Reply Arguments In Appeal Of Dismissal To S3CA Challenge

1. Quotes From Gov’t Defense Of Dismissal

2. Previous Posts On Case

CLICK HERE, for abuse of Safe Third Country Agreement.
CLICK HERE, for Prothonotary strikes out Statement of Claim.
CLICK HERE, for Uppity Peasants on the moral arguments.
CLICK HERE, for arguments to appeal S3CA dismissal.

3, Text Of Plaintiff’s Reply

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

(1) To avoid rehashing the entire written submissions section in the original Motion Record, this will be limited to 5 follow up questions for the Court to consider.

ISSUES

  • Should “due diligence” be required before making rulings?
  • To what degree should court officials be able to decide what cases are important?
  • What role should Prothonotaries have in striking out documents?
  • Should the government be allowed to submit conflicting, or incoherent pleadings?
  • Does Canada owe an obligation (beyond S3CA) to protect its borders?

(2) The above questions are to aid the Court in determining whether the original ruling should be allowed to stand, and the bigger issues at stake here.

Should “due diligence” be required before making rulings?

(3) Part of the appeal is on the grounds that Prothonotary Milczynski made overriding palpable error in the findings that claims of mass illegal crossings were just “opinion” and “unsupported”. The defence suggests that there was no reason to have submitted the evidence affidavit in the motion record.

(4) Where was the opportunity to submit proof of this?
First: Evidence is not supposed to be submitted with the Statement of Claim.
Second: Evidence is not allowed in Rule 221 motions to strike.

(5) So where exactly was the opportunity to prove any of the allegations? Remember, the standard of review for findings of fact is “overriding palpable error”. Unless this can be demonstrated, the default position is to “give deference” to the lower court ruling.

(6) So yes, it was necessary to submit the evidence affidavit with the motion record. This was the first opportunity to have this evidence submitted, and it shows irrefutably that Prothonotary Milczynski was completely wrong about Roxham Road crossings. So yes, it is important to the course of justice.

(7) Fact is, illegals have been crossing the Canada/U.S. border for years, particularly at Roxham Road in Quebec. This is public information, and has been in the media fairly regularly. There is a “loophole” in the agreement, in that simply going around border ports allows entry into Canada.

(8) Prothonotary Milczynski seems not to have been at all aware of this, despite the media attention. Instead, the allegations in the Statement of Claim were labelled as “opinions” and “bald face assertions”. Even a minimal amount of research (even a Google search) would have immediately found a wealth of media, photographic and video evidence corroborating every assertion made in the Statement of Claim.

(9) The affidavit contained only a tiny piece of the evidence available to prove the Plaintiff’s claims. No one, with any seriousness, can deny the hordes of illegals crossing into Canada. Again, the loophole (not any intended outcome), was that it doesn’t apply BETWEEN official border ports.

(10) In my view, this falls far short of what should be considered acceptable by a Court official. If a Prothonotary or Judge is going to call a Plaintiff’s statements “opinion”, then some due diligence should be done. Prothonotary Milczynski committed overriding palpable error in those findings, and the affidavit should outweigh the default position to “give deference”.

(11) While it is true that Court Officers have a heavy workload, there must be some due diligence performed before declaring a Statement of Claim to be “opinion”. The information included in the SoC has been public knowledge for about 3 years now, and could have been easily verified. This falls far short of what should be acceptable from a Prothonotary.

To what degree should court officials be able to decide what case are important

(12) Admittedly there is a level of discretion for the Prothonotary or Judgeinvolved. There has to be some leeway to decide what cases are important.

(13) That being said, the discretion was improperly used. From the Vancouversex workers case the Defendant referred to earlier.

[1] This appeal is concerned with the law of public interest standing in constitutional cases. The law of standing answers the question of who is entitled to bring a case to court for a decision. Of course it would be intolerable if everyone had standing to sue for everything, no matter how limited a personal stake they had in the matter. Limitations on standing are necessary in order to ensure that courts do not become hopelessly overburdened with marginal or redundant cases, to screen out the mere “busybody” litigant, to ensure that courts have the benefit of contending points of view of those most directly affected and to ensure that courts play their proper role within our democratic system of government: Finlay v. Canada (Minister of Finance), 1986 CanLII 6 (SCC), [1986] 2 S.C.R. 607, at p. 631.The traditional approach was to limit standing to persons whose private rights were at stake or who were specially affected by the issue. In public law cases, however, Canadian courts have relaxed these limitations on standing and have taken a flexible, discretionary approach to public interest standing, guided by the purposes which underlie the traditional limitations.

[2] In exercising their discretion with respect to standing, the courts weigh three factors in light of these underlying purposes and of the particular circumstances. The courts consider whether the case raises a serious justiciable issue, whether the party bringing the action has a real stake or a genuine interest in its outcome and whether, having regard to a number of factors, the proposed suit is a reasonable and effective means to bring the case to court: Canadian Council of Churches v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), 1992 CanLII 116 (SCC), [1992] 1 S.C.R. 236, at p. 253. The courts exercise this discretion to grant or refuse standing in a “liberal and generous manner” (p. 253).

(14) First, this case is not about some minor or trivial thing. Rather, it is about trying to close the Canadian border to illegals trying to enter Canada. The Government of Canada “should” be taking this seriously. In fact, providing a secure border is arguably the most important function a government should serve.

(15) It is asinine to suggest that a citizen does not have a legitimate interest in having secure borders, and asinine that society as a whole is not impacted by mass illegal entries. Protecting its borders and sovereignty is arguably the most important function a government has. Without borders to mark and enforce its territory, the nation dies.

(16) It is not enough to simply have signs saying “Welcome to Canada” or some such thing. Borders must be enforced by people, and they must have laws — laws with teeth — enforcing them.

(17) Second, on a personal level, it does impact the Plaintiff. She has to pay more in taxes, it cheapens her citizenship if anyone can simply enter Canada if they go AROUND the border crossings, and social service access is limited as more resources are used on illegals who have no right to be in the country. On a public level, the same issues apply. Tax dollars are spent when they shouldn’t be.

(18) Third, as for being a reasonable means of bringing the court hearing the case, what’s the alternative? If the Government won’t act in ways that are most conducive to the safety and well being of its people, then what options are there other than the court?

(19) Although there is clearly discretion in whether or not to grant standing to hear such cases, it was inappropriately used here, especially when the Federal Court has the jurisdiction to hear it. (This is not a trivial or minor case). See the Federal Courts Act

Jurisdiction of Federal Court
Marginal note:
Relief against the Crown 17 (1) Except as otherwise provided in this Act or any other Act of Parliament, the Federal Court has concurrent original jurisdiction in all cases in which relief is claimed against the Crown.

Extraprovincial jurisdiction
25 The Federal Court has original jurisdiction, between subject and subject as well as otherwise, in any case in which a claim for relief is made or a remedy is sought under or by virtue of the laws of Canada if no other court constituted, established or continued under any of the Constitution Acts, 1867 to 1982 has jurisdiction in respect of that claim or remedy.

What role should Prothonotaries have in striking out documents?

(20) The Defendant makes a straw-man argument alleging I claim that Prothonotaries have no jurisdiction to hear motions to strike. That is weasly, and a misrepresentation.

(21) What was actually said (and cited by many cases) is that: (a) Amendments should be allowed prior to striking; (b) striking should be reserved to only when pleading is bad beyond argument; (c) Claims should not be struck out just because they are novel; (d) Prothonotaries should not strike on matters that are not fully settled before the courts. From the COMER case (Commission on Monetary and Economic Reform), submitted with motion record.

[30] The Plaintiffs remind the Court of the general principles to be applied on a motion to strike. 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 Inc., above; Hunt, above; Dumont v Canada (Attorney General), 1990 CanLII 131 (SCC), [1990] 1 SCR 279 [Dumont]; Trendsetter Developments Ltd v Ottawa Financial Corp. (1989), 32 OAC 327 (CA) [Trendsetter]; Nash v Ontario (1995), 1995 CanLII 2934 (ON CA), 27 OR (3d) 1 (Ont CA) [Nash]; Canada v Arsenault, 2009 FCA 242 (CanLII) [Arsenault]. A claim should be struck “only in plain and obvious cases where the pleading is bad beyond argument” (Nelles, above, at 627), or where it is “‘plain and obvious’ or ‘beyond doubt’” that the claim will not succeed (Dumont, above, at 280; Trendsetter, above). It is inappropriate to strike a claim simply because it raises an “arguable, difficult or important point of law” (Hunt, above, at 990-91), or because it is a novel claim: Nash, above; Hanson v Bank of Nova Scotia (1994), 1994 CanLII 573 (ON CA), 19 OR (3d) 142 (CA); AdamsSmith v Christian Horizons (1997), 14 CPC (4th) 78 (Ont Gen Div); Miller (Litigation Guardian of) v Wiwchairyk (1997), 1997 CanLII 12256 (ON SC), 34 OR (3d) 640 (Ont Gen Div). Indeed, in the law of torts in particular, this may make it critical that the claim proceed so that the law can evolve in response to modern needs (Hunt, above, at 991-92). Matters not fully settled by the jurisprudence should not be decided on a motion to strike: R.D. Belanger & Associates Ltd v Stadium Corp of Ontario Ltd (1991), 1991 CanLII 2731 (ON CA), 5 OR (3d) 778 (CA). The Plaintiffs say that, in order to succeed, the Defendants must produce a “decided case directly on point from the same jurisdiction demonstrating that the very same issue has been squarely dealt with and rejected”: Dalex Co v Schwartz Levitsky Feldman (1994), 1994 CanLII 7290 (ON SC), 19 OR (3d) 463 (Gen Div). Furthermore, the Court should be generous with respect to the drafting of the pleadings, permitting amendments before striking: Grant v Cormier – Grant et al (2001), 2001 CanLII 3041 (ON CA), 56 OR (3d) 215 (CA); Toronto-Dominion Bank v Deloite Hoskins & Sells (1991), 1991 CanLII 7366 (ON SC), 5 OR (3d) 417 (Gen Div). Finally, the Claim has to be taken as pleaded by the Plaintiffs, not as reconfigured by the Defendants: Arsenault, above.

[31] The Plaintiffs say that the Prothonotary correctly stated the test on a motion to strike, but wholly misapplied it by determining substantive matters that should have been left for the trial judge, striking the Claim despite acknowledging that it was a “novel” and “complex” one, and making an erroneous ruling on the application of the Charter.

(22) As possible amendments, if certain statements were vague, or needed rewriting, that would certainly be possible to do. The option should have been given previously.

(23) With all of these principles in mind, striking with leave to amend (rewrite, clarify or otherwise fix) the Statement of Claim would have been the proper course rather than striking without leave. Here are a few proposed amendments if needed

  • Rewriting, redrafting the Statement of Claim, with more precise detail as seen fit.
  • Rewriting, redrafting the SoC, to make the legal arguments more clear
  • Modifying remedies sought, and just focusing on the law itself, not the fake refugees already here.

(24) If specific facts alleged should have clearer or more specific, that was — and still is — something that the Court can direct. Throwing the case out completely should not have been the first reaction.

Should the government be allowed to submit conflicting, or incoherent pleadings?

(25) The Defendant/Respondent has not disclosed that they have been fighting a case with a similar issue in Toronto since 2017. 3 “refugee claimants” are appealing the denial of their entry into Canada from the “warzone” that is the United States.

MOHAMMAD MAJD MAHER HOMSI ET AL v. MCI ET ALL
Court File: #IMM-775-17

NEDIRA JEMAL MUSTEFAv. MIRC ET AL
Court File: #IMM-2229-17

THE CANADIAN COUNCIL FOR RFUGEES ET AL v. MIRC ET AL
Court File: #IMM-2977-17

(26) The mental gymnastics are stunning. The Canadian Government tells the TORONTO Court that the Safe 3rd Country Agreement is necessary to protect Canadian borders from abuse. That same Government tells the VANCOUVER Court that an obvious loophole should not be closed, since the challenger is not a refugee claimant.

(27) That’s right. In Toronto, the Federal Government is telling the Court (and just had a 5 day hearing) that the Safe 3rd Country Agreement is vital. But in Vancouver, the Feds try to strike out a Claim attempting to close the loophole, which allows people to enter, just as long as they go around the actual border ports.

(28) In Toronto, border security is a critically important issue. In Vancouver, the case to secure the border from mass illegal entry is considered “busybody” work.

(29) Although the two cases are separate, and have separate parties, there is a palpable level of cognitive dissonance required in order for the Federal Government to argue both positions. As such, it should be considered arguing in bad faith, or being deliberately obfuscating.

Motion to strike
 221 (1) On motion, the Court may, at any time, order that a pleading, or anything contained therein, be struck out, with or without leave to amend, on the ground that it:
(a) discloses no reasonable cause of action or defence, as the case may be
(b) is immaterial or redundant
(c) is scandalous, frivolous or vexatious
(d) may prejudice or delay the fair trial of the action,
(e) constitutes a departure from a previous pleading, or
(f) is otherwise an abuse of the process of the Court
,

(30) Considering that the Toronto cases were started in 2017 — before this one — the defense in this case (the motion to strike) should actually not have been allowed to proceed. If not for contradictory pleadings, then for arguing in bad faith. 221(1)(e)

(31) In addition to the mental gymnastics of the 2 cases, the original motion to strike (filed by Aman Owais) was an abuse of the process of the court 221(1)(f)

(32) On top of that, take a look at the agreement itself. In the “understanding” portion of the Agreement, the following is written out.

EMPHASIZING that the United States and Canada offer generous systems of refugee protection, recalling both countries’ traditions of assistance to refugees and displaced persons abroad, consistent with the principles of international solidarity that underpin the international refugee protection system, and committed to the notion that cooperation and burden-sharing with respect to refugee status claimants can be enhanced;

DESIRING to uphold asylum as an indispensable instrument of the international protection of refugees, and resolved to strengthen the integrity of that institution and the public support on which it depends;

(33) In the original Motion to Strike, previous counsel Aman Owais argued that there was no loophole in the Safe 3rd Country Agreement, and that it was INTENDED to apply only to official border points (not the vast areas around them). This is utter nonsense and the Court should reject such arguments.

(34) The Agreement openly states that both Canada and the United States offer generous systems of refugee protection. It is therefore incoherent babble that people should be able to “asylum shop” simply by-passing official ports. This would reward people for breaking the law. The Government’s absurd claims like this are an abuse of the Court process in violation of Rule 221(1)(f), and the Motion should have been denied for that reason alone.

Does Canada owe an obligation (beyond S3CA) to protect its borders?

(35) Section 39, 40 of Immigration & Refugee Protection Act

39. A foreign national is inadmissible for financial reasons if they are or will be unable or unwilling to support themself or any other person who is dependent on them, and have not satisfied an officer that adequate arrangements for care and support, other than those that involve social assistance, have been made

40(1) A permanent resident or a foreign national is inadmissible for misrepresentation (a) for directly or indirectly misrepresentations or withholding material facts relating to a relevant matter that induces or could induce an error in the administration of this act.

(36) Section 39 and 40 of the Act are not for the protection of foreigners coming into Canada. Rather, they are to protect Canadians from people who are unwilling to support themselves, or who lie in order to get into Canada.

(37) The United Nations Office of Drugs and Crime (UNODC) in their 2011 publication “Smuggling of Migrants”

(38) A Global Review and Annotated Bibliography of Recent Publications”, noted the connection between illegal entry (which they call “irregular migration”) and the smuggling of people.

2.1 Smuggling of migrants and the concepts of irregular migration and trafficking in persons 2.1.1 Irregular migration
.
The relationship between irregular migration and smuggling of migrants has been discussed in the literature, with most authors acknowledging the crucial role of smuggling of migrants in facilitating irregular migration. The legal definition of smuggling of migrants finds wide acceptance among the academiccommunity, which usually refers to articles 3 and 6 of the Smuggling of migrants Protocol.

Contrary to the concept of smuggling, the notion of irregular migration does not have a universally accepted definition; however, most academics and experts refer to the definition provided by IOM, which highlights that the most common forms of irregular migration are illegal entry, overstaying and unauthorized work. In looking at the relationship between the two concepts, Friedrich Heckmann stresses that smuggling of migrants plays a crucial role in facilitating irregular migration, as smugglers may provide a wide range of services, from physical transportation and illegal crossing of a border to the procurement of false documents

(39) By refusing to properly protect and enforce the Canada/U.S. border, is Canada not taking the risk of aiding and abetting in the possible human smuggling across international borders?

(40) Objective 10 of the UN Global Migration Compact (which this government signed) requires Canada to act in ways to prevent smuggling and trafficking ofpersons

OBJECTIVE 10: Prevent, combat and eradicate trafficking in persons in the context of international migration
.
To realize this commitment, we will draw from the following actions:
.
a) Promote, ratification, accession and implementation of the Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons Especially Women and Children, supplementing the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime (UNTOC)
.
b) Promote the implementation of the Global Plan of Action to Combat Trafficking in Persons and take into consideration relevant recommendations of the UNODC Toolkit to Combat Trafficking in Persons and other relevant UNODC documents when developing and implementing national and regional policies and measures relating to trafficking in persons

(41) Also, read article 11 of the UN Protocol to Prevent, Supress and Punish Trafficking In Persons, particularly woman and children, Supplementing the United Nations Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime. Canada ratified it in 2003, and is still a party to it.

(42) To state the obvious, how exactly does allowing fake refugees to come in BETWEEN official border ports?

(43) These are the 5 questions being asked in this reply

  • Should “due diligence” be required before making rulings?
  • To what degree should court officials be able to decide what cases are important?
  • What role should Prothonotaries have in striking out documents?
  • Should the government be allowed to submit conflicting, or incoherent pleadings?
  • Does Canada owe an obligation (beyond S3CA) to protect its borders?

(44) If the Court thinks it proper, I am willing to make necessary changes to fix whatever problems may exist in the original Statement of Claim. Here are a few ideas to consider:
(a) Rewriting, redrafting the Statement of Claim, with more precise detail as seen fit.
(b) Rewriting, redrafting the Statement of Claim, to make the legal arguments more clear
(c) Modifying remedies sought, and just focusing on the law itself, not the fake refugees
already here.

4. Authorities Cited

[1] Canada/US Safe Third Country Agreement
[2] UN Protocol to Prevent, Supress and Punish Trafficking In Persons, particularly woman and children, Supplementing the United Nations Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime
[3] Federal Courts Act
[4] UN Global Migration Compact
[5] Immigration and Refugee Protection Act
[6] UN Office Of Drugs and Crime (UN Site down)
https://www.unodc.org/documents/human-trafficking/Migrant
Smuggling/Smuggling_of_Migrants_A_Global_Review.pdf

5. Order Sought

The Plaintiff, Moving Party requests:
(a) The decision of Prothonotary Milczynski be overturned and
 The Claim be allowed to proceed, or
 Necessary amendments be allowed to be made
(b) Costs for the appeal (revoking the earlier waiver)

Leave a Reply