Check toolbar on right for globalism links (under counter). Also view the MASTERLIST.
All personal court appearances are under “BLOG”
Fed Court cases are addressed on right under “Canadian Media”.
QUOTES FROM MOTION TO STRIKE
10. An endorsement to a proposed organization, like the UNPA, or even a decision to participate in the UNPA, is not a decision of a “federal board, commission or other tribunal” within the meaning of sections 2 and 18.1 of the Federal Courts Act. Accordingly, this application must fail.
14. There has been no decision of a federal board, commission or tribunal, therefore, this application is completely without merit. Regardless, Canada’s actions in signing or endorsing an international body do not give rise a decision that can be judicially reviewed.
15. This application bears some similarities to Turp v Canada (Justice).10 In that case, the Applicant filed an application for judicial review of Canada’s decision to withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol. The Federal Court held that in the absence of a Charter challenge, a decision pertaining to such matters is not justiciable.
16. The matter at bar is also distinguishable from Turp. The Government of Canada has taken no action to participate in the proposed UNPA, therefore, there is no decision to judicially review. In Turp there was a decision to withdraw from the Kyoto protocol.
17. Regardless, it is well-established that under the royal prerogative, the conduct of foreign affairs and international relations, including the decision to conclude or withdraw from a treaty, falls exclusively under the executive branch of government
18. In Turp c. Canada, the Federal Trial Court followed the Ontario Court of Appeal’s holding in Black v Canada that the exercise of the prerogative is justiciable only when the subject matter affects the rights or legitimate expectations of an individual.
19. Even if there was a “decision” in this matter, Canada is exercising its prerogative powers under foreign affairs when participating or endorsing any international body like the UNPA.
20. In the Applicant’s material, she enumerates seven grounds for her application:
a) First, that the proposed UNPA violates “Peace Order and Good Government” pursuant to section 91 of the Constitution Act, 1867;
b) Second, that the UNPA violates section 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982;
c) Third, that the UNPA violates sections 91 and 92 of the Constitution Act, 1867;
d) Fourth, that the UNPA requires a constitutional amendment, pursuant to section 38 of the Constitution Act, 1982
e) Fifth, that the UNPA violates section 3 of the Charter;
f) Sixth, that the UNPA violates section 2 of the Charter;
g) Seventh, that the UNPA violates section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982
21. Although the Applicant has raised several constitutional issues, she has failed to articulate how endorsements of a proposed international body like the UNPA violates any of the ground listed. Likewise, she has failed to articulate how it affects her rights.
22. The UNPA does not affect the Applicant’s rights or legitimate expectations because it has no legal personhood, domestically or internationally, and therefore has no ability to affect the Applicant. The application is both premature and meritless.
23. In summary, there are obvious and fatal flaws with this application. Canada therefore requests that the application be dismissed on the basis that the application is so clearly improper as to be bereft of any possibility of success.
A number of problems cited:
- Application for Judicial Review is wrong format
- Endorsements are not sufficient
- Matter brought to court prematurely
- “Prerogative Power” allows such a “treaty”
- Court has no basis to interfere
Admittedly, a lot to take on. But a response is coming.