Report calls for online disinformation watchdog

Canadian civil liberties groups gave a cool reception to the Public Inquiry into Foreign Interference's call for a new federal watchdog to monitor social media for "disinformaton."

Foreign interference inquiry calls for government agency to monitor online misinformation | True North | Clayton DeMaine, True North Wire:

January 28, 2025 - "Mary-Josee Hogue, the commissioner of the Public Inquiry into Foreign Interference in Federal Electoral Processes and Democratic Institutions, released her final report Tuesday.... Among the 51 recommendations was for the government to establish a federal watchdog for foreign disinformation campaigns on social media. 

"'The government should consider creating a government entity to monitor the domestic open-source online information environment for misinformation and disinformation that could impact Canadian democratic processes,' Hogue said in the report. 

"The proposed entity would work with national security and intelligence agencies, international partners and 'appropriate civil society and private organizations' ... [with] authority to 'interact with' social media platforms.... Hogue said the entity should also sit on the Security and Intelligence Threats to Elections Task Force, or SITE-TF.... 

"Also among the commissioner’s 60-page report was for the Canada Elections Act to be amended to ban 'false information from being spread to undermine the legitimacy of an election or its results'."
Read more: https://tnc.news/2025/01/28/foreign-interference-inquiry-government-monitor-online-misinformation/

Civil liberties groups warn about inquiry’s recommendation for “foreign disinfo” monitor | True North | Clayton DeMaine, True North Wire:

January 30, 2025 - "The Canadian Constitution Foundation and Open Media have raised concerns over Commissioner Mary-Josee Hogue’s final report on foreign interference. They say that Hogue’s 11th recommendation to establish a 'government entity' to monitor social media for disinformation and misinformation could be used as a 'back door' to target Canadians with government censorship and privacy violations. The recommendation, one of 51 recommendations to bolster Canada’s defence against foreign interference in its elections, suggests that the “entity” has the authority to 'give and receive intelligence and information.' It also says the government should consider giving the new government agency the authority to 'interact' with social media platforms, though it does not define what the term 'interact' would entail....

"Matt Hatfield, the executive director of the online civil liberties group Open Media told True North that the recommendations are just vague enough that they could be used to justify 'both bad and good ideas'.... He said it is 'critical' that any power to compel data from social media platforms be 'very carefully' described so it can’t easily be abused to surveil or silence Canadians. 

"Christine van Geyn, the litigation director of the CCF, laid out her concerns on the most recent episode of the CCF’s civil liberties podcast, 'Not Reserving Judgement,' on Wednesday. 'There is an issue with defining what disinformation or misinformation is, and this is actually an issue that’s been created by the government,' she said. 'No one trusts these terms anymore, and it’s because of the way the government conducted it has conducted itself in large part during the pandemic.' She noted that the government had claimed many subjects were disinformation, only for those topics to be later revealed by the government or journalists to be founded in truth or a matter of opinion.

"'Giving authority to a new agency to monitor online behaviour and develop intelligence information, I think, is a gateway to collecting information about citizens posting things online that the government doesn’t like or disagrees with,” Van Geyn said. She said there are still people who claim the freedom convoy was a foreign-funded disinformation campaign, naming Liberal leadership candidate Mark Carney as one such offender. 

"Van Geyn noted an Op-Ed the central banker wrote in the Globe and Mail where he said anyone donating to the Freedom Convoy 'should be in no doubt: You are funding sedition' and that foreign funders of 'the insurrection' interfered 'from the start.' 'This just wasn’t true. You know, 88% of the donations on GoFundMe were from Canadians, both Give-Send-Go and GoFundMe said there were zero donations from Russia or China,' Van Geyn said. She said even the CBC repeated the narrative that the Kremlin was behind the protest, and she worries that the state will wield the new government entity to crack down on similarly unfounded concerns."
Read more: https://tnc.news/2025/01/30/civil-liberties-warn-foreign-disinfo-monitor/

Trudeau gov't loses bid for absolute immunity

Canada's Supreme Court has rejected the Trudeau government's claim that it enjoys absolute immunity from being sued for damages caused by its unconstitutional laws.

CCF pleased by SCC ruling no absolute immunity from damages for Charter-violating laws | Canadian Constitution Foundation (news release):

July 19, 2024 - "The Canadian Constitution Foundation [CCF] is pleased that the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that the state is not entitled to absolute immunity from damages when it enacts unconstitutional legislation that infringes Charter rights. In a 5-4 decision released Friday [July 19] in Attorney General of Canada v Joseph Power, Chief Justice Wagner and Justice Karakatsanis for a majority of the court decided that the state may be required to pay damages for passing legislation that meets the very high threshold of being clearly unconstitutional, passed in bad faith or that amounts to an abuse of power.

"The Trudeau government had argued that it had absolute immunity from paying damages for its enactments based on the constitutional principles of the separation of powers, parliamentary sovereignty and parliamentary privilege. 

"The government claimed that damages for enactments of even clearly unconstitutional legislation would open the floodgates to claims and chill them from passing constitutional laws out of concern they would later be on the hook for payments.

"The applicant, Joseph Power, had argued that there was no absolute immunity, and that he should receive damages to compensate him for the harm cause by the enactment of laws that retroactively removed access to pardons, which were passed despite being in clear violation of the protections in section 11 of the Charter against being punished twice for the same crime.

"The CCF intervened in the case to argue that the government is not entitled to absolute immunity. Section 24(1) of the Charter states that damages are available where 'appropriate and just in the circumstances.' The CCF said damages must be available in some exceptional circumstances. The majority agreed.'By shielding the government from liability in even the most egregious circumstances, absolute immunity would subvert the principles that demand government accountability,' Chief Justice Wagner and Justice Karakatsanis wrote.

"The majority also agreed with the CCF on when damages should be available. The Court agreed that there ought not be damages available for merely negligent enactments, but they should be available where the legislation is unconstitutional on its face, where the state was reckless or wilfully blind as to a law’s unconstitutionality and where there was evidence of bad faith or an abuse of power including where the state acted dishonestly or with an improper purpose.

"CCF Executive Director Joanna Baron said she was pleased by the outcome. 'The CCF is relieved that the Supreme Court has recognized that important constitutional principles like parliamentary sovereignty and the separation of powers cannot justify an absolute immunity from damages where the government passes laws that are flagrantly or knowingly unconstitutional,' Baron said. 'Today’s decision gets it right by clarifying that although claimants who seek damages will have a high test to meet, they will still be able to hold governments to account where the Constitution requires damages to vindicate their rights and compensate them,' she added.

"CCF Litigation Director Christine Van Geyn said she believes the threat of having to pay damages will help to deter future governments from passing laws that they know violate the Constitution. 'From banning Indigenous potlatch ceremonies to interning innocent Japanese-Canadians during the Second World War, Canada’s pre-Charter history is sadly full of examples of Parliaments that passed laws that were clearly unconstitutional,' Van Geyn said. 'If the freezing of bank accounts during the freedom convoy is any indication, we still can’t trust Parliament to never enact unconstitutional laws,' she added. 'Today’s decision recognizes that.'

"The CCF was represented in this case by George Avraam, Jennifer Bernardo and Rono Khan of Baker McKenzie."

Read more: https://theccf.ca/ccf-pleased-by-scc-ruling-no-absolute-immunity-from-damages-for-charter-violating-laws/

Trudeau's government wanted ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY from being sued for unconstitutional laws... THEY LOST | Canadian Constitution Foundation | July 30, 2024:

Trudeau's use of Emergencies Act unjustified, federal court rules

Federal Court finds Emergencies Act invocation violated rights, was unreasonable } Canadian Constitution Foundation (press release):

January 23, 2024 - "The Canadian Constitution Foundation (the 'CCF') is thrilled that Justice Mosley of the Federal Court of Canada has accepted the CCF’s arguments that the invocation of the Emergencies Act in response to the Freedom Convoy protests was unreasonable and violated the Charter rights to expression and security against unreasonable searches and seizures. In a judicial review decision released Tuesday, Justice Mosley agreed with the CCF that Cabinet’s invocation of the Act in February 2022 was not reasonable for two reasons.

"First, Cabinet did not properly account for the requirement under section 3 of the Act that emergencies only be declared where a situation cannot be effectively dealt with under any other law of Canada. 'Due to its nature and to the broad powers it grants the Federal Executive, the Emergencies Act is a tool of last resort,' Justice Mosley wrote. 'The GIC cannot invoke the Emergencies Act because it is convenient, or because it may work better than other tools at their disposal or available to the provinces.'

"Second, the requirement of reasonable grounds to believe that Canada faced 'threats to the security of Canada' had not been met. Section 17 of the Act states that 'threats to the security of Canada' has the same meaning as it has under section 2(c) of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act (the 'CSIS Act'), which includes threats like terrorism, espionage and attempts to overthrow the government. Justice Mosley said that this does not include the 'economic disruption that resulted from the border crossing blockades, troubling as they were.'

"When cross-examined by CCF Counsel Sujit Choudhry, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said that Cabinet made the decision that the definition of threats to the security of Canada existed based on a novel legal opinion. The prime minister refused to make that legal opinion public.

"'My preliminary view of the reasonableness of the decision may have prevailed following the hearing due to excellent advocacy on the part of counsel for the Attorney General of Canada had I not taken the time to carefully deliberate about the evidence and submissions, particularly those of the CCLA and CCF,' Justice Mosley wrote. Justice Mosley found violations of Charter sections 2(b) and 8, and said that those violations were not minimally impairing and therefore not justified under section 1 of the Charter, the reasonable limits clause.

"CCF Executive Director Joanna Baron said the decision is good news for all Canadians. 'The invocation of the Emergencies Act is one of the worst examples of government overreach during the pandemic and we are very pleased to see Justice Mosley recognize that Charter rights were breached and that Cabinet must follow the law and only use the Act as a tool of last resort.'

"CCF Litigation Director Christine Van Geyn said she was thrilled with the decision. 'These were very detailed reasons and a complete vindication of the position of civil liberties organizations who viewed the invocation of the Emergencies Act as illegal, unjustified and unconstitutional,' she added. 'We know the government has said that they plan to appeal, and with these reasons they now have a mountain to climb. We look forward to the fight.'"

"The CCF would like to thank its excellent counsel, Sujit Choudhry of Hāki Chambers and Janani Shanmuganathan of Goddard & Shanmuganathan, for their excellent advocacy on this file."

Read more: https://theccf.ca/emergencies-act-use-unconstitutional/

Invoking Emergencies Act against convoy protests was unreasonable, court rules | CBC News | January 23, 2023: 

Rouleau report not last word on Emergencies Act

Justice Rouleau’s deferential report is not the final word on the Emergencies Act | The Hub -Joanna Baron:

February 21, 2023 - "Commissioner Paul Rouleau’s report on the federal government’s invocation of a public order emergency ... was produced on an exceptionally tight timeline following six weeks of sittings and clocks in at over 2,000 pages, including exhibits. The nub of the report sees the judge concluding that Cabinet was justified in invoking the Emergencies Act on February 14, 2022: 'There was credible and compelling evidence supporting both a subjective and objective reasonable belief in the existence of a public order emergency. The decision to invoke the Act was appropriate.' Its tone is cautious and measured. It is an exercise in pointed diplomacy and balancing, but perhaps wanting for clarity.

"First: for Rouleau to have arrived at his conclusion, given the posture of federal Cabinet witnesses at the hearings, implies an extraordinary amount of deference to assiduously shielded government decision-making. The entire basis of Cabinet’s concern that the protests had evolved into an unmanageable situation remained opaque to the Commission. Attorney-General Lametti claimed that Cabinet, in invoking the Act, was acting on the basis of a legal opinion that held that 'threats […] to the security of Canada', were met within the meaning of the Act. It was necessary to refer to this legal opinion because the overwhelming evidence from actors who were receiving on-the-ground intel from Ottawa was the contrary.

"During the hearings, we heard that the director of CSIS had concluded the Act’s threshold of 'threats to the security of Canada' was not met. We also heard leadership of the Ottawa Police Service, the Ontario Provincial Police, and the RCMP, state that existing criminal law tools were sufficient. No other threat assessment or assessment of the inadequacy of existing legal authorities was performed independently of the country’s law enforcement. There was virtually no substantive basis upon which Cabinet could have concluded that the circumstances in Ottawa met the threshold for invoking the Act....

"A requirement for invoking the Act is that it is a measure of last resort, specifying that 'The emergency could not be effectively dealt with by any other federal law.' (Emphasis added.) The report emphasizes the word 'effectively', calling it an “important modifier”, and seems to confuse this requirement that all other avenues of action be exhausted with a sort of argument of convenience.... 

"Evidence of law enforcement was that, at best, the boost provided by the Emergencies Act was helpful but did not substantively alter a plan to clear the protests that already was in place.... Laws under the Criminal Code gave law enforcement the tools it needed — and ultimately used — to clear disruptive protests, compel tow truck operators to remove illegally parked trucks, and call in reinforcement police forces from across the country.... Not a single law enforcement witness testified that they requested the invocation of the Act, nor that they needed more tools than those already at their disposal....

"Finally, the report wholly accepts the federal government’s coup de grâce legal argument — that ... 'two different decision-makers, each interpreting the same words in the context of different statutes, can reasonably come to different conclusions as to whether the threshold is met.' This argument is dangerously misguided..... The report accords Cabinet a wide ambit of reasonableness in invoking the Act that is thoroughly unsupported by the statute’s strict definition. The justice doesn’t quite find that an actual situation presenting threats to national security had crystallized: in his conclusion, he writes that 'the situation [Cabinet] was facing was worsening and at risk of becoming dangerous and unmanageable' ... — and, fearful of that whiff of danger, Cabinet was reasonable in invoking emergency powers.

"This scope of latitude and deference is the appropriate standard for assessing on-the-ground, contingent actions of police — who, indeed, we rightly accord wide operating bandwidth. However, the same standard is wholly inappropriate for a sitting, properly briefed Cabinet’s sober deliberations in the face of a well-established and rightfully high legal threshold for invoking extraordinary powers to detain peaceful protestors, freeze bank accounts without due process, and suspend insurance throughout all of Canada. 

"A federal court judicial review, brought independently (unlike the Commission, which was convened and appointed by government), of the invocation of the Act remains pending. That decision will carry the binding force of law, unlike the Commission report. The matter is not yet finished, and there may yet be consequences for the government’s actions."

Joanna Baron is Executive Director of the Canadian Constitution Foundation, a legal charity that protects constitutional freedoms in courts of law and public opinion.

Read more: https://thehub.ca/2023-02-21/joanna-baron-justice-rouleaus-deferential-report-is-not-the-final-word-on-the-emergencies-act-matter/

Convoy organizer lawyer Keith Wilson reacts to the Emergencies Act inquiry report, CPAC, February 18, 2023:

Trudeau's use of Emergencies Act challenged

'Legal standard not met': Two court challenges filed over Trudeau's use of Emergencies Act | National Post - Bryan Passifiume:

February 17, 2022 - "Two separate legal challenges were filed on Thursday against the federal Liberal government’s invocation of the Emergencies Act by civil rights organizations accusing Prime Minister Justin Trudeau of setting a dangerous precedent by invoking the act for reasons they say fall far short of the necessary legal thresholds. 'The government emergency declaration is unprecedented and seriously infringes the charter rights of Canadians,' said Noa Mendelsohn Aviv, executive director of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA) in a Thursday afternoon press conference. The government brought in an extreme measure that should be reserved for national emergencies, a legal standard that has not been met.' Emergency powers, she said, cannot and must not be normalized in Canadian society.

"Joining the CCLA in challenging the government was the Canadian Constitution Foundation (CCF). 'The federal government has invoked the Emergencies Act as a matter of political convenience,' said CCF Litigation Director Christine Van Geyn in a press release announcing the foundation’s legal challenge. 'This is illegal and violates the rule of law, and that’s why we are challenging the government in court.'

"The prime minister invoked the Emergencies Act on Monday, insisting it was necessary to bring an end to protests, initially provoked by the federal government imposing vaccine mandates on cross-border truckers, that have snarled downtown Ottawa and interfered with Canada–U.S. border crossings. Freedom Convoy supporters have parked an array of transport trucks, heavy equipment and passenger vehicles ... throughout the Ottawa city centre ... followed by convoy-affiliated blockades at several Canadian border crossings ... most notably a days-long blockade at the Ambassador Bridge, a vital trade link between Canada and the United States.

"Protesters in downtown Ottawa awoke Thursday morning to find crews erecting fencing around Parliament Hill and throughout downtown — part of efforts, interim Ottawa Police Chief Steve Bell said, to establish a secure zone.... Police began arresting some protestors after 5 p.m., including Freedom Convoy organizer Chris Barber, who was handcuffed and led away surrounded by police while crowds shouted their disapproval.... Nearly 100 police-manned checkpoints will control access into the secure zone, barring those with no lawful purpose from entering the area."
Read more: https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/legal-challenge-against-emergencies-act-planned-by-constitutional-rights-group

CCF announces legal challenge to Trudeau’s invocation of federal Emergencies Act | Canadian Constitution Foundation:

February 17, 2022- "'Prime Minister Trudeau has set a dangerous precedent by invoking the never before used federal Emergencies Act to address the current situation. The high threshold for declaring a public order emergency in the Emergencies Act has not been met. The Act has been invoked to address a failure to use existing legal tools under the Criminal Code, which were used effectively on the Ambassador Bridge' ... said CCF Litigation Director, Christine Van Geyn. The Emergencies Act ... defines a national emergency ... [and] also requires that the federal government demonstrate that this situation cannot be effectively dealt with under any other law of Canada.

"'Emergency legislation should not be normalized. The threshold for using the Emergencies Act is extremely high and has not been met. The decision to invoke the Emergencies Act, which has never been used or interpreted by the courts, is unprecedented. If Parliament authorizes the proclamation of the public order emergency, the courts will be the last defence for the rule of law', continued Van Geyn. 'This isn’t about the convoy versus the city. This is about the rule of law.' 

"The CCF is represented by lawyers Sujit Choudhry and Janani Shanmuganathan. Members of the public ... interested in supporting the case can make a tax deductible charitable donation at theccf.ca/emergenciesact/."
Read more: https://theccf.ca/legal-challenge-emergencies-act/

CCLA Will Fight Invocation of Emergencies Act in Court | Canadian Civil Liberties Association (press release): 

February 17, 2022 - " The Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA) announced today that it will pursue litigation to challenge the federal government’s use of the Emergencies Act. 'We have retained Ewa Krajewska of Henein Hutchison LLP to take the federal government to court. We have said all along that the federal government did not meet the high burden necessary to invoke the Emergencies Act,' said Noa Mendelsohn Aviv, Executive Director of the CCLA.... 'Governments already have the lawful authority to address difficult situations and do so all the time. This use of the Emergencies Act is unnecessary, unjustifiable and unconstitutional. Our society needs peaceful assembly – a critical democratic tool – even though not every person agrees with the content of every movement'....

"'We do not want to minimize the impacts of the protests that are occurring across the country. But, while some of the blockades have been immensely disruptive, it is unclear that the ongoing protests "endanger the lives, health or safety of Canadians" so as to rise to the threshold of a national emergency under the law,' said Abby Deshman, Director of Criminal Justice for the CCLA. 'The emergency orders that the government has tabled are not targeted. They are not limited to specific protests, or specific geographic locations. They are expansive emergency orders that have already come into effect and apply equally across the entire country. And they place unprecedented restrictions on every single Canadian’s constitutional rights. The current emergency orders place significant limits on peaceful assembly across the entire country. They require financial institutions to turn over personal financial information to CSIS and the RCMP, and to freeze the bank accounts and cut off financial services provided to anyone who has attended, or who has provided assistance to those participating in, a prohibited assembly – all without judicial oversight.'"
Read more: https://ccla.org/press-release/ccla-will-fight-invocation-of-emergencies-act-in-court-2/

Kingston man ticketed for solitary lockdown protest

Ontario stay at home order needs to be amended to allow outdoor protests | National Post - Christine Van Geyn:

May 26, 2021  "The current stay-at-home order in Ontario needs to be amended to permit outdoor protests, which have been happening all across Ontario. The continued prohibition on public protests is undermining the rule of law through uneven enforcement, it violates our fundamental rights, disrupts the democratic process, is impractical, and is unscientific.

"Every weekend thousands of people gather at Queen’s Park and march through Toronto to protest the province-wide lockdown. And last week thousands of people across the greater Toronto area spent the week protesting in support of Palestinians. These protests are meaningful and are a part of our democratic process. It is how many people express their frustration at government policies and international conflicts. People who may feel otherwise powerless to impact change can protest together to show unity and grab the attention of political elites. Whatever your views on the reason for these protests, they are a Charter protected activity.

"But under the current stay-at-home order in effect in Ontario, people risk tickets when they exercise their right to assemble and express political views. The stay-at-home order requires everyone to remain in their residence unless they fall under a permitted exception that allows them to be out and about. Protesting is not one of those permitted reasons.

"The good news is that police in Toronto do not appear to be handing out tickets for these protests. But the bad news is that this is not the case for protestors in smaller communities across the province.

"Take for example, the case of Robert Bristol in Kingston. Bristol opposes the current lockdown. While supportive of some health measures, he believes that the current lockdown has gone too far and is in many ways irrational. It’s not an especially controversial view. Bristol decided to express his frustration by protesting in front of Kingston City Hall. He carried a 'no more lockdowns" sign and protested alone while wearing a mask. Despite this scenario creating literally zero risk of spreading COVID, Bristol was stopped by police and ticketed for violating the stay-at-home order. Police told Bristol that public protests are not a permitted purpose for being outside his home.

"This is bizarre and unjustifiable.... In the past, remote risk has never justified prohibiting public demonstrations. But if Bristol’s lone protest can be stopped on the basis of some hypothetical and frankly impossible danger, what will this mean for other protests in the future where such risk is actually less remote? It would be quite convenient for the government to prohibit citizens from protesting their policies on this basis. But this is not how governments ought to behave in liberal democracies.

"The practice of uneven ticketing undermines the rule of law, and the prohibition on demonstrations against government policies undermines our democracy. But the argument for allowing outdoor protests becomes even more compelling when one looks at the science.

The risk of transmitting COVID in outdoor settings is exceedingly low.... For example, a study of case numbers in Ireland found that just one in every thousand confirmed COVID cases was traced to outdoor transmission, meaning that 0.1 per cent of total cases was linked to outdoor transmission. Ontario’s own science advisory table never recommended that Premier Dour Ford close outdoor recreational amenities. Dr. Peter Jüni, who sits on the table, has said 'just as an estimate, that outdoor activities are probably roughly 20 times safer than indoor activities.'

"The government needs to amend the stay-at-home order to allow for public protests. And if [Ontario premier Doug] Ford won’t make that change voluntarily, there are organizations that are seeking to compel him to make the change. Bristol, the ticketed lone protestor, is working with the Canadian Constitution Foundation to challenge not only his ticket, but the stay-at-home order as well."

Read more: https://nationalpost.com/opinion/christine-van-geyn-ontario-stay-at-home-order-needs-to-be-amended-to-allow-outdoor-protests

Libertarian law student group forming in Canada

Libertarian student group Runnymede Society seeks to shake up Canada’s legal culture - The Globe and Mail - Sean Fine:

September 10, 2019 - "A libertarian student group has developed a growing presence in law schools, where it seeks to shake up a legal culture it views as devoutly uncritical of the Supreme Court and established Canadian legal norms. From a tiny group on a handful of campuses three years ago, the Runnymede Society now has a presence on nearly all of the country’s 18 law campuses....

"Similar to the influential Federalist Society in the United States, which also started as a student group, Runnymede has a core view that judges too often are guided by their own political preferences, rather than applying the law. In its first book of essays, published late last month with the provocative title Attacks on the Rule of Law From Within, and in edgy remarks at its events from leading judges, it has sought to spark a debate on some cherished Canadian principles, such as the Charter of Rights and Freedoms being a living tree that changes with the times.

"'Obviously the Canadian legal community is a small community, and the game is influencing the influencers, says Joanna Baron, a Runnymede founder and now the executive director of its parent group, the Calgary-based Canadian Constitution Foundation....

"Runnymede, which is non-partisan, has 'partnered' with the Federalist Society for some of its events, accepting speakers from the U.S. group, says Runnymede national director Mark Mancini, whose website biography says he has 'a mandate to shift the legal culture in Canada towards liberty.' (Runnymede is the name of the meadow where the Magna Carta was written in the 12th century.)...

"The Runnymede Society says it is not socially conservative and does not have the Federalist Society’s deep attachment to originalism – the idea that the Constitution should be interpreted as its authors intended, rather than according to the living-tree approach widely used in Canadian courts. But it wants students exposed to both views, Ms. Baron says....

"And 'liberty-oriented legal arguments are still seen as outliers.' One example of a liberty-oriented argument comes in the biggest case under way involving the Canadian Constitution Foundation – the eight-year-old Cambie Surgeries case in Vancouver, in which the foundation has retained leading lawyers to argue for a right to private medical care....

"Runnymede Society has a $250,000 annual budget, Mr. Mancini says, and gives charitable-tax receipts through the Canadian Constitution Foundation, which received just more than $5-million in donations in the year ending in March, 2019, from individuals and foundations. The biggest part of those donations was given for the Cambie case, Ms. Baron said....

"With the exception of a grant of about $10,000 from the U.S.-based Atlas Network, which funds groups supporting the rule of law and free markets, it has received no money from foreign sources, Ms. Baron said."

Read more: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-libertarian-student-group-runnymede-society-seeks-to-shake-up-legal/
'via Blog this'

'Fake news' section of Elections Act challenged

Canadian Constitution Foundation launches constitutional challenge against elections censorship law - Canadian Constitution Foundation:

September 18, 2019 - "On Monday Sept 16th, the Canadian Constitution Foundation (CCF) served documents on the Attorneys General of Canada and Ontario challenging the constitutionality of section 91 of the Canada Elections Act (CEA), which prohibits certain types of 'false statements' during a federal election period. This provision allows the government to censor what it considers to be 'fake news'.

"The CCF is deeply concerned about the harm that this law has on freedom of expression in Canada, particularly the freedom to engage in political speech, as guaranteed under s. 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Section 91 of the CEA violates the right of Canadians to express their political views freely, particularly during an election period, without fear of reprisal....

"These provisions, which were recently amended, make it an offence to attempt to influence an election by making or publishing certain types of 'false' statements about political candidates and other public figures during the election period. The prohibition leaves important words like “false”, “public figure”, and “associated with” undefined. Further, the state need not prove knowledge of falsity: a person or entity who made or published an allegedly 'false' statement, such as by posting or re-posting a comment on social media, can be prosecuted even if they honestly believed the statement to be true, and even if there was a reasonable basis for this belief....

"Violating this law carries a maximum penalty of a $50,000 fine and five years in prison. As a result, the law forces Canadians into an unacceptable choice: they can soft-peddle their expression or self-censor their views in an attempt to avoid saying anything that the state may deem to be “false”, or they can exercise their right to express themselves and risk prosecution and severe punishment. Too many Canadians will choose the former. This chilling effect will lead to a muted social and political discourse and, in turn, serve only to undermine the integrity and effectiveness of the democratic election process.

"Inevitably, false information is, intentionally or not, disseminated during an election. The constitutionally permissible response to this inevitability is not to sanction speech, but to promote media and information literacy and foster open discourse so that Canadians can make up their own minds about what to believe and who to vote for. Censoring and punishing free speech is not a constitutionally acceptable solution in a free and democratic society....

"CCF Executive Director, Joanna Baron, stated... 'To take just one example, Canadians may disagree about whether Prime Minister Justin Trudeau obstructed justice in his handling of the SNC-Lavalin prosecution. But the Charter gives every Canadian the right to allege that he committed that crime without fear of punishment. That’s why the government’s attempt to criminalize "fake news" must be declared unconstitutional.'"

Read more: https://theccf.ca/canadian-constitution-foundation-launches-constitutional-challenge-against-elections-censorship-law/
'via Blog this'

Donner Canadian Foundation funds "right wing"

The Donner Prize is part of a larger effort to reimagine Canada as a right-wing American Libertarian fantasy - Tim Bousquet, Halifax Examiner:

April 8, 2019 - "The Donner Prize is awarded by the Donner Canadian Foundation, which was founded by William Henry Donner, an American industrialist who made his fortune in tin and steel. In 1929, Donner’s son Joseph died of cancer, and ... William Donner ... 'sold the assets he had in the Donner Steel Company of Buffalo, New York, his final business undertaking, and set aside $2 million for charitable purposes, primarily for cancer research,' explains the McGill Library.

"Donner moved to Montreal in the 1940s. The move was in part motivated by a desire to avoid U.S. income taxes, but Donner was also attracted by the world-leading medical research then going on in that city, and in 1950 he established the Donner Canadian Foundation. Donner died in 1953, but the foundation continued to dole out money, mostly for medical research and mostly in uncontroversial ways, until 1993.

"Then came a sea change. As Thomas Walkom wrote in 1997 for the Toronto Star: ... 'For the first 43 years of its existence, the Donner foundation was a typical Canadian charitable fund, donating its money to the kinds of unconcontroversial mainstream projects that are generally, and often uncritically, deemed worthy — medical research, prison reform, studies on Canadian unity. Now it is known as paymaster to the right, a source of ready cash for the favourite causes of the new, market conservatism'....

"[Walkom] went on to list the myriad right-wing causes the Donner Canadian Foundation funded — including the Fraser Institute, the Atlantic Institution for Market Studies (a $515,000 grant 'to look at issues such as privatization of the fishery'), the Society for Academic Freedom and Scholarship (a grant of $286,000 'to fight so-called political correctness at Canadian universities'), among others....

"Patrick Luciani, now acting executive director of the foundation, openly acknowledges the shift. 'We changed emphasis in 1993. It had been a classic Canadian foundation, quite liberal. But the Donner family saw the country going through a fiscal crisis and they wanted to fund projects that looked at more competition and less government'....

"Recipients of last year’s grants from the Donner Canadian Foundation are split between environmental organizations and more clearly identified right-wing political causes. On the environmental side, the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society received $93,425 for 'Advancing Marine Protected Areas.' The Nature Conservancy received three grants for regional projects. The World Wildlife Fund received a $50,000 grant.

"Then there are the grants going towards 'Public Policy Research and Education.' Recipients include the Canadian Constitution Foundation ($30,000), which among other things has funded a court challenge to Alberta’s medicare system; Hillsdale College ($17,000) to fund the work of R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. — the editor of the right-wing American Spectator magazine; the Fraser Institute ($55,000); among others....

"The Donner family can fund whatever they want. But let’s not go a-gog over the Donner Prize, which is clearly part of a larger effort to reimagine Canada as a right-wing American Libertarian fantasy."

Read more: https://www.halifaxexaminer.ca/featured/the-donner-prize-is-part-of-a-larger-effort-to-reimagine-canada-as-a-right-wing-american-libertarian-fantasy/

'via Blog this'

Provincial trade barriers OK'd by Canada's Supreme Court

Supreme Court upholds law prohibiting Canadians, wherever they live, from buying beer wherever they want | The Star - Tonda MacCharles:

April 19, 2018 - ""Gerard Comeau wasn’t the only one shaking his head when the Supreme Court of Canada ruled Thursday there is no 'constitutional guarantee of free trade' within Canada.

"'Money’s more important than liberties, I guess,' said the 64-year-old retired linesman.... Comeau’s bid to strike down the [New Brunswick] Liquor Control Act’s limits on cross-border beer shopping failed, but he became the champion of free-traders across Canada.

"Now some of his supporters hope all the attention his case, and the social media campaign dubbed #freethebeer, brought to the issue will galvanize provincial and federal leaders to drop barriers they say add $50 billion to $130 billion in extra costs to goods and services that cross provincial borders....

"The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the 1867 constitution did not impose 'an absolute free trade regime within Canada' ... [and] any decision to knock down interprovincial trade barriers would be a political one.... It cited the 'need to maintain balance' ... as long as the law’s primary purpose is not aimed at blocking trade across provincial borders.

"Any other interpretation, warned the court, could lead to a whole slew of laws being invalidated: environmental or public health regulations, agricultural controls on the production and distribution of eggs, dairy or poultry, for example, and 'innumerable' other exercises of provincial jurisdiction."

"Lawyer Howard Anglin, of the Canadian Constitutional Foundation, which intervened at the high court in support of Comeau’s arguments, ... believes the ruling actually provides an opportunity for a federal government or federal party leader to push to lower trade barriers, using the federal power to regulate trade and commerce....

"Freer trade between provinces could be a windfall for the provinces, said Anglin, who pointed to a senate committee report that accepted findings by Trevor Tombe and Lukas Albrecht. They say interprovincial barriers cost each Canadian household about $7,500 a year."

Read more: https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2018/04/19/supreme-court-upholds-laws-limiting-amount-of-alcohol-moved-across-provincial-borders.html
'via Blog this'

Canadian governments abuse civil forfeiture

National | Abusing civil forfeiture in Canada - Justin Ling:

January 10, 2017 - "Ontario’s civil forfeiture laws have created a system that is broad in scope and power, light on defence and relief....That’s a reality that Margaret and Terry Reilly have learned the hard way over the past decade, as the government has aggressively pursued two of their properties, seizing their buildings and selling them off.....

"The Reillys have found allies in the Canada Constitution Foundation (CCF), who are helping in the legal fight against the forfeiture order.

"The case dates back to 2008, when the couple had two of their rental properties in Orillia seized. As a Crown attorney told the local paper in Orillia, where the Reillys live, the properties had essentially become drug dens.... But the police didn’t pursue charges against the Reillys’ tenants.... Instead, they went after the houses themselves and, in turn, their owners....

"The properties were taken into the possession of Ontario’s Director of Asset Management in 2008, while the two sides battled it out in court, and filed to permanently take control of the properties in 2012 and sell them. The move was, according to the CCF, 'on the grounds that some of the tenants’ rents may have been paid, in part, with the proceeds of their drug
activity'....

“This case is a particularly chilling example,” said Shawna Fattal, a criminal lawyer who represents the Reillys, speaking at the CCF’s [2017] annual Law & Freedom Conference....

"In a 2016 report from the CCF, they gave Ontario an 'F' on its civil forfeiture law. They note that 'the province routinely uses its power to forfeit property in circumstances where there is insufficient evidence to merit criminal charges.' Also, the province 'uses its power to pursue the property of third parties not suspected of any wrongdoing.'"

"Fattal shared the stage with Justin Safayeni, a litigator at Stockwoods with a practice in constitutional matters. 'We have very broad seizure powers, very weak statutory defences...and we have a Crown that is using this legislation is quite aggressively,' Safayeni told the crowd.... he and Fattal agreed that the fight against overbroad forfeiture laws — something endemic to almost every province, according to the CCF — is ultimately a fight that may have to go province-by-province.

 "One big variable will be how the Hell’s Angels fare in British Columbia, where they are currently launching a constitutional challenge to fight the seizure of a clubhouse on the basis that, the Attorney General says, the location could be used for crime in the future."

Read more: http://nationalmagazine.ca/Articles/January-2017/Abusing-civil-forfeiture-in-Canada.aspx
'via Blog this'

Tenants may have sold drugs, so gov't seizes rental units from owner

John Robson: Ontario’s brutal assault on a good couple, which it never even bothered to accuse of a crime | National Post:

January 10, 2017 - "Canadians have rights, don’t they? We love our Charter and the robust, even convoluted, legal system that surrounds it. Yet increasingly we live in a fools’ paradise because one of the worst things that can happen to us is to be sucked into precisely the elaborate legal system we think protects us.

"This point was driven home for me, horribly, at a Canadian Constitution Foundation conference on Law and Freedom in Toronto last weekend. I was there to talk about the surprisingly encouraging 'Comeau' court ruling that we can buy beer and take it home even from (ugh) another province.... But this matter, or the apparently endless procedural wrangling in the CCF challenge to B.C.’s restrictive health-care law, is nothing to a tragic case described at the conference that, I confess, I was not aware of.

"It concerns the Reillys, a couple dedicated to helping the unfortunate who tailored two of their Orillia rental properties to low-income people with often chaotic lives. The Reillys were the sort of landlords who would personally drive carless tenants to the grocery store and to addiction counselling sessions.

"So in 2008 the police alleged drug-dealing at these two properties. Furthermore, they said some rent was paid from drug profits. And under Ontario’s soothingly named Civil Forfeiture Act, the “Director of Asset Management” seized the Reilly’s two properties as the 'proceeds' and possibly 'instruments' of crime.

"The Reillys were never charged with anything. It was never suggested that they were involved in drug trafficking. Moreover, despite deep sympathy for their tenants’ sometimes disorderly lives they had evicted more than 50 for dangerous behaviour and tried without success to have others evicted for drug use....

"No tenant was even arrested in connection with this seizure. The state never proved that the Reillys ignored any crime, let alone condoned or quietly profited from it. It just swooped because what Juggernaut wants, Juggernaut takes, casually crushing the Reillys in the process.

"They sold all their other properties to pay legal bills and mortgaged their home. Their marriage broke down. They are elderly and their lives are destroyed. And the case is far from over. Indeed the contested properties, badly dilapidated in the tender claws of the state, are being sold without any pettifogging determination whether the seizure was lawful."

Read more: http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/john-robson-ontarios-brutal-assault-on-a-good-couple-which-it-never-even-bothered-to-accuse-of-a-crime
'via Blog this'

NB enforces beer monopoly despite court ruling

Why New Brunswick is vowing to keep busting anyone importing beer, even after judge said it’s legal | Financial Post - John Williamson:

May 16, 2016 - "Heads the province wins, tails you lose. This appears to be the response of the Gallant government to the recent court decision declaring unconstitutional New Brunswick’s longstanding restrictions on bringing alcohol for personal consumption into the province. The government has until the end of the month to appeal Provincial Court Judge Ronald LeBlanc’s ruling that the law violates the Constitution’s free-trade provisions by blocking the flow of goods within Canada. But already New Brunswick’s Public Prosecutions Office is — despite the court ruling — threatening legal action against residents that enter New Brunswick with more alcohol than is permitted by the provincial government’s liquor regulations.

"New Brunswick resident Gérard Comeau was charged by the RCMP in 2012 and fined $295 for illegally bringing in 14 cases of beer and three bottles of liquor from a Quebec border town into his home province. Under the New Brunswick Liquor Control Act, it is a crime to purchase more than one bottle of liquor or wine or the equivalent of 12 pints of beer from retailers outside of the province. Consumers are instead forced to purchase spirits from the New Brunswick Liquor Corp., a government-owned monopoly that charges double the price for beer as Quebec. "

"According to Luc Labonté, director of the province’s Public Prosecutions Services, the law restricting liquor imports remains in effect because 'in theory' the court ruling applies only to the person who brought the case — Mr. Comeau.... The Supreme Court of Canada has stated only superior courts — not provincial courts — can invalidate a law. Consequently, Judge LeBlanc’s decision is not a binding legal precedent....

"Judge LeBlanc’s ruling, however, makes any conviction under New Brunswick’s law unlikely. After the Comeau decision, anyone charged with the offence of importing alcohol will plead 'not guilty,' knowing his or her trial will rely on the newly established precedent.

"The Canadian Constitution Foundation supported Mr. Comeau in the beer case. The group’s executive director Marni Soupcoff explained, 'It’s true that "in theory’ the law remains on the books, but it would be ridiculous for New Brunswick prosecutors to go to court to enforce it now that one of their own judges has plainly assessed it as unconstitutional.' Ms. Soupcoff believes charging other New Brunswick cross-border beer consumers would be a waste of time and money.

'But costly enforcement that wastes time and money could be exactly what the province intends....
The punishment for New Brunswick consumers wouldn’t be the conviction, but the lengthy and costly court process itself.... Most people will, quite sensibly, keep suffering overpriced alcohol in New Brunswick rather than risk having to fight for their rights."

Read more: http://business.financialpost.com/fp-comment/why-new-brunswick-is-vowing-to-keep-busting-anyone-importing-beer-even-after-judge-said-its-legal
'via Blog this'

Canadian forfeiture programs get failing grades

B.C., Ontario civil-forfeiture programs get failing grades, report says - The Globe and Mail - Sunny Dhillon:

"Civil-forfeiture programs have trampled on the rights of Canadians, seized property from innocent people and are neither transparent nor accountable, a new report says....

"Marni Soupcoff, executive director of the Canadian Constitution Foundation, a Calgary-based non-profit that aims to protect constitutional freedoms, said its report shows innocent people have been hurt by the use of civil forfeiture.

"'The part that I don’t think people currently know is you could lose your property in a process that treats you more harshly than a criminal gets treated, even if you’re not suspected of having done anything wrong,' she said in an interview Monday.

"The 58-page report examines the rise of civil-forfeiture programs in Canada, starting with their inception in Ontario in the early 2000s and leading to today, when eight provinces have such offices.

"The report says the offices were originally intended to deter crime and compensate victims but 'rarely accomplish these stated goals.' It said revenue generated through successful forfeiture proceedings is instead more likely to be returned to the provincial government involved, or to law enforcement agencies.

"The report went on to say that because civil-forfeiture cases are tried in civil court, with a lower standard of proof than criminal court, the provinces can 'choose to initiate civil-forfeiture proceedings against individuals in circumstances where there is not enough evidence to merit criminal charges, let alone result in a conviction.'

"The Canadian Constitution Foundation also accused civil-forfeiture programs of a lack of transparency. It said none of the eight offices is required to release information on how much money has been collected and paid out. It said none of the offices has been reviewed by a provincial auditor-general and, when faced with criticism, the offices have sometimes tried to shield themselves by pointing to grants given to charities – a tactic referred to as a “charity wash.”

"The foundation made five recommendations in all, including calls for each office to report its finances annually. It also said civil forfeiture should only be used after a property owner has been convicted of a provincial offence.

"Micheal Vonn, policy director at the B.C. Civil Liberties Association, which has long raised concerns about the use of civil forfeiture in Canada, said the new report is 'most welcome.'

"'The most important thing that they really highlight, that I think is the part that virtually everyone in the public can understand, is that part of the danger of this is that there’s no accountability,' she said in an interview."

Read more: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/bc-ontario-civil-forfeiture-programs-get-a-failing-grade-report-says/article29067454/
'via Blog this'

Food inspectors try to jail woman whose sheep they killed

Help defend farmers charged in rare sheep case | Indiegogo - Karen Selick:

August 7, 2015 - "We need help raising a legal defence fund for Montana Jones and Michael Schmidt, two Ontario farmers charged with defying the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA). We have to be careful what we say here, because the government recently asked for (and got) a publication ban on this case.

"Back in 2010, the CFIA issued an order  quarantining Montana’s farm. They suspected her sheep had a disease called scrapie.... They did live biopsies on Montana’s flock. All were negative for scrapie. But the CFIA said that wasn’t good enough. The sheep would have to be killed, and their brains examined....

"On the day before the CFIA were coming to slaughter the sheep, someone removed them surreptitiously from the farm.... Eventually, they found the flock about 8 weeks later, 300 km away. The CFIA killed all the recovered sheep, and examined their brains. All tested negative for scrapie, just as Montana had predicted they would....

"Now four people have been charged with criminal offences. One person has pleaded guilty.  The other three, including Montana Jones and Michael Schmidt, are awaiting a jury trial.  Their charges were laid in December, 2012, but the case is still at the preliminary hearing stage.  No trial date has been set yet....

"The Canadian Constitution Foundation and lawyer Shawn Buckley are defending Montana and Michael, but it’s going to be expensive. The prosecution, with their huge resources (your tax dollars), are trying to exhaust our resources....

"The prosecution has wasted our resources (deliberately, we suspect) by bringing one long motion after another.  One of their motions was to force me (Karen Selick) off the case, alleging I had a conflict of interest because I represented both Montana and Michael. The prosecutors have now subpoenaed me as a witness (yes, against my own clients) as a technique for keeping me off the case.

"They also brought a lengthy motion to force Shawn Buckley off the case, but fortunately the judge ruled that Shawn could carry on.  Then there was the publication ban motion — another long court procedure that used up the defence’s resources and hampered our ability to inform the public about government actions.

"The CFIA clearly wants to put Montana and Michael in jail. When the CFIA investigator first raided Michael Schmidt’s farm in August, 2012, he crowed to Michael, 'Your travelling days are over, Mr. Schmidt.'  The prosecutor once told me that he intends for them to go to a federal penitentiary, which means a minimum sentence of two years. In fact, with the number of charges facing each of them, they could conceivably end up in jail for a decade or more.

"Please help keep these ethical farmers out of jail.  Please donate, then share this page with anyone who cares about healthy natural food, preserving biodiversity, freedom from rampant bureaucracy, freedom of the press, and justice in Canada’s courts.

"The Canadian Constitution Foundation — 'freedom’s defence team' — is a registered charity in both Canada and the US. If you donate at least $25, you’ll get a receipt that you can use to claim a deduction on your income tax return."

Read more: https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/help-defend-farmers-charged-in-rare-sheep-case#/story
'via Blog this'

NB retiree sues for right to buy Quebec beer

Retiree at heart of cross-border booze-run case getting funding help - Colin Perkel, Canadian Press:

July 23, 2015 - "A man whose drive from New Brunswick to Quebec to buy cheaper beer ended in arrest said Thursday he's looking forward to airing his constitutional challenge in court next month as a defence crowdfunding campaign gets underway.

"In an interview from Tracadie, N.B., Gerard Comeau said he just wants to know whether he has the right to buy his beer in Quebec....

"As part of a sting operation, RCMP arrested Comeau, now 62, in October 2012 when he returned with 12 cases of beer and three bottles of liquor which he bought legally in Pointe-a-la-Croix, Que., just across the river from Campbellton. Police seized the booze and charged him with illegally importing alcohol into his home province.

"Cross-border alcohol shopping is a regular thing in the area and the retired power lineman had been making the run two or three times a year into Quebec to score beer — which costs about half the New Brunswick price — and lottery tickets.

"However, provincial law in New Brunswick — related to federal anti-smuggling efforts implemented at the height of Prohibition — forbids importing more than one bottle of wine or 12 pints of beer — about 19 regular bottles — from any other province. The restrictions, stiffer than importing alcohol from the U.S., carry a $292.50 fine for violators.

"Comeau's case has drawn support from the Canadian Constitution Foundation, which this week launched a crowdfunding drive in an effort to raise $20,000 for a fight that seems destined to be decided by the Supreme Court of Canada.

"A lot of people don't even know that provision is in the law," Karen Selick, the foundation's litigation director, said from Ottawa.... Section 121 of the Constitution is supposed to allow for the free flow of goods across provincial borders but, Selick said, a Supreme Court decision dating to 1921 that narrowly interpreted the section is at the heart of the dispute.

"'We think that case was wrongly decided and that enough time has gone by that the Supreme Court should look at it again,' Selick said.

"The foundation, a registered charity that bills itself as an independent, non-partisan organization that aims to defend Canadian constitutional freedoms, said the trade barriers benefit government monopoly sales agencies while constraining private business and citizens."

Read more: http://www.thespec.com/news-story/5749137-retiree-at-heart-of-cross-border-booze-run-case-getting-funding-help/
'via Blog this'
Crowdfunding site: https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/free-beer#/story

BC teens sue for right to buy medical treatment

Marni Soupcoff: The lawsuit that could revolutionize Canadian health care as we know it | National Post: 

May 29, 2014 - "Four British Columbians who suffered real physical harm while waiting for access to health care will be in court in September, along with Vancouver’s Cambie Surgical Centre, arguing for all Canadians’ right to make their own healthcare choices. That includes paying out of pocket or through private insurance for an MRI or other crucial test or surgery if the government can’t make it available when it’s needed.

"Three of the plaintiffs in the case are teenagers whose young lives already have been negatively shaped by the ban on accessing private care. They include Walid Waitkus, a 16-year-old with progressive spine deformity, who was paralyzed after a 27-month wait for care; and 18-year-old Chris Chiavatti, who suffered permanent damage while waiting for treatment of his knee injury. Another plaintiff, 37-year-old Mandy Martens, saw her colon cancer spread while she languished on a waitlist. Two other British Columbians were originally part of the action, but they died waiting for the case to go to trial....

"These aren’t people asking for 'U.S.-style' care. They are patients asking for the healthcare choice that is available to residents of every other democracy in the world except Canada: the option to pay for needed treatment to end or reduce their own suffering if the government can’t end or reduce it for them....

"[T]he Canadian Constitution Foundation ... is supporting the constitutional challenge."

Read more: http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2014/05/29/marni-soupcoff-the-lawsuit-that-could-revolutionize-canadian-health-care-as-we-know-it/
'via Blog this'

Canadian government kills sheep to ensure they aren't sick

Canadian Government Destroys Heritage Sheep Herd and Wants to Send Farmer to Prison | Health Impact News - Brian Shilhavy:

April 25, 2013 - "Shepherdess Montana Jones began accumulating her flock of rare Shropshire sheep in 2000.... But in early 2010, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) suddenly quarantined Montana’s farm. A single sheep that she had sold in 2007 had died on a farm more than 1,500 miles away. It tested positive for a disease called scrapie. The CFIA thought the rest of Montana’s flock might be infected.

"The CFIA conducted live biopsies on Montana’s flock during 2011. All were negative for disease. None showed any symptoms of illness. But the CFIA said the live tests were only 88% accurate. They would need to kill the sheep and dissect their brains to know for sure whether they were ill, they said.

"Montana and her lawyer Karen Selick of the Canadian Constitution Foundation (CCF) fought the CFIA throughout the early months of 2012, pointing out the absurdity of killing the sheep to make sure they weren’t sick.... Intransigent, the CFIA ordered that the sheep be destroyed. They told Montana they’d be coming to seize the sheep early on the morning of April 2, 2012.

"On the morning of the scheduled slaughter, Montana found that the sheep had disappeared.... The CFIA and Ontario Provincial Police mounted a massive search for the sheep, conducting door-to-door searches throughout rural Ontario and employing helicopters for aerial surveillance.

"About 9 weeks after the sheep’s disappearance, the CFIA received a tip-off from an undisclosed source. The sheep were located 200 miles away from Montana’s farm, at a farm very close to raw milk crusader Michael Schmidt’s farm. The CFIA seized, killed and tested all the sheep, including numerous lambs that had been born to them during their absence. All were negative for scrapie.

"Now Montana Jones has been charged with numerous criminal offences, including conspiracy, breach of quarantine, and disobeying a regulatory order. The CFIA also alleges that Michael Schmidt is involved in the conspiracy. He too is facing criminal charges. If convicted, Montana faces up to 12 years in jail and fines of $1.5 million. Michael, charged with one less charge, faces up to 10 years in jail and fines of $1.25 million.

Read more: http://healthimpactnews.com/2013/canadian-government-destroys-heritage-sheep-herd-and-wants-to-send-farmer-to-prison/
'via Blog this'

Liberty Summer Seminar & Jaworski Family Win Freedom of Assembly

Canadian Constitution Foundation

 Press Release

For Immediate Release: February 14, 2011.

Liberty Summer Seminar & Jaworski Family Win Freedom of Assembly

The Canadian Constitution Foundation (CCF) today announced that it has succeeded in getting charges dropped against Marta and Lech Jaworski for hosting the Liberty Summer Seminar on their rural property in the Municipality of Clarington.

For video footage, click here.

Background

The Liberty Summer Seminar (LSS) has been held annually outdoors at the Jaworskis’ home for 10 years. The seminar brings together university professors, think-tank executives, and liberty-minded activists to speak to an audience consisting primarily of students about political and economic freedom.

The Jaworskis, who fled Poland in 1984 while it was still a totalitarian regime, were astonished to find themselves charged in August, 2010 with an offence under Ontario’s Planning Act, merely for hosting the seminar on their 20-acre property. “We left Poland seeking freedom, but when we tried to help celebrate freedom in Canada, we found ourselves being treated like suspected criminals,” said Marta Jaworski, 57.

The Jaworskis retained a local lawyer to help them fight the charges but Clarington refused to budge.

Freedom of Peaceful Assembly

In December, 2010 the CCF took on the case. The CCF is a registered charitable organization that engages in public interest litigation in selected cases where it perceives government bodies to be breaching citizens’ constitutional rights.

The CCF filed court documents maintaining that the forbidding of the LSS would constitute a breach of the Jaworskis’ constitutional right to freedom of assembly under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The municipality informed the CCF last week that the charges against the Jaworskis would be withdrawn, in recognition of the fact that “their use of the property was purely for the purpose of a peaceful assembly and expressive activity”.

CCF Litigation Director Karen Selick said, “We are very satisfied with this result, and we’re particularly pleased that Clarington conceded the Jaworskis’ constitutional rights instead of putting them through the ordeal of a trial”.

http://www.canadianconstitutionfoundation.ca/article.php/215

Help for the Jaworski family

Finally some good news for the Jaworskis of Clarendon, Ontario, threatened with a crippling penalty for letting their son Peter host Canada's annual Liberty Summer Seminar on their rural property. They face a $50,000 fine if convicted. Read the details here:  http://willowpond.ca/?page_id=126

On Dec. 16, the Canadian Constitutional Foundation (CCF) announced that it will be providing pro bono legal counsel to the family. The CCF also served notice on the Canadian and Ontario attorneys-general that it intends to argue that the municipal bylaw under which the Jaworskis were charged, and its enabling provincial legislation, both violate the freedom of peaceful assembly guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Says CCF Executive Director Chris Schafer: “The Jaworskis escaped Poland in 1984 fearing persecution by the government for distributing pro-freedom literature. It’s ironic that they are now facing charges in Canada for allowing their son to host an event in support of freedom on their property."

Read the full release here:  http://www.wireservice.ca/index.php?module=News&func=display&sid=4106

You can donate to the Jaworski family's legal defence fund via CCF here:    https://secure.lexi.net/ccf/gift_of_freedom.php