases its holdings in renewables and energy-efficient buildings as world demand gradually transitions in favour of such investible assets.

(From Page 10 of the 2019 report.) Perhaps no one informed them that the climate change agenda is a scam, and has become a money pit.

This is hardly the first time that green bonds have come up. It will not be the last either.

When they say “risks and opportunities”, what are the opportunities? Will it be investing in a bubble that is sure to burst? Will it be taking advantage of desperate people?

Euro-denominated offerings? Why, is it a bigger market there?

12. What You Aren’t Being Told

The CPPIB admits that the bulk of its fund (around 85%) is actually invested outside of the country. That’s right, Canadians’ pension contributions being used to finance foreign investments. People assume that their money will be recirculated locally, but that is not the case.

CPPIB admits that it embraces the climate change scam. It goes as far as to endorse so-called “green bonds”. Again, this isn’t something the average person would know.

There is a credible case to be made that CPP funds are being used to top of public sector accounts, which are underfunded.

The CPP Investment Board intentionally distorts the truth about the unfunded liabilities. Using the OPEN GROUP approach, they show that actual assets are very close to expected assets, and they can cover their liabilities.

However, the more honest CLOSED GROUP approach will address “all” assets and liabilities, not just current ones. As it turns out, in 2016, the Canada Pension Plan had $285.4B in assets, and $1169.5B ($1.169.5 trillion) in liabilities. This works out to a $884.2B shortfall.

CPP is grossly underfunded.
CPP is being used to top up public pensions.
CPP is being invested in “green” schemes.
CPP is mainly being “invested” out of Canada.
CPP requires ever growing populations.
In short, we are screwed.

Posted on

Free Trade #2: NAFTA: Lawsuits, Sovereignty, Massive Job Losses, Conflict Of Interest

Bev Collins, giving a talk on NAFTA

(Some of the litigation going on over NAFTA)

(Multilateral Agreement on Investment — MAI)

(Trilateral Commission)

(Tucker Carlson: Social Costs to Communities Most Important)

(A man who gets it, Lou Dobbs)

1. Offshoring, Globalization, Free Trade

The other posts on outsourcing/offshoring are available here. It focuses on the hidden costs and trade offs society as a whole has to make. Contrary to what many politicians and figures in the media claim, there are always costs to these kinds of agreement. These include: (a) job losses; (b) wages being driven down; (c) undercutting of local companies; (d) legal action by foreign entities; (e) industries being outsourced; and (f) losses to communities when major employers leave. Don’t believe the lies that these agreements are overwhelmingly beneficial to all.

2. Important Links

(1) https://www.wto.org/english/res_e/booksp_e/casestudies_e/case9_e.htm
(2) https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/w-11.8/index.html
(3) http://trilateral.org/download/doc/Vancouver_1996.pdf
(4) Vancouver_1996 Trilateral Commission
(5) https://ipolitics.ca/2019/04/30/investor-state-dispute-system-puts-strain-on-poorer-countries-report/
(6) https://www.international.gc.ca/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/topics-domaines/disp-diff/nafta.aspx?lang=eng
(7) https://www.international.gc.ca/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/topics-domaines/disp-diff/gov.aspx?lang=eng
(8) https://www.international.gc.ca/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/topics-domaines/disp-diff/ethyl.aspx?lang=eng
(9) https://www.international.gc.ca/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/topics-domaines/disp-diff/SDM.aspx?lang=eng
(10) https://www.international.gc.ca/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/topics-domaines/disp-diff/pope.aspx?lang=eng
(11) https://www.international.gc.ca/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/topics-domaines/disp-diff/parcel.aspx?lang=eng
(12) https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/u-s-firm-sues-canada-for-10-5-billion-over-water-1.180821
(13) https://www.oecd.org/investment/internationalinvestmentagreements/multilateralagreementoninvestment.htm
(14) http://www1.oecd.org/daf/mai/pdf/ng/ng987r1e.pdf
(15) MAI Draft Agreement 1998
(16) https://blogs.imf.org
(17) http://trilateral.org/download/files/membership/TC_list_3_2019.pdf
(18) Trilateral Commission List 2019
(19) http://trilateral.org
(20) https://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/person.asp?personId=2158742&privcapId=3103423&previousCapId=6908053&previousTitle=Ontario%20Heritage%20Trust
(21) https://www.epi.org/publication/webfeatures_snapshots_archive_12102003/
(22) https://www.epi.org/publication/the-china-toll-deepens-growth-in-the-bilateral-trade-deficit-between-2001-and-2017-cost-3-4-million-u-s-jobs-with-losses-in-every-state-and-congressional-district/

3. Interesting Points From Bev Collins Video

-Semiconductor, aerospace, telecommunications industries were dismantled and sold off
-Mulroney gave QC special negotiating powers in event of succession
-Business Council on National Issues had $56M to market NAFTA
-600,000 jobs lost to free trade
-Small businesses gutted, corporations thrived
-92% of foreign investment came in to take over Canadian companies
-13,000 Canadian companies lost in meantime
-10,000 of those taken over by US transnationals
-1993 election, NAFTA huge issue, Mulroney/Campbell Gov’t wiped out
-Concern over water being sold off as commodity
-Liberals signed NAFTA “as is” in January 1994
-Roy MacLaren “both” Minister for International Trade and sat on the Trilateral Commission, a lobbying group.
-Canada push for a World Trade Body (Bill C-57)
-UN has 3 pillars:

  • Financial pillars (IMF)
  • World Bank
  • World Trade Organization

    • -Costs Canada $275M/annually to sit on committee
    -IMF supposed to arrange short term loans to 3rd World
    -World Bank set up for long term development funds
    -Canada funded 3 Rivers Gorges Dam in China
    -Export Development Corporation spends $40B, unaudited, unaccountable
    -“Investor State Suit” Clause allows Trans-Nats
    -Ethyl Corp sued Canada b/c of MMT gasoline additive ban
    -SD Myers sued Canada over PCB ban
    -Pope & Talbot sued over softwood lumber quota
    -Much of Ontario manufacturing base lost
    -Multilateral Agreement on Investment launched not long after NAFTA
    -lawsuit against MAI, Judge Dube friends with PM Jean Chretien
    -29 MAI delegates shut out of talks
    -MAI eventually destroyed, but content moved over to Free Trade Area of the Americas
    -Prelude to mass migration. If goods and money are borderless, then isn’t this the next logical step?
    -Canada can find its wages driven down
    -Unions themselves now seen as barrier to trade
    -WTO ruled against airline subsidizes
    -43,000 agricultural producers lost to bankruptcy
    -Many SK farms bought up at huge discount

    4. Canada’s Bill C-57

    From the WTO page:

    In 1994 the Canadian Parliament adopted legislation to implement the Uruguay Round with virtually no opposition. The measure was easily passed by the House of Commons with a vote of 185-7. There was general acceptance that the World Trade Organization (WTO) was a necessity for Canada both to participate and to compete in the new international order. Not only did legislators believe that the WTO Agreement would enhance and facilitate Canadian exports, but there also was an expectation among parliamentarians that the new rules-based dispute settlement mechanism would act as a counter-force to US unilateralism in the international arena. Roy McLaren, the Minister for International Trade, explained that the arrangements would particularly benefit ‘small and medium-size trade players like Canada, which are inherently vulnerable to the threat of unilateralism by the economic giants’

    McLaren was wrong. This arrangement does not benefit small and medium trade players like Canada. In fact, it will weaken Canada immensely, and lead to job losses and erosion of our sovereignty. Jere a few quotes from the WTO Agreement Implementation Act.

    Prohibition of private cause of action under Agreement

    6 No person has any cause of action and no proceedings of any kind shall be taken, without the consent of the Attorney General of Canada, to enforce or determine any right or obligation that is claimed or arises solely under or by virtue of the Agreement.

    This is a red flag. Nothing happens in Court unless the Attorney General of Canada signs off on it.

    Non-application of Agreement to water
    7 (1) For greater certainty, nothing in this Act or the Agreement, except the Canadian Schedule to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 set out in Annex 1A to the Agreement, applies to water.

    This is promising though. Water was specifically excluded from NAFTA. Concerns were that once exports started, there would be no way to stop it.

    Suspension of concessions to non-WTO Members
    (2) The Governor in Council may, with respect to a country that is not a WTO Member, by order, do any one or more of the following:
    (a) suspend rights or privileges granted by Canada to that country or to goods, service providers, suppliers, investors or investments of that country under any federal law;
    (b) modify or suspend the application of any federal law with respect to that country or to goods, service providers, suppliers, investors or investments of that country;
    (c) extend the application of any federal law to that country or to goods, service providers, suppliers, investors or investments of that country; and
    (d) take any other measure that the Governor in Council considers necessary.

    In short, this allows Canada to screw over non-WTO countries. Great way to force 3rd World nations in jumping on board. This is economic extortion.

    5. Chapter 11, National Treatment Clause

    This clause has been the basis of many lawsuits, since the text states that foreign companies must be treated the same as domestic companies.

    Article 1102: National Treatment
    1. Each Party shall accord to investors of another Party treatment no less favorable than that it accords, in like circumstances, to its own investors with respect to the establishment, acquisition, expansion, management, conduct, operation, and sale or other disposition of investments.
    2. Each Party shall accord to investments of investors of another Party treatment no less favorable than that it accords, in like circumstances, to investments of its own investors with respect to the establishment, acquisition, expansion, management, conduct, operation, and sale or other disposition of investments.
    3. The treatment accorded by a Party under paragraphs 1 and 2 means, with respect to a state or province, treatment no less favorable than the most favorable treatment accorded, in like circumstances, by that state or province to investors, and to investments of investors, of the Party of which it forms a part.
    4. For greater certainty, no Party may:
    (a) impose on an investor of another Party a requirement that a minimum level of equity in an enterprise in the territory of the Party be held by its nationals, other than nominal qualifying shares for directors or incorporators of corporations; or
    (b) require an investor of another Party, by reason of its nationality, to sell or otherwise dispose of an investment in the territory of the Party.

    And “who” has been suing Canada under Chapter 11 of NAFTA?

    Cases filed against the Government of Canada

    Ongoing arbitrations to which Canada is a party

    • Clayton/Bilcon
    • Lone Pine Resources Inc.
    • Mobil Investments Canada Inc.
    • Resolute Forest Products Inc.
    • Tennant Energy, LLC.
    • Westmoreland Coal Company

    Concluded arbitrations to which Canada was a party

  • AbitibiBowater Inc.
  • Centurion Health Corporation
  • Chemtura Corp.
  • Detroit International Bridge Company
  • Dow AgroSciences LLC
  • Eli Lilly and Company
  • Ethyl Corporation
  • Mercer International Inc.
  • Merrill & Ring Forestry L.P.
  • Mesa Power Group LLC
  • Mobil Investments Inc. and Murphy Oil Corporation
  • Pope & Talbot Inc.
  • S.D. Myers Inc.
  • St. Marys VCNA, LLC
  • United Parcel Service of America, Inc. (UPS)
  • V. G. Gallo
  • Windstream Energy LLC

    • Withdrawn or inactive claims

    • Contractual Obligation Productions, LLC, Charles Robert Underwood and Carl Paolino
    • GL Farms LLC and Carl Adams
    • J.M. Longyear
    • William Jay Greiner and Malbaie River Outfitters Inc.

    open access to information, about the various court proceedings. But do take a look. They almost all involve an alleged breach of the “National Treatment” Clause.

    Now, this “only covers lawsuits against Canada. There have also been plenty of them against the US and Mexico for violating NAFTA.

    6. Multilateral Agreement on Investment

    2. Investment means:
    Every kind of asset owned or controlled, directly or indirectly, by an investor, including: 1, 2
    (i) an enterprise (being a legal person or any other entity constituted or organised under the applicable law of the Contracting Party, whether or not for profit, and whether private or government owned or controlled, and includes a corporation, trust, partnership, sole proprietorship, branch, joint venture, association or organisation);
    (ii) shares, stocks or other forms of equity participation in an enterprise, and rights derived therefrom;
    (iii) bonds, debentures, loans and other forms of debt, and rights derived therefrom;
    (iv) rights under contracts, including turnkey, construction, management, production or revenue-sharing contracts;
    (v) claims to money and claims to performance;
    (vi) intellectual property rights;
    (vii) rights conferred pursuant to law or contract such as concessions, licenses, authorisations, and permits;
    (viii) any other tangible and intangible, movable and immovable property, and any related property rights, such as leases, mortgages, liens and pledges.

    And remember that “National Treatment Clause”?

    III. TREATMENT OF INVESTORS AND INVESTMENTS
    NATIONAL TREATMENT AND MOST FAVOURED NATION TREATMENT
    1. Each Contracting Party shall accord to investors of another Contracting Party and to their investments, treatment no less favourable than the treatment it accords [in like circumstances] to its own investors and their investments with respect to the establishment, acquisition, expansion, operation, management, maintenance, use, enjoyment and sale or other disposition of investments.

    This would be the investment equivalent of NAFTA. All forms of investments would have to be given equal considerations. Although it was eventually stopped, the contents are still being considered for other opportunities.

    7. Trilateral Commission

    So, who founds the Trilateral Commission?
    Where are they from?

    Founding Members
    David Rockefeller was the principal founder of the Trilateral Commission in mid-1973. He served on the executive committee and was North American chairman from mid-1977 through November 1991. He is now honorary chairman and a lifetime trustee of the Commission.

    Zbigniew Brzezinski played an important role in the formation of the Commission and served as its first director from 1973 to 1976. After serving in the Carter administration, Dr. Brzezinski rejoined the Commission in 1981 and served on the executive committee until 2009.

    Other early North Americans leaders were Gerard C. Smith, first North American chairman; Jean-Luc Pepin, who headed the Canadian Group; and George S. Franklin, regional secretary. Richard Cooper, Henry Owen, and Philip Tresize were members of the first political, monetary, and trade task forces to report to the Commission.

    Max Kohnstamm of the Netherlands was the first European chairman and Wolfgang Hager the first regional secretary. Georges Berthoin of France, one of the first members from the European Community and a former European chairman, is now an honorary European chairman. Otto Graf Lambsdorff, another original European member and former European chairman, served as honorary European chairman until his death in 2009. François Duchène, Claudio Sergré, and Don Guido Colonna di Paliano were the European authors of the first task force reports.

    If nothing else, it is refreshing to be honest about who is founding it. Now to get to the trickier question of why it was formed.

    I. What is the Trilateral Commission? When and why was it formed?
    The Trilateral Commission is a non-governmental, policy-oriented discussion group of about 390 distinguished citizens from Europe, North America, and Pacific Asia formed to encourage understanding and closer cooperation among these three regions on shared global problems.

    The idea of the Commission was developed in the early 1970s. This was a time of considerable discord among the United States and its democratic industrialized allies in Western Europe, Japan, and Canada. There was also a sense that the international system was changing in some basic ways with rather uncertain implications. Change was most obvious in the international economy, as Western Europe and Japan gained strength and the position of the U.S. economy became less dominant. The increase in global interdependence was affecting the United States in ways to which it was not accustomed.

    When they talk about closer cooperation and understanding, these are really code words for “globalism”. Eliminate borders to trade, to financial services, and eventually, to people moving.

    This all sounds lovely, but it is incrementally erasing nations. Not an accident, and quite intentional.

    8. Commission/Parliament Conflict of Interest

    Bev Collins is absolutely right about conflict of interest going on in the Canadian Parliament. Here are two egregious examples:

    Roy Maclaren, is a former Minister of International Trade (1996-2000). He was also sitting on the Trilateral Commission the entire time it seems.

    Bill Graham is a former Minister of Foreign Affairs, and also a member of the Trilateral Commission.

    Canada’s Minister of International Trade, and also Minister of Foreign Affairs were also sitting on a Commission that promotes ever growing free trade agreements?! How does that look? But that’s hardly the whole picture.

    NORTH AMERICAN GROUP
    .
    Bertrand-Marc Allen, President, Boeing International, Arlington Graham Allison, Director, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, and Douglas Dillon Professor of Government, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, Cambridge; former Dean, John F. Kennedy School of Government; former Special Advisor to the Secretary of Defense and former Assistant Secretary of Defense
    Rona Ambrose, former MP, former Interim Leader, Conservative Party; former Minister on the Status of Women, Environment, Health and Public Works, Ottawa
    Dominic Barton, Worldwide Managing Director, McKinsey & Company, London
    *Catherine Bertini, Professor, Public Administration and International Affairs, Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs, Syracuse University; Distinguished Fellow, The Chicago Council on Global Affairs
    Herminio Blanco Mendoza, Chairman, IQOM, Mexico City; former Mexican Secretary of Commerce and Industrial Development; former Chief NAFTA Negotiator
    Michael Bloomberg, Founder and CEO, Bloomberg LP, NewYork; fomer Mayor of New York City
    Esther Brimmer, Executive Director and CEO, NAFSA, Association for International Educators, Washington R.
    Nicholas Burns, Professor of the Practice of Diplomacy and International Politics and Member of the Board, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, Cambridge; former U.S. Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs
    Jean Charest, Former Premier of Québec; former Deputy Prime Minister of Canada, Montréal
    *Michael Chertoff, Chairman and Co-Founder, The Chertoff Group; former Secretary of Homeland Security; Former Judge, U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit; Former Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division, Department of Justice, Washington
    Raymond Chrétien, Partner and Strategic Advisor, Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP, Montreal, QC; Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Montréal Council on Foreign Relations (MCFR); former Associate Under Secretary of State of External Affairs; former Ambassador to the Congo, Belgium, Mexico, the United States, and France
    Timothy Collins, CEO and Senior Managing Director, Ripplewood Holdings, Inc., New York
    Richard N. Cooper, Maurits C. Boas Professor of International Economics, Harvard University, Cambridge; former Chairman, National Intelligence Council; former U.S. Under Secretary of State for Economic Affairs
    Heidi Crebo-Rediker, CEO, International Capital Strategies, Washington; former Chief Economist, State Department
    Lee Cullum, Contributing Columnist, Dallas Morning News; Radio and Television Commentator, Dallas Luis de la Calle, Managing Director and Founding Partner, De la Calle, Madrazo, Mancera, S.C. (CMM), Mexico City; former Undersecretary for International Trade Negotiations
    Arthur A. DeFehr, CEO, Palliser Furniture Holdings Ltd., Winnipeg
    André Desmarais, President and Co-Chief Executive Officer, Power Corporation of Canada, Montréal; Deputy Chairman, Power Financial Corporation
    John M. Deutch, Institute Professor emeritus, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge; former Director of Central Intelligence; former U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense and Undersecretary of Energy
    Paula J. Dobriansky, Senior Fellow, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, Cambridge; Vice Chair, National Executive Committee, U.S. Water Partnership; former U.S. Under Secretary of State for Global Affairs
    Wendy Dobson, Professor and Co-Director, Institute for International Business, Rotman School of Management, University of Toronto, Toronto; former Canadian Associate Deputy Minister of Finance
    Gary Doer, former Canadian Ambassador to the United States, Winnipeg Thomas Donilon, Partner and Vice Chair, O’Melveny & Myers LLP, Washington; Non-resident Senior Fellow, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard University; former U.S. National Security Advisor
    *Kenneth M. Duberstein, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, The Duberstein Group, Washington; former Chief of Staff to President Ronald Reagan
    Michael Duffy, former Executive Editor, TIME Magazine, Washington Douglas Elmendorf, Dean, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, Cambridge Richard Falkenrath, Chief Security Officer, Bridgewater Associates, Westport Dawn Farrell, President and CEO, TransAlta Corporation, Calgary
    Diana Farrell, Chief Executive Officer and President, JPMorgan Chase Institute, Washington; former Deputy Director, National Economic Council, and Deputy Assistant to the President for Economic Policy
    Martin S. Feldstein, George F. Baker Professor of Economics, Harvard University, Cambridge; President Emeritus, National Bureau of Economic Research; former Chairman, Council of Economic Advisors
    Linda Frum, Member, Senate of Canada, Ottawa Juan Gallardo, Chairman of the Board, Grupo Embotelladoras Unidas, SA de CV, Mexico City
    *David R. Gergen, Professor of Public Service and Director of the Center for Public Leadership, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, Cambridge; CNN Senior Political Analyst
    Gordon Giffin, Partner, Dentons US LLP, Atlanta; former U.S. Ambassador to Canada
    Donald Gogel, President and Chief Executive Officer, Clayton Dubilier and Rice, Inc., New York
    Jamie S. Gorelick, Partner, WilmerHale, Washington; former Deputy Attorney General; former General Counsel, Department of Defense
    Bill Graham Chancellor, Trinity College, University of Toronto; former Member, House of Commons; former Minister of Foreign Affairs and former Minister of Defense, Ottawa Donald Graham, Chairman and CEO of Graham Holdings Company, former owner of The Washington Post Company, Washington Peter Harder, Member, Senate of Canada, Ottawa
    *Jane Harman, Director, President, and CEO, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Washington; former Member, U.S. House of Representatives
    Linda Hasenfratz, President and CEO, Linamar Corporation, Ontario
    Carlos Heredia, Associate Professor, Department of International Studies, Center for Research and Teaching in Economics (CIDE), Mexico City; Coordinator, Program for the Study of the United States, CIDE
    John B. Hess, Chairman of the Board and CEO, Hess Corporation, New York
    *Carla A. Hills, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Hills & Company, Washington; former U.S. Trade Representative; former U.S. Secretary of Housing and Urban Development
    *Karen Elliott House, writer, Princeton, NJ; Senior Fellow, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University; former Senior Vice President, Dow Jones & Company, and Publisher, The Wall Street Journal
    Joseph K. Hurd, III, former Director, Emerging Business, Facebook, Menlo Park
    David Ignatius, Columnist, The Washington Post, Washington Merit E. Janow, Dean of the Faculty and Professor of Practice, International Economic Law and International Affairs, Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs (SIPA), New York; former Member, Appellate Body from North America, World Trade Organization
    P. Thomas Jenkins, Chair, Open Text, Waterloo; Chair, National Research Council of Canada
    Lewis Kaden, Chairman, Markle Foundation Board of Directors; Former Vice Chairman, Citigroup, New York
    Andy Karsner, Managing Partner of the Emerson Collective; Senior Strategist at X; former Assistant Secretary of Energy for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
    Juliette Kayyem, Lecturer in Public Policy, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, Cambridge; Former Columnist, Boston Globe
    Timothy Keating, Senior Vice President, Government Operations, The Boeing Company, Arlington
    Colin Kenny, Member, Senate of Canada, Ottawa; former Special Assistant, Director of Operations, and Assistant Principal Secretary, to the Rt. Hon. P. E. Trudeau; Member, Special Senate Committee on Terrorism and Security, Special Joint Committee on Canadian Defence Policy; former Chair of Senate Standing Committee on National Security and Defence
    Robert M. Kimmitt, Senior International Counsel, WilmerHale, Washington; former U.S. Deputy Secretary of the Treasury; former U.S. Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs; former U.S. Ambassador to Germany
    Henry A. Kissinger, Chairman, Kissinger Associates, Inc., New York; former U.S. Secretary of State; former Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs; Lifetime Trustee, Trilateral Commission Nicholas Kristof, Columnist, The New York Times, Scarsdale Stephanie Kusie, Member of Parliament, House of Commons, Ottawa Fred Langhammer, Chairman, Global Affairs, The Estée Lauder Companies, Inc., New York
    Hélène Laverdière, Member of Parliament, House of Commons, Ottawa *Monique Leroux, Chair of the Board of Investissement, Québec
    Andrew Leslie, Member of Parliament, House of Commons, Ottawa
    Marne Levine, former Chief Operating Officer, Instagram, Menlo Park Santiago Levy, Vice President for Sectors and Knowledge, Inter-American Development Bank, Washington David Lipton, First Deputy Managing Director, International Monetary Fund, Washington
    Linda Koch Lorimer, CEO, Abundantior; former Vice President for Global & Strategic Initiatives, Yale University
    *John Manley, Chair CIBC, CIBC Bank USA, and Chair CAE Inc.
    Judith A. McHale, President and Chief Executive Officer, Cane Investments, LLC, Hastings on Hudson; former U.S. Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs; former President and Chief Executive Officer, Discovery Communications
    Thomas F. McLarty, III, President, McLarty Asssociates, Washington; former Chief of Staff to President Clinton
    Lourdes Melgar, Energy Scholar, MIT Center for International Studies, Mexico City
    Jami Miscik, President and Vice Chairman, Kissinger Associates, Inc., New York; former Deputy Director for Intelligence, Central Intelligence Agency Andrea Mitchell, Chief Foreign Affairs Correspondent, NBC News, Washington
    Adm. Michael Mullen (Ret.), CEO, MGM Consulting, Annapolis; former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Heather Munroe-Blum, Chair of the Board, Canada Pension Investment Fund; Principal Emerita and Professor, Faculty of Medicine, McGill University, Toronto
    Lori Esposito Murray, Distinguished Chair for National Security, U.S. Naval Academy; former President & Chief Executive Officer, World Affairs Councils of America; former Special Advisor to the President on the Chemical Weapons Convention; former Assistant Director, U.S. Arms Control & Disarmament Agency
    John D. Negroponte, Vice Chairman, McLarty Associates, Washington; former Deputy Secretary of State; former Director of National Intelligence; former Ambassador to the United Nations, Honduras, Mexico, the Philippines and Iraq
    *Joseph S. Nye, Jr., University Distinguished Service Professor and former Dean, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, Cambridge; former Chair, National Intelligence Council; former U.S. Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs; former North American Chairman, Trilateral Commission
    *Meghan L. O’Sullivan, Evron and Jeane Kirkpatrick Professor of the Practice of International Affairs, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, Cambridge; former Special Assistant to President and Deputy National Security Advisor for Iraq and Afghanistan; North American Chairman, Trilateral Commission Thomas R. Pickering, Vice Chair, Hills & Company, Washington; former Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs; former U.S. Ambassador to the Russian Federation, India, Israel, El Salvador, Nigeria, Jordan, and the United Nations; former Senior Vice President, International Relations, Boeing Company
    John A. Quelch, Vice Provost for Education and Dean, School of Business Administration, University of Miami, Miami
    John Risley, Chairman and President, Clearwater, Bedford
    Andrés Rozental, former Mexican Deputy Foreign Minister; Nonresident Senior Fellow, Foreign Policy, Latin America Initiative, Brookings Institution, Mexico City
    David M. Rubenstein, Co-founder and Managing Director, The Carlyle Group, Washington
    *Luis Rubio, President, Mexican Council on Foreign Relations; Chairman, Center for Research Development (CIDAC), Mexico City Indira Samarasekera, Senior Advisor, Bennett Jones LLP, Vancouver
    David Sanger, Chief Washington Correspondent, The New York Times, Adjunct Lecturer in Public Policy, Harvard University, Cambridge Eric Schmidt, Technical Advisor and Board Member, Alphabet Inc., Mountain View
    Susan Schwab, Professor, Maryland School of Public Policy, University of Maryland, College Park; former U.S. Trade Representative Gerald Seib, Executive Washington Editor, The Wall Street Journal, Washington Jaime Serra, Chairman, SAI Law and Economics; Founder, Aklara, the Arbitration Center of Mexico, and the NAFTA Fund of Mexico, Mexico City; Deputy Chairman, North American Trilateral Commission
    Rajiv Shah, President, Rockefeller Foundation; Distinguished Fellow in Residence, Edward A. Walsh School of Foreign Service, Georgetown University, Washington; former Administrator, U.S. Agency for International Development
    Wendy Sherman, Senior Advisor, Albright Stonebridge Group; Resident Fellow, Harvard Kennedy School Institute of Politics; former Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Jeffrey Simpson, Senior Fellow, Graduate School of Public and International Affairs, University of Ottawa; former National Affairs Columnist, The Globe and Mail, Senior Fellow, University of Ottawa, Ottawa
    Olympia Snowe, Former U.S. Senator; Senior Fellow, Bipartisan Policy Center, Portland
    Cecilia Soto Gonzalez, Federal Congresswoman, Mexico City Nancy Southern, President and Chief Executive Officer, ATCO Ltd. and Canadian Utilities Limited, Calgary
    *James B. Steinberg, former Dean, Maxwell School, and University Professor of Social Science, International Affairs and Law, Syracuse University, Syracuse; former Deputy Secretary of State, former Deputy National Security Advisor *Carole Taylor, Chancellor Emeritus, Simon Fraser University, Vancouver; former Minister of Finance, British Columbia; former Chair, CBC/Radio-Canada; former Chair, Canada Ports; public affairs broadcaster
    Luis Téllez Kuenzler, Special Advisor, KKR, President, NTT Everis; former Chairman of the Board, Mexican Stock Exchange, Mexico City; former Secretary of Communications and Transportation of Mexico
    G. Richard Thoman, Managing Partner, Corporate Perspectives, New York; Adjunct Professor of International Business, Columbia University; Professor of Practice in International Business, the Fletcher School, Tufts University; former President and Chief Executive Officer, Xerox Corporation; former Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, IBM Corporation
    *Frances Townsend, Senior Vice President, Worldwide Government, Legal and Business Affairs, MacAndrews & Forbes Inc., New York; former Assistant to the President for Homeland Security
    Melanne Verveer, Executive Director, Georgetown Institute for Women, Peace and Security, Georgetown University, Washington Guillermo F. Vogel, Director and Vice President of the Board, Tenaris, Mexico City
    *Paul A. Volcker, former Chairman, President’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board; former Chairman, Wolfensohn & Co., Inc., New York;
    Frederick H. Schultz Professor Emeritus, International Economic Policy, Princeton University; former Chairman, Board of Governors, U.S. Federal Reserve System; Honorary North American Chairman and former North American Chairman, Trilateral Commission
    Yuen Pau Woo, Member of Parliament, House of Commons, Ottawa
    Robert Zoellick, Chairman, Alliance Bernstein, New York; former President, The World Bank Daniel Yergin, Vice Chairman, IHS, Cambridge

    Any more names look familiar?

    9. NAFTA Resulted In Job Losses

    This Economic Policy Institute study estimates job losses from NAFTA. Almost 900,000
    This EPI study estimates job losses from trade with China. Note, it is not even “free” trade, just “liberalized” trade. An estimated 3.4 million jobs.
    And another study on job losses, due to NAFTA.

    And no, job losses are not just an American problem. According to Statistics Canada, there were some very alarming trends across the developed world.

    Shrinking employment in manufacturing is a common trend in almost all OECD countries. From 1998 to 2008, the United States lost close to one-quarter (4.1 million) of its manufacturing jobs. Elsewhere in the OECD, from 1990 to 2003, manufacturing employment fell by 29% in the United Kingdom, 24% in Japan, 20% in Belgium and Sweden and 14% in France.

    Canada’s manufacturing industry lost 278,000 jobs (1 in 6) from 2000 to 2007, which reduced the sector’s share of total employment from 16% to 12%. That share then declined to 10% in 2009 after the 2008–2009 recession when manufacturers faced weaker demand and cuts to industrial capacity, resulting in the loss of 188,000 jobs. Regions where employment is highly concentrated in the manufacturing sector—mainly in Quebec and Ontario—experienced the greatest manufacturing job losses. From 2000 to 2007, Canadian manufacturing workers aged 20 to 29 in these regions were the most affected by the employment decline in this sector, as they were up to twice as likely to experience a loss of income as those holding a comparable job in a region with a low concentration of manufacturing.

    In addition, job security deteriorated in regions of high manufacturing concentration in 2007, leaving workers at greater risk of unemployment and more likely to be receiving Employment Insurance (EI) benefits. Manufacturing workers in these regions were 39% more likely to receive EI benefits than their counterparts in regions with a low concentration of manufacturing.

    Why have all these nations taken huge job losses, especially in manufacturing? Could be because “free trade” allows companies to shop around for cheaper labour costs.

    When 2 nations are very similar in their employment laws and standards, this can theoretically work. But the problem is that these deals create a “race to the bottom”, where cost cutting and the bottom line are the only considerations.

    10. Free Trade Has Real Costs

    A quick primer is this Lou Dobbs video.

    These deals give foreign companies rights to marketplaces and workforces that domestic companies do. This may sound great, but the reality is the undercutting domestic producers can put lots of people out of work.

    As demonstrated by Chapter 11 of NAFTA, there is a lot potential for new litigation for companies not getting the results or the market share they want. Who pays for it? Taxpayers.

    Politicians like Roy Maclaren or Bill Graham can also sit on corporate boards, while still claiming to advocate for the Canadian public. And these conflict-of-interests are hardly limited to Canada. It raises valid questions about who they really work for. Furthermore, for the Liberals to campaign on amending NAFTA (then scrap the promise), makes people wonder if they ever intended to keep the promise.

    The well being of communities doesn’t get emphasized enough. Large employers essentially provide for many families, and help keep things stable. If it suddenly becomes advantageous to pack up and leave, then a lot of people get screwed over.

    Is this a rejection of business or capitalism? No. However, there are other things to consider than simply profits and GDP.

    Posted on

    Committee for Monetary and Economic Reform (COMER) Case, Bank Of Canada

    An update on this is coming soon.
    It’s time to go through this again.

    1. From COMER’s 2011 Press Release

    The action also constitutionally challenges the government’s fallacious accounting methods in its tabling of the budget by not calculating nor revealing the true and total revenues of the nation before transferring back “tax credits” to corporations and other taxpayers.

    The Plaintiffs state that since 1974 there has been a gradual but sure slide into the reality that the Bank of Canada and Canada’s monetary and financial policy are dictated by private foreign banks and financial interests contrary to the Bank of Canada Act.

    The Plaintiffs state that the Bank of International Settlements (BIS), the Financial Stability Forum (FSF) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) were all created with the cognizant intent of keeping poorer nations in their place which has now expanded to all nations in that these financial institutions largely succeed in over-riding governments and constitutional orders in countries such as Canada over which they exert financial control.

    The Plaintiffs state that the meetings of the BIS and Financial Stability Board (FSB) (successor of FSF), their minutes, their discussions and deliberations are secret and not available nor accountable to Parliament, the executive, nor the Canadian public notwithstanding that the Bank of Canada policies directly emanate from these meetings. These organizations are essentially private, foreign entities controlling Canada’s banking system and socio-economic policies.

    The gist of the press release, and of the Claim overall, is that Canada’s banking system has been hijacked and usurped. As such, it is controlled by foreign entities such as the Bank of International Settlements and the International Monetary Fund.

    As was outlined in the last article, Canada’s banking “was” effectively turned over. The result is that Canada, instead of loaning money to itself, is now borrowing from private banks. As such, it is being bled dry.

    In fact, COMER’s claims can be easily validated by online research. The question for the Court to decide: is this actually legal?

    2. Ruling Striking Out Statement of Claim

    [5] The core elements of COMER’s Claim can be reduced to three parts:
    1. The Bank of Canada (Bank) and Crown refuse to provide interest-free loans for capital expenditures.
    2. The Crown uses flawed accounting methods in describing public finances, which provides the rationale for refusing to grant such loans.
    3. These and other harms are caused by the Bank being controlled by private foreign interests.

    The Pronothary summarizing the main issues the Plaintiffs raise

    Discussion
    [41] Against these competing positions, it must be remembered that the test for striking an action is a high one. The action must be bereft of any chance of success and as noted above just because it is a novel cause of action it does not automatically fail.[26]

    [42] The Supreme Court of Canada has recently summarized the principles to be applied on a motion to strike. In R. v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd.,[27] the Chief Justice, writing for the Court made the following observations regarding a motion to strike:

    17. The parties agree on the test applicable on a motion to strike for not disclosing a reasonable cause of action under r. 19(24)(a) of the B.C. Supreme Court Rules. This Court has reiterated the test on many occasions. A claim will only be struck if it is plain and obvious, assuming the facts pleaded to be true, that the pleading discloses no reasonable cause of action: Odhavji Estate v. Woodhouse, 2003 SCC 69 (CanLII), [2003] 3 S.C.R. 263, at para. 15; Hunt v. Carey Canada Inc., 1990 CanLII 90 (SCC), [1990] 2 S.C.R. 959, at p. 980. Another way of putting the test is that the claim has no reasonable prospect of [page 67] success. Where a reasonable prospect of success exists, the matter should be allowed to proceed to trial: see, generally, Syl Apps Secure Treatment Centre v. B.D., 2007 SCC 38 (CanLII), [2007] 3 S.C.R. 83; Odhavji Estate; Hunt; Attorney General of Canada v. Inuit Tapirisat of Canada, 1980 CanLII 21 (SCC), [1980] 2 S.C.R. 735.

    . . .

    21. Valuable as it is, the motion to strike is a tool that must be used with care. The law is not static and unchanging. Actions that yesterday were deemed hopeless may tomorrow succeed. Before Donoghue v. Stevenson, [1932] A.C. 562 (H.L.) introduced a general duty of care to one’s neighbour premised [page68] on foreseeability, few would have predicted that, absent a contractual relationship, a bottling company could be held liable for physical injury and emotional trauma resulting from a snail in a bottle of ginger beer. Before Hedley Byrne & Co. v. Heller & Partners, Ltd., [1963] 2 All E.R. 575 (H.L.), a tort action for negligent misstatement would have been regarded as incapable of success. The history of our law reveals that often new developments in the law first surface on motions to strike or similar preliminary motions, like the one at issue in Donoghue v. Stevenson. Therefore, on a motion to strike, it is not determinative that the law has not yet recognized the particular claim. The court must rather ask whether, assuming the facts pleaded are true, there is a reasonable prospect that the claim will succeed. The approach must be generous and err on the side of permitting a novel but arguable claim to proceed to trial.

    What we can gain from this is that striking out a Statement of Claim is something that must be done cautiously, and only when it is plain and obvious that there is no chance to succeed.

    Some of what may be “struck out” now, may in fact later be the basis for new laws, so the Courts should exercise caution and not jump to conclusions.

    [30] The Crown further contends that COMER’s claim is outside this Court’s jurisdiction as it fails to meet the three-part test set out in ITO-International Terminal Operators Ltd v. Miida Electronics Inc.[21] In ITO, the Supreme Court considered the jurisdiction of the Federal Court in the context of an admiralty action. The Supreme Court determined that jurisdiction in the Federal Court depends on three factors:
    1. There must be a statutory grant of jurisdiction by the Federal Parliament.
    2. There must be an existing of body of federal law which is essential to the disposition of the case and which nourishes the statutory grant of jurisdiction.
    3. The law on which the case is based must be a “law of Canada” as the phrase is used in s. 101 of the Constitution Act, 1867 [page 766]

    [57] The jurisdictional issue raised by the Crown engages the three part test set out in ITO as discussed above. The Crown argues that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain tort claims against Federal authorities.

    [58] However, pursuant to sections 2, 17 and 18 of the Federal Courts Act, the wording is sufficiently wide to capture these types of claims against federal actors and Crown servants. It is therefore not plain and obvious that this Court is without jurisdiction to entertain claims seeking declaratory relief as here.

    One of the major contentions is that the Government alleged that the Federal Court had no jurisdiction to even hear the case. The Pronothary took a different view. However, there were other problems which ended with this.

    [71] There is ample authority in this Court and in the jurisprudence generally that where a claim has some kernel of a legitimate claim it should not be tossed aside but permitted to be amended to determine if the clam in law can be cured.[45]

    [72] Given that the Claim, in my view, is not justiciable, leave to amend will not cure the defects. Leave to amend is therefore not granted.

    The case was thrown out on a motion to strike. However, that will not be the end of it. The Plaintiffs would appeal to a Justice of the Federal Court.

    3. COMER Appeals Dismissal


    (See here.)

    The striking out (without permission to amend) was appealed to a Justice of the Federal Court. This was a partial victory, as the dismissal “was” upheld, but it allowed the Plaintiff’s to file an amended Claim. This would be another “chance” to get it right.

    4. COMER Tries To File Again


    (See here.)
    After the Justice of the Federal Court upheld the dismissal (but giving leave to amend the Statement of Claim), COMER appealed to the Federal Court of Appeal, and the Government cross-appealed.

    In short, the Plaintiffs were trying to get the dismissal overturned entirely, while the Government tried to remove the clause to allow COMER to file an amended Statement of Claim.

    The Federal Appeals Court panel (3 Justices) threw out both the appeal and cross-appeal.

    5. COMER’s Amended Statement Thrown Out


    (See here.)

    [66] In terms of the general principles that ought to be applied on a motion to strike, the Plaintiffs assert that the facts pleaded by the Plaintiffs must be taken as proven: Canada (Attorney General) v Inuit Tapirasat of Canada, 1980 CanLII 21 (SCC), [1980] 2 SCR 735; Nelles v Ontario (1989), DLR (4th) 609 (SCC) [Nelles]; Operation Dismantle, above; Hunt v Carey Canada Inc 1990 CanLII 90 (SCC), [1990] 2 SCR 959 [Hunt]; Dumont v Canada (Attorney General), 1990 CanLII 131 (SCC), [1990] 1 SCR 279 [Dumont]; Nash v Ontario (1995), 1995 CanLII 2934 (ON CA), 27 OR (3d) 1 (Ont CA) [Nash]; Canada v Arsenault, 2009 FCA 242 (CanLII) [Arsenault].

    [67] The Plaintiffs echo the test referenced by the Defendants, asserting that a claim can be struck only in plain and obvious cases where the pleading is bad beyond argument: Nelles, above, at para 3. The Court has provided further guidance in Dumont, above, that an outcome should be “plain and obvious” or “beyond doubt” before striking can be invoked (at para 2). Striking cannot be justified by a claim that raises an “arguable, difficult or important point of law”: Hunt, above, at para 55.

    [68] The novelty of the Amended Claim is not reason in and of itself to strike it: Nash, above, at para 11; Hanson v Bank of Nova Scotia (1994), 1994 CanLII 573 (ON CA), 19 OR (3d) 142 (CA); Adams-Smith v Christian Horizons (1997), 3 OR (3d) 640 (Ont Gen Div). Additionally, matters that are not fully settled by the jurisprudence should not be disposed of on a motion to strike: RD Belanger & Associates Ltd v Stadium Corp of Ontario Ltd (1991), 1991 CanLII 2731 (ON CA), 5 OR (3d) 778 (CA). In order for the Defendants to succeed, the Plaintiffs state that a case from the same jurisdiction that squarely deals with, and rejects, the very same issue must be presented: Dalex Co v Schwartz Levitsky Feldman (1994), 19 OR (3d) 215 (CA). The Court should be generous when interpreting the drafting of the pleadings, and allow for amendments prior to striking: Grant v Cormier – Grant et al (2001), 2001 CanLII 3041 (ON CA), 56 OR (3d) 215 (CA).

    [69] The Plaintiffs also remind the Court that the line between fact and evidence is not always clear (Liebmann v Canada, 1993 CanLII 3006 (FC), [1994] 2 FC 3 at para 20) and that the Amended Claim must be taken as pleaded by the Plaintiffs, not as reconfigured by the Defendants: Arsenault, above, at para 10.

    Plaintiffs arguing that the Defendant has not actually met the burden to strike out a Statement of Claim. However, the Justice decides differently.

    [137] In the present case, the Plaintiffs have not, in their Amended Claim, pleaded facts to demonstrate a “real” issue concerning the relative interests of each party, and the nexus of that real issue to the Plaintiffs and their claim for relief. Although as I pointed out in my Order of April 24, 2014, the Plaintiffs do distinguish between legal issues and policy issues, the legal issues remain theoretical with no real nexus to some interest of the Plaintiffs, other than an interest in having the Court endorse their opinion on the Bank Act issues raised.

    [138] The Plaintiffs have not addressed the jurisdictional problems I referred to in paras 85 to 91 of my Order of April 24, 2014 and/or what might generally be referred to as the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain, or its willingness to grant, free-standing requests for declaration.

    The Justice Rules that the original problems are left unfixed. As such, the case is thrown out. This time, there is no leave to amend, so if this is to continue, it must go back to the Federal Court of Appeals.

    6. Return to Federal Court of Appeals


    (See here.)

    [9] The essence of the Federal Court judge’s reasoning for striking the amended statement of claim is summed up at paragraph 144 of his reasons: It seems to me, then, that the latest Amended Claim discloses no reasonable cause of action and has no prospect of success at trial. It also seems to me that the Plaintiffs are still asking the Court for an advisory opinion in the form of declarations that their view of the way the Bank Act and the Constitution should be read is correct. It also seems to me that they have failed to show a statutory grant of jurisdiction by Parliament that this Court can entertain and rule on their claim as presently constituted, or that they have any specific rights under the legislation which they invoke, or a legal framework for any such rights. As the Supreme Court of Canada pointed out in Operation Dismantle, above, the preventive function of a declaratory judgment must be more than hypothetical and requires “a cognizable threat to a legal interest before the Court will entertain the use of its process as a preventative measure” (para 33). The Court is not here to declare the law generally or to give an advisory opinion. The Court is here to decide and declare contested legal rights.

    [10] The appellants assert that the opinion so expressed is wrong in law. In support of this proposition, they essentially reiterate the arguments which they urged upon the Federal Court judge and ask that we come to a different conclusion. Counsel for the appellants focused his argument during the hearing on the issue of standing and the right to seek declarations of constitutionality. It remains however that, as the Federal Court judge found, the right to a remedy is conditional on the existence of a justiciable issue.

    The Federal Appeals Court believes that COMER is still asking for an advisory opinion. Furthermore, the FCA still believes that no justiciable issue has been raised.

    7. Supreme Court of Canada Declines To Hear Case


    (See here.)

    The Supreme Court refuses to hear the case, which means it is legally over. It would have been nice to have some actual reasons included. However, due to the volume of cases it receives, rejected applications generally don’t receive them.

    Despite repeated rejection by the Courts, the questions about the changes in banking policy were never really addressed. Does giving control of our central bank to foreign powers break the law?

    This is supposedly a “political” issue, but no politicians are willing to talk about it.

    As of now, Canada is still borrowing money from private banks, as opposed to ourselves. We are racking up huge levels of debt that we shouldn’t be.

    (1) http://www.comer.org ARCHIVE
    (2) http://www.comer.org/content/SupremeCourtDecision_4May17.htm
    (3) http://www.comer.org/content/COMER_CourtCasePressRelease.pdf
    (4) http://comer.org/content/COMER_CourtProceedings5Dec2012.pdf
    (5) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2013/2013fc855/2013fc855.html
    (6) http://comer.org/content/COMER_Appeal24April2014.pdf
    (7) http://comer.org/content/COMER_FederalCourtDecisionApr2014.pdf
    (8) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fca/doc/2015/2015fca20/2015fca20.html
    (9) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fca/doc/2016/2016fca312/2016fca312.html