Recent Posts

Posted on

MacDonald Gets 10 Years For Production Of Atomwaffen Videos

An Ontario man, Patrick Gordon MacDonald, received a 10 year jail sentence for a series of terrorism offences. Specifically, he was convicted for creating 3 videos encouraging people to join the group Atomwaffen. While he posted other content online, it’s these videos which caused the most trouble.

One might think that there’s little else to do in the way of solving crime in Canada. Police spent a lot of time and money going after him.

It’s true that the creation of the videos predates Atomwaffen’s designation by Ottawa as a terrorist organization. However, it didn’t seem to matter much. The videos MacDonald made were called:

  1. Grey Zone
  2. Fission
  3. Feuernacht

The ruling doesn’t go into great detail about the contents of the videos, but these remarks are made.

[35] The videos had two purposes: a) to recruit new members; and b) to propagate AWD terrorist ideology by encouraging viewers to start the revolution and purge the weak. The Fission video invites viewers to join AWD in their efforts to “vanquish the modern world”; the narrator continues stating “we call forward all who are willing to descend, like a howling wolf, on the frail fold and rend limb from limb those without the stomach to fight”, “from the ashes of the kike system, our new order shall emerge” and concludes by saying “join us or perish with the rest”, which is a statement that expressly incites fear in members of the public.

[36] In the Feuernacht video, the narrator exhorts viewers to “burn it all, purge the weak, join the division”. The Grey Zone video concludes by telling viewers to “get the program”, “create your own cell”, and “start the revolution”. It describes the terror that will be unleashed on “fat, treacherous bureaucrats” and “Jewish snakes”, “we will storm your mansions, creating caskets from your dining tables and tombstones of your bedposts”. All three videos end with the same email address: awdrecruiting@tutonota.com.

Apparently, there was nothing in any of them to indicate it was trolling or satire.

“Grey Zone” was filmed at an abandoned cement plant in Belleville, Ontario. The police spent some time comparing the graffiti and marks on the cement wall. They also pulled MacDonald’s phone records (including location data), to confirm he was in Belleville. (Paragraph 38)

“Fission” was filmed at a former school in St. Ferdinand, Québec in July 2019. The police pulled MacDonald’s bank records to show that he had made purchases in the area. Oddly, phone records show that his cell wasn’t in the area, and the Judge simply concluded it might have been loaned out at that time. (Paragraph 38 f/g)

The Judge doesn’t say where Feuernacht was created, but ruled that it was shot by the same camera which created the other 2 videos.

On some level, it’s quite something the effort that was spent to find out where, when and by whom these videos were made. That said, it’s telling that there are many other serious crimes that go on in Ontario that receive little to no investigation.

Side note: another honeypot has decided to call out Atomwaffen. It’s amusing when they turn against each other.

MacDonald’s Counsel Does Lackluster Job

To be blunt, it’s not really clear what the strategy was supposed to be. There were several things that implicated MacDonald, and there seemed to be no effort to attempt any mitigation.

[17] The Defence did not attack any of Dr. Perry’s evidence about the history of AWD, the formation of AWD, or dispute her opinion evidence that AWD’s core ideological views were based on neo-Nazi accelerationism or that it encouraged its members to engage in acts of violence against the state, Jewish people, minorities, and others with the intent to create a race war to establish a white ethno-state.

[20] I accept Dr. Perry’s expert evidence about the history and the ideological beliefs of the AWD group, including her opinion that AWD was a terrorist group within the definition of section 83.01(1) of the Criminal Code in the 2018-2019 time period, because AWD encouraged its members to commit violent acts against the state, Jewish people, minorities, and others to create a race war to establish a white ethno-state. I also accept Dr. Perry’s opinion evidence that one of AWD’s purposes was the facilitation of carrying out a terrorist activity and as such, it was a terrorist entity in 2018-2019. Her opinion was not contested on this point.

[27] The Accused posted the recruitment videos and violent Nazi images online under the online pseudonym “Dark Foreigner” for AWD on several media platforms using the hashtag “atomwaffen division”. The login information and password for these accounts were found above the ceiling tiles in the Accused’s residence during the search of his premises. The fact that the Accused hid the login information and passwords for these accounts above the ceiling tiles indicates his knowledge that AWD was a terrorist group. The post by “Dark Foreigner” on Tumblr on April 16, 2018, included an image showing the trefoil symbol, a person wearing a balaclava skull mask, a military camouflage jacket, an assault jacket, and carrying a weapon with the words “Nazi” and “Atomwaffen” inscribed at the bottom.

[29] Finally, the pamphlet of “the AWD program” written in Russian was also found hidden above the ceiling tiles in the Accused’s room in the basement. While the recruitment pamphlets of AWD were written in Russian, the fact that the Accused hid the pamphlets above the ceiling tiles indicates that he knew about the ideology of AWD and tried to conceal the pamphlet to avoid detection of the fact that he was a participant in the activities of AWD and that it was a terrorist group.

[30] The metadata contained in the Grey Zone video, namely in the JPEG files, confirms that these images were filmed using the Accused’s Fuji camera and lenses that had the identical serial number as the Fuji camera and lenses that were found in the Accused’s residence during the search of his premises. This is strong evidence that the Accused was involved in taking images with his Fuji camera and lenses that were included and found in the Grey Zone video. It is also strong evidence that the Accused was aware of AWD’s ideology and that it was a terrorist group.

[34] The Defence did not argue that contributing to or participating in the production of the recruitment videos would not amount to participating or contributing to a terrorist activity. The issue is whether the Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the Accused is the person that participated in the production of the recruitment videos and posted the violent Nazi images online.

While the decision convicting MacDonald is long, here are a few highlights. The Defence apparently never tried to argue that creating these videos didn’t amount to terrorism. Instead, his lawyers tried arguing that it wasn’t him.

However, a few things really hamstrung MacDonald: (a) metadata from his camera; (b) cellphone activity; (c) AWD pamphlet and login information for his social media accounts hidden in the ceiling; and (d) clothing that appeared to match those seen in the videos.

[3] The Defence raises two arguments against the conviction:

a. Firstly, the Crown’s evidence does not identify the Accused as the person who participated in or contributed to the production of the three recruitment videos and posted AWD propaganda images online beyond a reasonable doubt; and

b. Secondly, the Defence submits that the expert evidence of Dr. Perry, to the effect that AWD was a terrorist group in the 2018-2019 period that promoted the use of violence in Defence of the white race, was not sufficiently reliable to constitute proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

According to the Judge however, the Defence never really challenged the testimony from Barbara Perry about Atomwaffen’s core ideological beliefs.

Timeline Of Major Events In Case

2019: MacDonald creates 3 promotional videos for Atomwaffen. It’s noteworthy that all of this happened prior to the group being designated as a terrorist organization in 2021.

February 3rd, 2021: Atomwaffen is officially classified as a terrorist group.

November 18th to December 3rd, 2024: MacDonald formally goes on Trial.

April 2nd, 2025: Justice Smith convicts MacDonald on 3 counts of participation in activity of terrorist group. He remains out on bail.

August 7th, 2025: Justice Smith agreed to let Matthew Kriner give opinion evidence during the sentencing hearing of MacDonald.

September 8th, 2025: MacDonald is sentenced to 10 years in prison.

Is An Appeal Likely To Succeed?

10 years is a long time for a first arrest. MacDonald had no prior record, so that should count for a lot. He also remained on bail for 2 years without incident.

On the other hand, Judges are given a large amount of deference when handing down sentences, and Appellate Courts may be reluctant to interfere. This last ruling is not yet available on CanLII, but should be interesting to read.

But if he does appeal, perhaps he should get a better lawyer.

(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2025/2025onsc1939/2025onsc1939.html
(2) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2025/2025onsc4582/2025onsc4582.html
(3) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/regu/sor-2002-284/latest/sor-2002-284.html
(4) https://sppc.gc.ca/eng/nws-nvs/2025/08_09_25.html
(5) https://x.com/JeremyMacKenzi/status/1965106679634112626/
(6) https://jeremymackenzie.substack.com/p/talk-shit-get-ten-years

Posted on

“Atomwaffen Applicant” To Be Sentenced For Participation In Terrorist Group

Last month, Seth Bertrand was found guilty of participation in activity of a terrorist group. The organization is the Atomwaffen Division, or AWD, also known as the National Socialist Order, or NSO. He is expected to be sentenced in October, and faces up to 10 years in prison.

It’s a fair question to ask whether this was explicitly set up by the authorities (as Grant Bristow did with Heritage Front), or if it has simply been heavily infiltrated. In either situation, Bertrand is in serious trouble.

He has effectively screwed up his life over graffiti, a broken window, and some slashed tires. Moreover, he ran his mouth to undercover police, explicitly stating that he wanted to join a “domestic terrorist organization”.

During that time, Bertrand apparently also reached out to: (a) Injekt Division; (b) National Partisans; and (c) The Minutemen. Similarly, one has to ask if any of these are ‘legitimate’ organizations, or merely fronts created by the police.

The way Bertrand describes things, he was angry and frustrated in early 2021 from various lockdown measures and the apparent helplessness in his life. This likely is true.

In, 2023, he pleaded guilty to inciting hate, and to 3 counts of mischief. However, he fought the terrorism charge, which was by far the most serious.

Diagolon Engages In “Fed-Jacketing” Against Atomwaffen

As an aside, law enforcement operations aren’t safe from being critcised by each other. Even Alex Vriend (a.k.a. “The Ferryman’s Toll”) commented recently that Atomwaffen was obviously a trap. The irony seems lost.

This site previously covered the gun grab of Gary Schill here and here. Detective Constable Ernest Carmichael testified that police regularly infiltrated the in-person meets, and that the Telegrams chats were monitored.

Consider that Jeremy MacKenzie testified in 2022 that he was willing to have a “continuous relationship with law enforcement”. He also detailed some of his previous cooperation. By Vriend’s own logic, anyone currently promoting Diagolon is either a retard or a fed.

Identities Of Witnesses, Undercover Officers Shielded From Public

These rulings also come with an Order attached under s.486.5 and s.486.31 of the Criminal Code. They prohibit any information that could identify the witnesses from being disclosed. Furthermore, the identities of “Undercover Officer Alex” and “Undercover Officer Eric” are also to be shielded.

Perhaps “Undercover Officer Jeremy” would have been too obvious.

One has to wonder what other cases these 2 have testified in, and if there are any more coming up. A likely explanation is that the operation is ongoing. It’s hard to “confront one’s accusers” in Court when Defendants don’t even know who they are.

Questions From Bertrand’s AWD/NSO Application

Why do you want to join NSO? What stands out to you, from other groups?

your professionalism and your propaganda quality everything about the NSO just stands out to me.

Why should we bother to recruit you?

I have wanted to be apart of something big ever since I was redpilled the NSO/AWD has been the biggest when i was running my division i strived to be as good as you guys plus i have already proven myself worthy of another divisions trust a stunt of mine made it in local news.

Question: Anything else?

If I do get accepted I promise all my loyalty to you i want nothing more then to be apart of a group that’s actually doing things to help save/protect the white race “if he wish not to fight in a world where struggle is the way of life then he does not have the right to exist”-adolf hitler.

Timeline Of Major Events In Case

February 3rd, 2021: Atomwaffen is designated as a terrorist organization by the Federal Government.

February 15th and 20th, 2021: Bertrand wrote graffiti on private property.

February 21st, 2021: Bertrand emails the National Socialist Order, requesting to join. The NSO is another name which AtomWaffen is known by.

February 21st, 2021: Bertrand throws a brake rotor through the front window of the WETrans Centre.

February 26th, 2021: Bertrand uploads a voice post which said, “look on the bright side, if I do end up going to jail, um, I can recruit people from inside the prison”.

March 6th, 2021: Bertrand sends an email to Folkish Aryan Resistance, asking to join. He adds that he’s good with vehicles and weapons.

March 2021: On 2 separate occasions, Bertrand punctured the tires of a vehicle parked outside. He was caught on surveillance camera doing so.

May 20th, 2021: Bertrand left a note outside the home of a gay couple, which included swastikas, and the words, “The AtomWaffen knows who you are!” and “hail Hitler”.

January 30th, 2022: Bertrand meets with “Undercover Officer Eric”, whom he believes to be the leader of a group looking to employ him. He admitted to the above graffiti and vandalism. For some reason, Bertrand took it upon himself to explain what AtomWaffen in, describing it as a “domestic terrorist organization”. He would later claim that he was entrapped and manipulated.

May 5th, 2022: Bertrand is arrested, and he explains to the police that there were people out to get whites. He described Atomwaffen Division as “a paramilitary terrorist organization”, which he “wanted to jump on that”. He later tried to justify the application since they weren’t listed as a terrorist organization. Or at least, that’s what he believed.

August, 2023: Bertrand pleads guilty to mischief and inciting hate, receiving a 5 month conditional sentence.

September 3rd, 2024: More hearings take place, and they continue into the Fall and Winter.

December 30th, 2024: Justice Carroccia dismissed an attempt to have Bertrand’s statements to police blocked from consideration at Trial. His rights weren’t violated in obtaining them. He claimed that he didn’t really understand he was under arrest, and had merely been detained for his participation in the national convoy.

February 27th, 2022: Justice Carroccia dismisses a Motion brought by the Defence to throw out the case for lack of evidence. She believed it was strong enough to send to Trial

April 9th, 2025: Bertrand stands Trial. Part of the Crown’s case came from Garth Davies, and Associate Professor at Simon Fraser University.

[23] The Crown also relies on the evidence of Dr. Garth Davies who was qualified as an expert to give opinion evidence on the identification of, and explanation of, specific ideologically motivated violent extremist (IMVE) groups including Atomwaffen Division, National Socialist Order, National Partisan Movement, Injekt Division, and Folkish Resistance Movement.

August 6th, 2025: Bertrand is convicted of participating in terrorist activity.

He’ll be sentenced in a matter of weeks, but it’s hard to predict the exact outcome. Patrick Gordon MacDonald recently received 10 years in prison for his convictions for making 3 videos promoting recruitment for Atomwaffen. Considering Bertrand already has a criminal record, jail time for him seems likely, although not inevitable.

In the big picture, one has to ask how many of these people really are terrorists, and how many are useful idiots that are easy to set up.

(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2025/2025onsc1303/2025onsc1303.html
(2) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2025/2025onsc4591/2025onsc4591.html
(3) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/regu/sor-2002-284/latest/sor-2002-284.html
(4) https://www.sfu.ca/iccrc/members/memberprofiles/garth-davies.html
(5) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2025/2025onsc1939/2025onsc1939.html
(6) https://x.com/ferryman4747/status/1953636876642136402
(7) https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/windsor/windsor-terrorism-seth-bertrand-far-right-1.7420091
(8) https://www.ctvnews.ca/windsor/article/it-was-kind-of-like-a-job-interview-accused-windsorite-admits-to-communications-with-terrorist-organization/

Posted on

Katherine Ethyl Bagnald: Transferred To Women’s Prison Despite Sexual Assault Allegation

Something that largely went ignored by the media is the case of an inmate named Katherine Ethyl Bagnald. He is a 22 year old man who was sentenced to prison time for multiple robberies, and wants to be sent to a women’s jail.

Despite his age, Bagnald already has a serious criminal record. When Corrections Canada refused to put Bagnald in with women — at least for the time being — he sued the Federal Government.

His intake assessment is disturbing, to put it mildly.

  • His first arrest (at 16) was for pulling a knife on his mother’s boyfriend.
  • He was arrested for threatening to kill his (then) girlfriend’s father.
  • He was previously in a fight at the CNSCF.
  • He was on probation when he committed these 3 robberies.
  • He claimed to have a knife when robbing these 3 gas stations.
  • He was heavily into drugs and alcohol as a minor (so he claims).
  • He was involved in prostitution as a minor (so he claims).

It’s baffling to think that putting this mentally ill biological male with female inmates wouldn’t lead to serious problems. What’s more unsettling is that the responding lawyers don’t cite this danger as the primary reason to refuse him.

Thanks to Ottawa’s new rules on “diverse gender offenders“, men can simply declare that they are women, and are allowed to be transferred. There’s little (if any) consideration for the safety and comfort of the women involved.

Bagnald Accused Of Sexually Assaulting FEMALE Inmate

Now we get to the uglier part. It’s more than just the issue of putting a male inmate in a female prison. Bagnald is also under investigation for sexual assault of another inmate. Although some details are included in these papers, they won’t be published here.

One of the reasons Bagnald cites in being allowed to go to a women’s prison is that the incident had only led to an internal investigations by the jail, and not formal criminal charges. Of course, that may very well change. He also claims the encounter was consensual.

While Bagnald is suing to force the jail to put him at a women’s federal penitentiary, it turns out that was unnecessary. He was later voluntarily transferred, despite the ongoing complaint. Corrections couldn’t be bothered to at least fight the case.

Correction: He was in fact later charged with sexual assault under section 271 of the criminal code. It occurred on September 12th, 2024. However, he wasn’t charged until May 2025.

***Author’s note: because of the publication ban of portions of the evidence, and on identifying the victim, the actual documents will not be published.***

Bagnald Objected To Portions Of Confidentiality Request

As is common in cases of sexual assault, and internal investigative matters, confidentiality requests are made. Bagnald opposed it, however, including sealing information that would have protected the identity of his victim.

Ultimately, the Court did agree to restrict some information.

Timeline Of Major Events In Case

September 12th, 2025: Bagnald, while in custody on robbery charges, sexually assaults a female inmate at the Central Nova Scotia Correctional Facility. However, he would not be charged with this for several months.

January 3rd, 2025: Bagnald receives a Federal (over 2 year) sentence for 3 counts of robbery and breach of probation. He is incarcerated with men, given that he is one.

January 10th, 2025: Bagnald is notified that he would be sent to the Regional Reception Centre (RRC) at Springhill Institution, which is a men’s prison. This is the order that he tries to have set aside, and there is just 30 days to commence proceedings. That would be February 9th.

January 14th, 2025: Bagnald is transferred to the RRC.

February 25th, 2025: Bagnald files a Motion for an extension of Time in Federal Court. As the deadline to challenge the order has lapsed, he needs to convince the Court that he should be allowed to argue it anyway.

February 28th, 2025: Bagnald brings another Motion, this one for an order to compel Corrections Canada to transfer him to a women’s prison.

March 3rd, 2025: The Attorney General responds, objecting to the Motion to compel Bagnald’s transfer to a women’s prison. However, it’s based primarily on procedural grounds, i.e. Statute of Limitations, and not the fact that he would be a danger to the women locked up.

March 3rd, 2025: The Attorney General also responds to the Motion for the extension of time.

March 18th, 2025: The Attorney General brings a Motion to seek (or protect) certain information from being made publicly available. While the assessment was still ongoing, it’s alleged that Bagnald sexually assaulted a female inmate, a real woman. Although no criminal charges had been filed yet, the jail still had to investigate it. There is a PUBLIC version available with redactions, but only the Court has access to the full version.

March 20th, 2025: Bagnald formally objected to most of the redactions sought by the government.

March 20th, 2025: Bagnald files reply submissions in support of getting transferred.

March 24th, 2025: Federal Court agreed to withhold portions of the evidence from public view, citing the need for privacy.

March 25th, 2025: Bagnald files an Application for Judicial Review, trying to force Corrections Canada to let him be transferred to a women’s prison.

April 9th, 2025: Bagnald files an amended Application.

May 14th, 2025: Bagnald is finally charged with sexual assault. The Crown elects to proceed “by indictment”, the more serious option. By this time, he’s already at the Nova Institute for Women, a federal penitentiary.

June 17th, 2025: A publication ban is ordered to protect the sexual assault victim, and witnesses who may be involved in the case.

June 19th, 2025: The Government brings forward a Motion to Strike for the Federal case. The basis is that by now, Bagnald has already been transferred to a women’s prison, and hence, the Application is moot.

June 30th, 2025: Bagnald responds to the Motion to Strike. While he as already been moved, he wants to proceed anyway, in order to create a precedent that can be used later.

Note: All of the dates listed can be confirmed by searching the respective cases on the Federal Court website. It keeps a detailed listing of all significant events.

There’s nothing “progressive” or “enlightened” about implementing these sorts of policies. Supporters simply hate women, and are indifferent (at best) to the harm that they cause.

MOTION REQUESTING EXTENSION OF TIME (25-T-23):
(1) Bagnald Risk Assessment Corrections Canada (January, 2025)
(2) Bagnald Gender Diverse Inmate Directives
(3) Bagnald Motion Record To Extend Time (February, 2025)
(4) Bagnald Letter To Court Requesting Urgency (February, 2025)
(5) Bagnald Motion Record Requiring Transfer (February, 2025)
(6) Bagnald Responding Motion Record Extension Of Time (March, 2025)
(7) Bagnald PUBLIC Responding Motion Record Transfer (March, 2025)
(8) Bagnald Written Submissions Transfer (March, 2025)
(9) Bagnald Cost Agreement (March, 2025)
(10) Bagnald – Decision Granting Extension Of Time To File Application (March, 2025)

APPLICATION TO REVIEW DECISION (T-982-25):
(1) Bagnald Notice Of Application (March, 2025)
(2) Bagnald Amended Notice Of Application (April, 2025)
(3) Bagnald Motion Record To Strike (June, 2025)
(4) Bagnald Responding Motion Record To Strike (June, 2025)

Posted on

“Posties” Get Screwed Over Again By Incompetent Counsel, Part 1

Last Spring, this site covered how hundreds of employees at Canada Post (a.k.a. The “Posties“) had been taken for a ride by their counsel. In the Fall of 2024, documents were filed indicating that at least some of them would be attempting to appeal.

For context, in the Fall of 2021, the workplace implemented the “vaccine mandates”. This required everyone to get multiple injections, or face the loss of their employment.

Being a unionized employer, the collective bargaining agreement specified a remedy: file a grievance. If things couldn’t get resolved, then the matter would go to arbitration, and that would be considered final. If the process was unfair or corrupted, then requesting a review may be an option.

Here, the Arbitration Panel sided with Canada Post, ruling that the mandates were a reasonable safety matter. Now, filing an Application for Judicial Review may could have worked, if they took that path.

However, the Posties retained a lawyer, Leighton Grey, who filed a Statement of Claim instead. Rather than challenging the fairness of the Arbitration, he commenced an Action. This was doomed to fail, at least with the company, as the union agreement explicitly prohibited it.

As for the Government of Canada, the Court said that there was enough of a separation between the Federal Government and Canada Post, a Crown Corporation, to hold them liable.

Furthermore, the Statement of Claim was lacking in the necessary information. As is common with Grey, he doesn’t plead the necessary facts (Rule 174) for each Plaintiff, which is required. Despite having nearly 300 Plaintiffs, the Claim was just 18 pages in length. The case was struck without an opportunity to refile.

It turns out that dozens of Plaintiffs wanted to appeal, but Leighton missed the deadline. Clients seemed to be under the impression that a challenge was coming, when none was. If the transcripts are to be believed, they were strung along for months.

In September of 2024, they get a new lawyer, Jason Gratl. While he could have brought a malpractice complaint against Grey — which would get clients some justice — he tries halfheartedly to salvage the lost cause of a case.

One would assume that Gratl would act urgently, given the nature of missing a deadline. However, he sits on a file for nearly 2 months, before bringing a Motion to extend time. It’s dismissed by Associate Justice John Cotter. He then brings another Motion, challenging the refusal.

Timeline Of Events In Arbitration

***It’s important to remember that this didn’t start with a lawsuit. It began with grievances and then arbitration. This matters as it relates to the lack of jurisdiction of the Federal Court.

September 2021: Canada Post announces that it will change the “vaccination” policy, requiring that all employees (and new hires) take the shots in order to be employed. It’s to take effect on November 26th, 2021.

October 26th, 2021 mandatory injection policy is formally approved.

November 15th, 2021: CUPW, Canadian Union of Postal Workers, files grievance against Canada Post’s new policy of requiring the injections in order to stay employed.

January 18th, 2022: Arbitration hearing is held over Canada Post’s policy requiring the injections of all employees. There would be several sessions over the coming months.

January 24th, 2022: Canada Post’s lawyer serves some 700 pages of material related to the arbitration hearings.

February 12th, 2022: Hearing date for arbitration related to Canada Post. Colin Furness, who works for the University of Toronto, testifies.

March 21st, 2022: Hearing date for arbitration related to Canada Post.

March 22nd, 2022: Hearing date for arbitration related to Canada Post.

April 5th, 2022: Final arguments were to be held for arbitration process.

April 27th, 2022: Arbitrator dismisses the grievance against Canada Post, saying that the injection requirement is “reasonable”.

Timeline Of Events In Federal Court Lawsuit

July 12th, 2022: Statement of Claim is filed with the Federal Court. It names: (a) Canada Post Corporation; (b) Her Majesty the Queen, as Elizabeth was Queen at the time; and (c) Attorney General of Canada.

July 18th, 2022: A Notice of Intention to Respond is filed.

November 3rd, 2022: Defendants send correspondence asking for case management, and to suspend normal timelines to file a Defence.

November 23rd, 2022: Associate Judge Catherine A. Coughlan is assigned to manage the case.

January 16th, 2023: Plaintiffs provide letter for dates for case management conference.

April 6th, 2023: Case conference is delayed until May 31st.

May 31st, 2023: Plaintiffs directed to file Amended Statement of Claim by June 15th.

June 19th, 2023: Plaintiffs file Amended Statement of Claim.

July 7th, 2023: Dates are set down for Defendants’ Motions to Strike (throw out the case), and the following deadlines were established. Worth mentioning, these kinds of Motions are done in many steps.

  • August 18th: Defendants serve (but not file) Notice of Motion, and any Affidavit evidence
  • September 15th: Plaintiffs serve (but not file) any Affidavit evidence
  • October 27th: Any cross-examinations on Affidavits is to have finished. This is similar to a Court setting, where a person gets asked about evidence that they submit. Failure to attend means evidence won’t be considered.
  • November 17th: Moving Party Defendants are to submit their Motion Records, which is a collection of documents. In Federal Court, it also includes the written arguments, or submissions
  • December 8th: Responding Plaintiffs to serve and file their Motion Record(s)
  • January 23rd-25th, 2024: Court to hear the Motions

July 10th, 2023: Lawyer for Canada Post contacts the Court and advises a lack of availability for the week in January when the hearing is to take place.

September 5, 2023: Even more Plaintiffs discontinue, or voluntarily leave the case. It worth mentioning that the Court history is filled with various Plaintiffs discontinuing. This is especially prevalent after the Motion to Strike is set out. Seems they realize that their case will go nowhere.

March 4th, 2024: Motions are eventually heard.

March 13th, 2024: Court releases reasons for striking the case.

March 13th, 2024: Order striking case is officially issued.

Note: All of the dates listed can be confirmed by searching the respective cases on the Federal Court website. It keeps a detailed listing of all significant events.

Timeline Of VERY Late Motion For Appeal Extension

APPEAL RULING FROM PROTHONOTARY JUDGE
Appeal Goes Where Federal Court Federal Court Of Appeal
Appeal Ruling To Single Judge (FC) Panel of Justices (FCA)
Rules of Procedure Rule 51 Rules 335 to 357
Time Limit For Notice 10 Days 30 Days
Initial Document Notice Of Motion Notice Of Appeal
Procedure Motion Appeal
New Evidence Allowed? No With Leave, Rule 351

Associate Justice Coughlan (a.k.a. a Prothonotary) is the one who struck the case. The 10 day time limit applies, meaning something would have to be filed by March 23rd, 2024.

7. The adverse order and reasons for judgment were issued by Associate Judge Coughlin on March 13, 2024 (the “Decision”). The Decision was provided to the plaintiffs by GWS LLP on March 14, 2024. The plaintiffs then immediately, on March 14, 2024, requested legal advice from GWS LLP on the merits of an appeal.

10. As of April 10, 2024, we believed that the deadline for appealing was 30 days from the date of the decision. Although I had suspected that the deadline might be 10 days from the date of decision in late March of 2024, our legal counsel first advised me in late April of 2024 that the deadline was 1O days from the date of decision.

11. On May 13, 2024, I requested an update from GWS LLP on how the appeal was proceeding. On June 6, 2024, I again requested an update from GWS LLP. On June 19, 2024, I again requested an update from GWS LLP. I am advised by Kim Priest that she repeatedly telephoned GWS LLP to ask for updates on the progress of the appeal and to urge GWS LLP to file the application to extend the deadline.

12. On July 4, 2024, I was advised by Mr. Farquhar, an associate lawyer at GWS LLP, that Ms. Trignani, another associate lawyer at GWS LLP, was no longer working at GWS LLP and she had been working on the appeal. Mr. Farquhar assured me on July 4, 2024, that he, Mr. Farquhar, was now personally working on the application to extend the deadline for the appeal and that it would be prepared shortly.

13. On July 17, 2024, I received application materials, and on July 22, 2024, I provided comments and again instructed GWS LLP to file the application. On July 26, 2024, Mr. Grey of GWS LLP advised that he would no longer be supervising the work on the appeal and that Mr. Farquhar of GWS LLP would be working on the file alone.

14. On September 4, 2024, Mr. Grey advised that Mr. Farquhar was no longer working at GWS LLP, and that Mr. Hershey, the lawyer at GWS LLP who was initially supposed to be working on the appeal under Mr. Grey’s supervision, no longer worked at GWS LLP and that no one else at GWS LLP was able to take on the appeal.

16. We found Grall & Company, a Vancouver-based law firm, in late September of 2024. We agreed in principle to retain Grall & Company to give advice on this appeal on September 22, 2024.

In paragraph 7 of her Affidavit, page 17 in the Motion Record, Karine Solakian states that many Plaintiffs sought advice immediately on the merits of an Appeal. She also states that she found out from Grey for the first time about the 10 day deadline well after it had lapsed.

***Neither Grey nor his assistants ever filed for an extension. Nor does it seem they ever notified the Defendants that an Appeal was in the works.

November 15th, 2024: Gratl files a Notice of Change of Solicitor. It’s unclear why he waited nearly 2 months to do anything.

November 15th, 2024: Gratl files a Notice of Motion, indicating Plaintiffs will be seeking an extension of time to appeal the March ruling. It’s been a full 8 months at this point. Given that it was an Associate Justice who struck the case, the deadline is a mere 10 days.

February 14th, 2025: Gratl files the Motion Record for clients.

February 27th, 2025: The Federal Government files their Responding Motion Record.

February 28th, 2025: Canada Post files their Responding Motion Record.

May 2nd, 2025: Associate Justice Cotter refuses the extension of time.

May 12th, 2025: Gratl brings another Motion, to challenge the refusal to grant an extension of time. This time, the 10 day time limit is met.

June 4th, 2025: The Attorney General of Canada files their Responding Motion Record.

Note: All of the dates listed can be confirmed by searching the respective cases on the Federal Court website. It keeps a detailed listing of all significant events.

The main concern for this latest Motion is whether or not the previous Motion (an extension of time) should have been refused. The Order cited a few major concerns: (a) lack of explanation for the delay; and (b) the length of the delay was “significant and prejudicial”. The delay was 234 days, over 7 months, of which 53 days were while Gratl was retained.

Interesting, it seems that Grey doesn’t actually do the legal work himself, he just farms it out to the hired help. More coming up in Part 2.

ARBITRATION:
(1) https://www.cupw.ca/sites/default/files/urb-ja-31-2022-ca-en.pdf
(2) Canada Post Collective Bargaining Agreement 2022
(3) Canada Post Arbitration update, February 2022 (removed)
(4) Wayback Machine Archive
(5) CUPW On Some Updates On Arbitration
(6) Wayback Machine Archive On Arbitration Updates
(7) https://www.cupw.ca/en/last-days-arbitration-vaccination-practice-grievance
(8) Wayback Machine Archive Of April 1st, 2022 Update
(9) https://www.cupw.ca/en/arbitrator-dismisses-grievance-against-canada-post%E2%80%99s-mandatory-vaccination-practice
(10) Arbitration Decision (Removed)
(11) Canada Post Arbitration Ruling Redacted
(12) Wayback Machine Archive Of Arbitration Decision
(13) https://www.fct-cf.gc.ca/en/court-files-and-decisions/court-files#cont

LITIGATION (CASE STRUCK):
(1) Canada Post Statement Of Claim (July, 2022)
(2) Canada Post Amended Statement Of Claim (June 7, 2023)
(3) Canada Post Order Timetable (July, 2023)
(4) Canada Post Defendants Motion Record (October, 2023)
(5) Canada Post Plaintiff Responding Motion Record (January, 2024)
(6) Canada Post Plaintiff Responding Motion Record CP (February, 2024)
(7) Canada Post Further Amended Statement Of Claim (February, 2024)
(8) Canada Post Decision Striking Amended Pleading (March, 2024)

LITIGATION (EXTENDING TIME TO APPEAL):
(1) Canada Post Notice Of Change Of Solicitor (November, 2024)
(2) Canada Post Affidavit of Karine Solakian (November, 2024)
(3) Canada Post Notice Of Motion (November 2024)
(4) Canada Post Applicants Motion Record Extension Of Time (February, 2025)
(5) Canada Post Motion Record Extension Of Time (February, 2025)
(6) Canada Post HMTK Motion Record Extension Of Time (February, 2025)
(7) Canada Post Order Refusing Extension Of Time To Appeal (May, 2025)

LITIGATION (APPEAL OF REFUSAL TO EXTEND TIME TO APPEAL):
(1) Canada Post Motion Record Appeal Refusal To Extend Time (May, 2025)
(2) Canada Post HMTK Written Submissions Appeal Time Extension (June, 2025)

Posted on

The Pham Case: NGOs Pushed For Foreign Criminals Having More Rights Than Canadians

A disturbing trend has been in the news lately. Recently, a series of cases were published where foreigners received unusually low sentences for criminal convictions, in order to avoid deportation. Since the 2013 Supreme Court ruling in Pham, there has been a requirement to view “immigration consequences” when handing down punishment.

What’s even more unsettling is how this came to happen. A foreign drug trafficker received a 2 year sentence on a Joint Submission (agreement), but seemed to have realized after the fact that it would mean deportation.

For context: under the rules at the time, non-citizens who received a jail sentence of 2 years (or more) were excluded from many appeal options to avoid deportation. Removal was pretty much automatic. However, those convicted and receiving lesser punishment still had more prospects of staying. This was later reduced to a 6 month limit.

Hoang Anh Pham was sentenced to 2 years in prison for drug possession, for the purposes of trafficking. On Appeal, he asked that it be reduced by a day, to avoid deportation. The Court of Appeal, in a split decision, rejected it. However, the Supreme Court of Canada granted Leave (permission) to hear the case, and then did allow it.

What likely tipped the scales was that several Intervenors (interested parties) made submissions to the Supreme Court of Canada. These were:

  • British Columbia Civil Liberties Association (Charity Page)
  • Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers
  • Canadian Civil Liberties Association (Charity Page)
  • Canadian Council for Refugees (Charity Page)
  • Criminal Lawyers’ Association of Ontario

Various groups weighed in, asking the the Supreme Court require that Judges take immigration consequences into account when imposing sentences. How does this benefit actual Canadians? How does special consideration for foreign criminals create a better society?

Hoang Anh Pham Previously Convicted For Drug Trafficking

[2] The facts as disclosed at trial were that the appellant was involved in a three-stage marijuana grow operation consisting of 591 plants at various stages of growth. It was estimated that the value of this crop ranged from $461,718 (if sold by the pound) to $738,750 (if sold by the ounce). An additional 28 grams of marijuana was found in two freezer bags in the freezer compartment to the refrigerator on the main floor.

[3] At the subsequent sentencing hearing, the appellant’s prior criminal record was entered as an exhibit. It disclosed that on December 12, 2000 the appellant had been convicted of one count of failing to attend court (section 145(2)(a) of the Criminal Code), one count of trafficking in a scheduled substance (section 5(1) of the CDSA) and one charge of possession of a scheduled substance for the purpose of trafficking (section 5(2) of the CDSA). At that time, the appellant had received a sentence of one day in gaol on the first count and a three month conditional sentence order, concurrent, on each of the other two charges.

[4] At the sentencing hearing in this case, the appellant’s then counsel and Crown counsel urged upon the sentencing judge, by way of joint submission, a sentence of imprisonment for two years. The Crown cited as aggravating factors that the appellant had benefitted financially and that he had not learned his lesson from his previous encounter with the criminal justice system.

From the Alberta Court of Appeal, we can see that Pham was already a convicted drug trafficker when this sentence was handed down.

Prosecutors Complicit With Sentence Reduction

[32] Returning to the case at bar, the appellant has previously been convicted of three offences. In 2000, he was convicted of failing to attend court, trafficking in a scheduled substance, and possession of a scheduled substance for the purposing of trafficking. For the first offence, he was sentenced to one day in jail; he received a three month conditional sentence for the other two charges. Now there is the more recent drug- related conviction, which resulted in the two year prison term he asks us to reduce. Illegal drugs are a tremendous scourge on our society. The appellant’s repeated contribution to the problem, albeit modest in the large scale of things, would normally disqualify him from leniency. However, as the prosecution has consented to this appeal, I would agree to allow it with the caveat that in future cases, this relief will not be there simply for the asking.

In a dissenting opinion with the ABCA, Justice Martin mentioned that the prosecution had consented to the appeal, which would have reduced the sentence. So, even though he was argued that he “clearly hadn’t learned his lesson”, the Crown is still okay with reducing the sentence to help prevent deportation.

1. B.C. Civil Liberties Association

2. The BCCLA submits that failure to consider the immigration consequences of a sentence would deprive the court of information required to properly consider the relevant sentencing factors, and may result in a sentence which unjustly infringes an offender’s rights and freedoms.

3. Immigration consequences must be taken into account by a sentencing judge in order to ensure that the offender is not punished more than necessary. A permanent resident convicted in Canada and sentenced to two years or more is almost certain to face deportation. For many permanent residents, deportation will be the most punitive impact of their sentence. In order to ensure that sentences are consistent with the principles of proportionality and restraint, the BCCLA submits that immigration consequences are relevant personal circumstances which should be taken into account as part of the individualized sentencing assessment.

2. Canadian Council For Refugees

4. Given that a non-citizen who has been convicted of a criminal offence may face removal from Canada, it is the CCR’s submission that the judge imposing the sentence must take into account the impact that the sentence will have on the availability of remedies for the retention of status in Canada. This is based on the following reasoning:

9. Non-citizens whose human rights will be infringed by removal are entitled to have their interests considered by a competent, independent and impartial decision maker prior to removal. A scheme was created for consideration of such interests under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA). Relevant to this appeal, this obligation is met in the equitable appeal which is available to permanent residents and Convention refugees who face removal because of a criminal conviction but who have received a sentence of less than two years.

17. It is submitted therefore that a judge, exercising a judicial discretion in relation to the imposition of an appropriate sentence for a crime committed, ought to take into account the impact that the sentence will have on the availability to a non-citizen of a hearing which is fully in compliance with the principles of fundamental justice under s. 7 of the Charter in relation to that person’s status in Canada.

Of course, these aren’t anywhere near all of the filed documents. However, they do illustrate what the main concerns being raised are.

The Supreme Court also has the video of the hearing posted on its website, even years later. It’s worth a watch.

51:30: Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers begins, and brings up the possible ineffective assistance of counsel argument.
1:02:00: Criminal Lawyers Association of Ontario begins.
1:08:00: British Columbia Civil Liberties Association begins.
1:13:41: Canadian Council for Refugees begins.
1:19:15: Canadian Civil Liberties Association begins.
1:38:30: Respondent (Government) begins.

While the Government (initially) asked that the case be remitted back to the Court of Appeal, at the hearing, they simply consented to the Appeal being allowed.

This should make Canadians’ blood boil. Registered “charities” are getting significant tax breaks while they try to implement caselaw to give preferential treatment to foreign criminals.

Conservative Bill A Trojan Horse?

At the risk of jumping to conclusions, consider a recent video from Michelle Rempel-Garner. She proposes a Private Member’s Bill to amended the Criminal Code. In her words, Judges “should not” be able to take immigration status into account. It’s at the 2:00 mark.

Should not?

How about cannot? Or must not? Or are prohibited from?

While this may come across as pedantic, this choice of wording would allow Judges to retain discretion as to whether or not they consider immigration status. There would merely be a recommendation against doing so, not an outright ban.

Does she not realize that every lawyer with a foreign convicted criminal for a client will be arguing that their case is exceptional?

We’ll have to see what happens.

COURT RULINGS:
(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abca/doc/2012/2012abca203/2012abca203.html
(2) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc-l/doc/2012/2012canlii68768/2012canlii68768.html
(3) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2013/2013scc15/2013scc15.html

SUPREME COURT OF CANADA:
(1) https://www.scc-csc.ca/cases-dossiers/search-recherche/34897/
(2) Pham Factum Appellants Factum
(3) Pham Factum Respondents
(4) Pham Factum Appellants Reply
(5) Pham Factum BC Civil Liberties Association
(6) Pham Factum Canadian Association Of Refugee Lawyers
(7) Pham Factum Canadian Civil Liberties Association
(8) Pham Factum Canadian Council For Refugees
(9) Pham Factum Criminal Lawyers Association Of Ontario

Posted on

Diagolon Brings Lawsuit In Small Claims Court Over Tour Expenses

Last Summer, Diagolon held their “Road Rage Terror Tour” in various cities across Canada. Plenty of photos were taken, and licence plates recorded. But it seems that the fallout hasn’t ended, and it’s from an unexpected source.

A scheduled stop in Hamilton was cancelled as a result of backlash from the public. This came after expenses were racked up in anticipation of holding the event. That’s when relations really soured, and all over a fairly small amount of money.

What do the saviours of the White race do? Their leader files a lawsuit in Ottawa.

According to the Claim, MacKenzie gave money to McEvoy, who was actually making reservations. Everything was in her name.

When the event ultimately got cancelled, MacKenzie demanded a refund from the organization. He was refused, on the basis that McEvoy was the one who made the payment (via etransfer), and that it would have to be returned to her. This was to comply with anti-money laundering laws.

McEvoy kept the money, so MacKenzie decided to sue her.

McEvoy then countersued, on the basis that the funds MacKenzie had paid her don’t even come close to what she paid out of pocket on other items. Considering that she spent time volunteering for the group, this is a strange way to show appreciation.

Nothing was resolved at the Settlement Conference, so the next step is Trial, assuming MacKenzie pays the fee for it. He backed out of going to Trial against Ezra Levant.

Timeline Of Events

April 7th to June 6th, 2024: McEvoy incurs expenses in anticipation of the “Road Rage Terror Tour” stopping by and having an event.

May 2nd, 2024: MacKenzie transfers $1,188 to McEvoy.

July 4th, 2024: MacKenzie transfers another $366.

July 31st, 2024: The Caledonia venue issues a refund (to McEvoy) of the deposit.

August 1st, 2024: MacKenzie is informed that refunds will have to be issued to McEvoy herself, as she’s the one who they received money from.

August 8th, 2024: MacKenzie files a $1,554 lawsuit in Ottawa Small Claims Court.

August 28th, 2024: McEvoy files a defence against the claim.

September 17th, 2024: McEvoy files a counterclaim for $2,187.23.

January 13th, 2025: Settlement conference is held, and neither claim is resolved.

And that’s where things stand now. If a Trial is ever held, an update will be posted.

Lawsuit Doesn’t Really Help “The Brand”

It’s no wonder that as a movement, Diagolon struggles to gain traction. Aside from being an obvious honeypot, it’s really a bad look to be suing volunteers over small change. This is even more so the case then they spend money out of pocket.

While blaming biased media for declining interest is possible, this will likely hurt more. Nothing turns off potential supporters like seeing others taken advantage of.

It probably doesn’t help that the group had been (allegedly) misrepresenting themselves when attempting to book venues. That led to more cancellations later on.

Did it have to come to this? Surely, CSIS has an expense account that they can reimburse MacKenzie from, so that he’s not preoccupied over the small details.

COURT DOCUMENTS:
(1) Caledonia Plaintiffs Claim
(2) Caledonia Defence
(3) Caledonia Defendants Claim – Counterclaim
(4) Caledonia Settlement Conference

*Disclaimers, Ethics* Proudly powered by WordPress