1. Quotes From Toronto Gov’t Filings
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.
CLICK HERE, for reply submissions in S3CA appeal.
3. Context Of This Article
This case involves the joint application for judicial review. These cases (for which arguments were just heard in Toronto) involves applicants trying to strike down the Safe Third Country Agreement.
If you have been following this site at all, you will know that a challenge has been launched in BC to close the “loophole” in the agreement. This loophole, in effects, allows fake refugees to jump the queue by GOING AROUND official border ports.
4. Gov’t Defends S3CA (In Toronto)
That’s right. The Trudeau Government tells a Toronto Court that the Safe 3rd Country Agreement is necessary to protect its borders, and does not discriminate on any human rights grounds.
Also, that same Government is telling a Vancouver Court that the Plaintiff/Moving Party has no right to attempt to close the loophole in the agreement.
In case any real journalists would like to learn more about the cases, these are the names and court files of the people involved.
MOHAMMAD MAJD MAHER HOMSI ET AL v. MCI ET AL
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
5. Gov’t: Open Court Needed (Toronto)
An interesting development in the case: The Federal Government opposed efforts by these “refugee claimants” to have their names redacted. In that case, only their initials would have been posted. The Government — in this case — values having an open court system.
6. Gov’t: No Loophole In S3CA (Vancouver)
These quotes are from the Government’s Motion to Strike, filed on May 22, 2019. In short, the lawyer claimed that since I was not a refugee claimant, I had no real interest or stake in the matter. Furthermore, there apparently was no loophole, and this poor wording was written in intentionally.
7. Rule 221: Motions To Strike
From the Federal Court Rules. Now, I am no expert on the matter, but filing contradictory, or at least incoherent or illogical pleadings should be grounds to strike out a defense. We shall see how it goes.
8. Two Courts, Two Priorities
The above is only a snapshot of what is going on, but the point should be clear. The Government is telling the Toronto Court that the Safe Third Country Agreement is necessary to protect our borders, and that not anyone can just walk in.
By contrast, that same Government is telling a Vancouver Court that there is no loophole to worry about, and that private citizens have no right to demand they enforce our laws and borders.
2 cases, 2 completely different responses.