It's still going to court so perhaps more information will be provided? I'm hoping anyway altho' I'm not sure I trust the courts either.
Public Inquiries into Emergencies Act begin September 19
- Thread starter The_Foxer
- Start date
Convoy protest class action lawsuit adds to list of defendants, expands roster of included residents — Ottawa Citizen
A Superior Court justice also ordered plaintiffs to serve the amended statement on defendants within 90 days
Wonder how many other past or future protests in our nation’s capital are/will/will be sued? I suspect zero.
As a convoyeur I say.....
Convoy protest class action lawsuit adds to list of defendants, expands roster of included residents — Ottawa Citizen
A Superior Court justice also ordered plaintiffs to serve the amended statement on defendants within 90 daysapple.news
Wonder how many other past or future protests in our nation’s capital are/will/will be sued? I suspect zero.
So the protest was legal until it was not legal as of Valentine’s Day…& the honking of horns stopped on the seventh, with the injunction by a local Ottawa judge…
So I wonder if this only entails the timeframe from the 14th to 21 February??? where there were no honking horns???
If they’re going to do this, though, then every protest going forward in our nations capital deserves its own class action lawsuit against it I guess? Or do we just outlaw protest in Canada?
So I wonder if this only entails the timeframe from the 14th to 21 February??? where there were no honking horns???
If they’re going to do this, though, then every protest going forward in our nations capital deserves its own class action lawsuit against it I guess? Or do we just outlaw protest in Canada?
If the suit is successful and monetary rewards are grated it does set a precedent regarding protest . And how can a company that volunteerily shut down expect damages while his competitors stayed open and did record sales .
We need inquiries into why there arent enough inquiries. What do you think?
Record sales until shut down & fined by the city of Ottawa? Wonder if the City of Ottawa will also be named in the class action lawsuit as a defendant???
Informed Canadians will have little trouble remembering how fixated Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was with the foreign money donated through crowdfunding sources to the Freedom Convoy.
But for those who don’t recall, here’s a brief refresher. The PM was so obsessed about donations from Americans helping to fund the truckers’ protest on Parliament Hill last winter that he actually brought it up with U.S. President Joe Biden last February. It remains unclear what he expected the president to do. Freeze his citizen’s bank accounts, perhaps?
Despite Trudeau’s obsession with foreign funding, it turns out the majority of donations, 86 per cent through GoFundMe and 60 per cent through Give Send Go, we’re actually Canadian.
GoFundMe froze the funds after police reports the protests had become an “occupation.” GiveSendGo was subsequently used to raise donations, but then its website was hacked, revealing the names and email addresses of those who contributed to the protests, leading to small business owners and even government employees being cancelled, fired, threatened and harassed.
More than 200 bank accounts were frozen under the Trudeau government’s Emergencies Act for supporting a cause the Prime Minister disagreed with. Regardless of what the Emergencies Act Inquiry found and which side of this issue you fall on, all Canadians should be alarmed that such draconian actions were taken by the prime minister against his own citizens.
Which brings us to the stark contrast between Trudeau’s concern over individual U.S. citizens supporting a cause he disagrees with and his years of inaction and apathy towards foreign money being used to influence the most important cornerstone of our democracy — our free and fair elections.
apple.news
But for those who don’t recall, here’s a brief refresher. The PM was so obsessed about donations from Americans helping to fund the truckers’ protest on Parliament Hill last winter that he actually brought it up with U.S. President Joe Biden last February. It remains unclear what he expected the president to do. Freeze his citizen’s bank accounts, perhaps?
Despite Trudeau’s obsession with foreign funding, it turns out the majority of donations, 86 per cent through GoFundMe and 60 per cent through Give Send Go, we’re actually Canadian.
GoFundMe froze the funds after police reports the protests had become an “occupation.” GiveSendGo was subsequently used to raise donations, but then its website was hacked, revealing the names and email addresses of those who contributed to the protests, leading to small business owners and even government employees being cancelled, fired, threatened and harassed.
More than 200 bank accounts were frozen under the Trudeau government’s Emergencies Act for supporting a cause the Prime Minister disagreed with. Regardless of what the Emergencies Act Inquiry found and which side of this issue you fall on, all Canadians should be alarmed that such draconian actions were taken by the prime minister against his own citizens.
Which brings us to the stark contrast between Trudeau’s concern over individual U.S. citizens supporting a cause he disagrees with and his years of inaction and apathy towards foreign money being used to influence the most important cornerstone of our democracy — our free and fair elections.
Licia Corbella: Trudeau offended by foreign money only when it opposes him — National Post
third-parties, including ones funded by foreign money, are held to a much lower standard than Canadians involved directly in the electoral process
Blaming whatever on "them damn foreigners" is the oldest trick in the political book. Works especially well when "them damn foreigners" are Yanks.Informed Canadians will have little trouble remembering how fixated Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was with the foreign money donated through crowdfunding sources to the Freedom Convoy.
But for those who don’t recall, here’s a brief refresher. The PM was so obsessed about donations from Americans helping to fund the truckers’ protest on Parliament Hill last winter that he actually brought it up with U.S. President Joe Biden last February. It remains unclear what he expected the president to do. Freeze his citizen’s bank accounts, perhaps?
Despite Trudeau’s obsession with foreign funding, it turns out the majority of donations, 86 per cent through GoFundMe and 60 per cent through Give Send Go, we’re actually Canadian.
GoFundMe froze the funds after police reports the protests had become an “occupation.” GiveSendGo was subsequently used to raise donations, but then its website was hacked, revealing the names and email addresses of those who contributed to the protests, leading to small business owners and even government employees being cancelled, fired, threatened and harassed.
More than 200 bank accounts were frozen under the Trudeau government’s Emergencies Act for supporting a cause the Prime Minister disagreed with. Regardless of what the Emergencies Act Inquiry found and which side of this issue you fall on, all Canadians should be alarmed that such draconian actions were taken by the prime minister against his own citizens.
Which brings us to the stark contrast between Trudeau’s concern over individual U.S. citizens supporting a cause he disagrees with and his years of inaction and apathy towards foreign money being used to influence the most important cornerstone of our democracy — our free and fair elections.
Licia Corbella: Trudeau offended by foreign money only when it opposes him — National Post
third-parties, including ones funded by foreign money, are held to a much lower standard than Canadians involved directly in the electoral process
Worked with some Canadians then. Wasn’t accurate but it worked with a certain segment of the population.
Going past the Public Inquiry whitewash where “another judge could’a found a different conclusion with the same facts” etc….now come the court. An actual court.
What will happen is like a game of Roulette. Round & Round & Round she goes…where it stops is anyone’s guess…
The hearing at federal court this week is not bound by the Rouleau Commission’s conclusion but will have the advantage of access to some of the testimony and documentary evidence presented during the public inquiry. And unlike Commissioner Rouleau’s report, the court will make a formal legal finding on the question of whether using the act was justified. The hearing has proceeded in the face of hurdle after hurdle being thrown up by the government, including claims of mootness, opposition to the admission of certain evidence from the Commission, and multiple other delay tactics.
The CCF and CCLA are arguing for a declaration that the government violated the law when the prime minister involved the Emergencies Act. The act vests tremendous power with cabinet, including the power to make new criminal law by executive order, without parliamentary debate or advance notice. In the decades since it was enacted in 1988, Canada has weathered terrorist attacks, economic hardship, and an unprecedented global health pandemic, all without ever resorting to the incredible powers contained in the Emergencies Act. The prime minister’s first ever use of this law was not in response to a natural disaster or the outbreak of war, but to a series of noisy and highly disruptive but largely peaceful protests.
The Trudeau government’s use of this law is controversial and may be the most severe example of overreach and violations of civil liberties that was seen during the pandemic. It constituted an unauthorized use of a powerful law because the legal threshold to use the law was not met. The Emergencies Act contains a last resort clause: it can only be used when there is a national emergency and there are no other laws at the federal, provincial and/or municipal levels which can address the situation. Parliament cannot use the Emergencies Act as a tool of convenience.
The hearing is brought by a group of civil liberties organizations, the Canadian Constitution Foundation and the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, who are arguing that the high threshold of the act was not met and that the regulations enacted under it, including the freezing of bank accounts, were unconstitutional.
The rest of the link:
apple.news
What will happen is like a game of Roulette. Round & Round & Round she goes…where it stops is anyone’s guess…
The hearing at federal court this week is not bound by the Rouleau Commission’s conclusion but will have the advantage of access to some of the testimony and documentary evidence presented during the public inquiry. And unlike Commissioner Rouleau’s report, the court will make a formal legal finding on the question of whether using the act was justified. The hearing has proceeded in the face of hurdle after hurdle being thrown up by the government, including claims of mootness, opposition to the admission of certain evidence from the Commission, and multiple other delay tactics.
The CCF and CCLA are arguing for a declaration that the government violated the law when the prime minister involved the Emergencies Act. The act vests tremendous power with cabinet, including the power to make new criminal law by executive order, without parliamentary debate or advance notice. In the decades since it was enacted in 1988, Canada has weathered terrorist attacks, economic hardship, and an unprecedented global health pandemic, all without ever resorting to the incredible powers contained in the Emergencies Act. The prime minister’s first ever use of this law was not in response to a natural disaster or the outbreak of war, but to a series of noisy and highly disruptive but largely peaceful protests.
The Trudeau government’s use of this law is controversial and may be the most severe example of overreach and violations of civil liberties that was seen during the pandemic. It constituted an unauthorized use of a powerful law because the legal threshold to use the law was not met. The Emergencies Act contains a last resort clause: it can only be used when there is a national emergency and there are no other laws at the federal, provincial and/or municipal levels which can address the situation. Parliament cannot use the Emergencies Act as a tool of convenience.
The hearing is brought by a group of civil liberties organizations, the Canadian Constitution Foundation and the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, who are arguing that the high threshold of the act was not met and that the regulations enacted under it, including the freezing of bank accounts, were unconstitutional.
The rest of the link:
Christine Van Geyn: Trudeau's severe overreach against civil liberties goes to court — National Post
There was no legal justification for using Emergencies Act against the Freedom Convoy
Good luck to them .Going past the Public Inquiry whitewash where “another judge could’a found a different conclusion with the same facts” etc….now come the court. An actual court.
What will happen is like a game of Roulette. Round & Round & Round she goes…where it stops is anyone’s guess…
The hearing at federal court this week is not bound by the Rouleau Commission’s conclusion but will have the advantage of access to some of the testimony and documentary evidence presented during the public inquiry. And unlike Commissioner Rouleau’s report, the court will make a formal legal finding on the question of whether using the act was justified. The hearing has proceeded in the face of hurdle after hurdle being thrown up by the government, including claims of mootness, opposition to the admission of certain evidence from the Commission, and multiple other delay tactics.
The CCF and CCLA are arguing for a declaration that the government violated the law when the prime minister involved the Emergencies Act. The act vests tremendous power with cabinet, including the power to make new criminal law by executive order, without parliamentary debate or advance notice. In the decades since it was enacted in 1988, Canada has weathered terrorist attacks, economic hardship, and an unprecedented global health pandemic, all without ever resorting to the incredible powers contained in the Emergencies Act. The prime minister’s first ever use of this law was not in response to a natural disaster or the outbreak of war, but to a series of noisy and highly disruptive but largely peaceful protests.
The Trudeau government’s use of this law is controversial and may be the most severe example of overreach and violations of civil liberties that was seen during the pandemic. It constituted an unauthorized use of a powerful law because the legal threshold to use the law was not met. The Emergencies Act contains a last resort clause: it can only be used when there is a national emergency and there are no other laws at the federal, provincial and/or municipal levels which can address the situation. Parliament cannot use the Emergencies Act as a tool of convenience.
The hearing is brought by a group of civil liberties organizations, the Canadian Constitution Foundation and the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, who are arguing that the high threshold of the act was not met and that the regulations enacted under it, including the freezing of bank accounts, were unconstitutional.
The rest of the link:
Christine Van Geyn: Trudeau's severe overreach against civil liberties goes to court — National Post
There was no legal justification for using Emergencies Act against the Freedom Convoy
OTTAWA - The federal government lacked the evidence to determine protests and barricades across Canada last year were threats to national security, an organization that defends constitutional rights told a federal judge Tuesday.
Sujit Choudhry, counsel for the Canadian Constitution Foundation, said the Liberal government needed more supporting information to make that finding in mid-February 2022.
“Cabinet’s determination that the protests and blockades were threats to the security of Canada was unreasonable, because it had insufficient evidence to reach that conclusion,” Choudhry said during the second day of a Federal Court review.
Justice Richard Mosley is hearing concerns from several groups and individuals about the government’s use of the Emergencies Act to quell “Freedom Convoy” actions that paralyzed downtown Ottawa and blocked key border points.
The Public Order Emergency Commission, a mandatory review that takes place after invocation of the emergencies statute, recently found the government met the very high threshold for using the law.
Legal arguments about the historic decision are now being weighed by a court of law. The rest at the below link:
www.thestar.com
torontosun.com
theccf.ca
Sujit Choudhry, counsel for the Canadian Constitution Foundation, said the Liberal government needed more supporting information to make that finding in mid-February 2022.
“Cabinet’s determination that the protests and blockades were threats to the security of Canada was unreasonable, because it had insufficient evidence to reach that conclusion,” Choudhry said during the second day of a Federal Court review.
Justice Richard Mosley is hearing concerns from several groups and individuals about the government’s use of the Emergencies Act to quell “Freedom Convoy” actions that paralyzed downtown Ottawa and blocked key border points.
The Public Order Emergency Commission, a mandatory review that takes place after invocation of the emergencies statute, recently found the government met the very high threshold for using the law.
Legal arguments about the historic decision are now being weighed by a court of law. The rest at the below link:
Government had ‘insufficient evidence’ to invoke Emergencies Act, group tells court
OTTAWA - The federal government lacked the evidence to determine protests and barricades across Canada last year were threats to national security, an organization that defends constitutional rights told a federal judge Tuesday.
'Insufficient evidence' to invoke Emergencies Act, group tells court
Federal government lacked evidence to determine protests across Canada last year were threats to national security, rights group told judge.
Legal challenge to Emergencies Act being heard in Ottawa court April 3-5 - Canadian Constitution Foundation
OTTAWA: The Canadian Constitution Foundation (CCF) is appearing in court April 3-5 in the judicial review of the federal government’s use of the Emergencies
theccf.ca
That is like saying there is no point trying a murderer, because the rmurder has already occurred.
It's the "no harm, no foul" rule familiar to street basketball players.
I'm not sure I've ever seen it presented as a legal argument. . .
Well, when one has no facts on their side……
