Liberals invoke S.39, refuse to provide evidence
- Thread starter Wolverine .303
- Start date
I’m going to preface all of this by saying I have no legal training, so everything I say here take with a grain of salt. Second, I’m typing on my phone, so please forgive any typos.
I decided to see if I could find a more detailed case study of Section 39 of the Evidence Act being used, and came across this example regarding the legal proceedings between the Tsleil-Waututh Nation and the Government of Canada during the trans-mountain pipeline dispute. (See here)
From my understanding, S39 is invoked regarding specific documents requested, in the above case it was regarding two documents, one being a proposal to table a meeting to review the possibility of using an OIC, and the second being a letter regarding the possibility of tabling an OIC.
First, I would be curious to see what documents specifically the Judge was requesting that are now being withheld due to S39, as to me I don’t think you can invoke S39 for something as ambiguous as “all evidence”.
Second, it is quite worrying to me seeing another example of S39 being used to disrupt legal investigations into the usage of an IOC. In my opinion, S39 and an IOC used in tandem gives any federal government the ability to pass legislation with little to no legal grounds or reason. It’s very worrying to see these two things being used in seemingly unrelated cases.
Does anyone know when the trans-mountain pipeline lawsuit started? I’m wondering if the lawsuit was fought under the Conservative or the Liberal government.
I decided to see if I could find a more detailed case study of Section 39 of the Evidence Act being used, and came across this example regarding the legal proceedings between the Tsleil-Waututh Nation and the Government of Canada during the trans-mountain pipeline dispute. (See here)
From my understanding, S39 is invoked regarding specific documents requested, in the above case it was regarding two documents, one being a proposal to table a meeting to review the possibility of using an OIC, and the second being a letter regarding the possibility of tabling an OIC.
First, I would be curious to see what documents specifically the Judge was requesting that are now being withheld due to S39, as to me I don’t think you can invoke S39 for something as ambiguous as “all evidence”.
Second, it is quite worrying to me seeing another example of S39 being used to disrupt legal investigations into the usage of an IOC. In my opinion, S39 and an IOC used in tandem gives any federal government the ability to pass legislation with little to no legal grounds or reason. It’s very worrying to see these two things being used in seemingly unrelated cases.
Does anyone know when the trans-mountain pipeline lawsuit started? I’m wondering if the lawsuit was fought under the Conservative or the Liberal government.
That is truly disturbing . It clearly shows that the Liberal leadership has no respect for our courts , laws or rule of law . Trudeau and his lackeys have always been greasy , but this is a new low . A total disregard of the courts , I can't say I'm surprised .
What the notice submitted is saying, is that the Privy Clerk of the Council of Canada has reviewed the requested documents and has determined that it constitutes a cabinet confidence and thus the aforementioned documents are sealed under s.39 of the Canada Evidence Act.
It technically isn't a blanket ban on "all evidence" just that all the requested documents are cabinet confidence. The applicants are free to try and request different information if they think it would help their case, but they covered nearly anything you could ask the government for in their requests.
I always wondered what some of the crossroads of politics looked like... Where the common sense meets the total lack thereof, and eventually is covered up with the typical baloney. Except this time we've got a crystal ball.
Thanks for all you're doing, guys.
Thanks for all you're doing, guys.
Well that’s a ####ing joke how nice the government has the choice to withhold evidence if this does not prove how corrupt Canada and her political system is I don’t know what is. I truly Beleive the only thing to save our country is a full out revolution just like when the United States cut ties to England being politically correct is not working anymore. The ########ers make up laws to suit themselves and there agenda. If anyone so much as gives them one screw from a firearm your nothing but a damn fool
Undergiver
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Sturgeon County, AB
Not surprised by this tyrannical government. They are above the law.
Dancewithcrows
Member
- Location
- Kamloops, BC
Damn this country has really tanked in the past decade...
I found an interesting document (thesis) written by Yan Campagnolo titled 'Reconciling Cabinet Secrecy With The Rule Of Law' in 2018. There is a section buried deep in the thesis titled "Section 39 is Procedurally Unfair'. In this section he discusses that litigants faced with the invocation of Section 39 wrongly argued against not being able to see the government evidence, but should have instead argued that the decision-maker (the one who decides that Section 39 should be invoked) is not independent and impartial and instead acts as judge and jury against the plaintiffs motion, without any chance for the actual sitting judge to see the evidence. The paragraph I'm referring to follows:
While the litigants were on to something, the thrust of their argument was misplaced.
What makes the decision-making process set out under section 39 procedurally unfair is not
the fact that it may lead to the exclusion of relevant evidence for public policy reasons; rather,
it is the fact that the decision to exclude the evidence is made by someone who is seemingly
biased, namely, “a minister of the Crown or the Clerk of the Privy Council.” Subsection 39(1)
gives members of the executive branch a very broad discretion to decide whether relevant
evidence should be withheld in proceedings where the Government is a party, in breach of
the natural justice principle nemo judex in sua causa (no one may be judge in his own cause).
This attribute differentiates section 39 from the other existing privileges and immunities.
The Minister or the Clerk is not just “objecting” to the production of information, he or she is
finally and conclusively “deciding” the matter. No other privilege or immunity enables a
litigating party to decide what evidence should be excluded from the proceedings. This is
normally a matter for the judge to decide. Hence, the problem is not so much that section 39
prevents a party from adequately stating his or her case, the problem is that the individual
who has the power to exclude the evidence is not “without bias.”
The link to the thesis (302 pages long) is https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/bitstream/1807/89682/3/Campagnolo_Yan_201806_SJD_thesis.pdf
I hope that Wolverine .303 has the opportunity to read this.
While the litigants were on to something, the thrust of their argument was misplaced.
What makes the decision-making process set out under section 39 procedurally unfair is not
the fact that it may lead to the exclusion of relevant evidence for public policy reasons; rather,
it is the fact that the decision to exclude the evidence is made by someone who is seemingly
biased, namely, “a minister of the Crown or the Clerk of the Privy Council.” Subsection 39(1)
gives members of the executive branch a very broad discretion to decide whether relevant
evidence should be withheld in proceedings where the Government is a party, in breach of
the natural justice principle nemo judex in sua causa (no one may be judge in his own cause).
This attribute differentiates section 39 from the other existing privileges and immunities.
The Minister or the Clerk is not just “objecting” to the production of information, he or she is
finally and conclusively “deciding” the matter. No other privilege or immunity enables a
litigating party to decide what evidence should be excluded from the proceedings. This is
normally a matter for the judge to decide. Hence, the problem is not so much that section 39
prevents a party from adequately stating his or her case, the problem is that the individual
who has the power to exclude the evidence is not “without bias.”
The link to the thesis (302 pages long) is https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/bitstream/1807/89682/3/Campagnolo_Yan_201806_SJD_thesis.pdf
I hope that Wolverine .303 has the opportunity to read this.
that is a very interesting argument. Well done digging that one up! Hopefully they do follow this up in the hopes that they can leverage it with the Judge.
@Wolverine 303 and Ed Burlew LLC. what if there is more to this than just refusing to hand over documents that reveal the Liberals have zero evidence that justifies an "assault rifle" ban. what if the madman from Portapique was on the RCMP payroll as an informant or some other twist of circumstance. do not assume the Lieberals are only stonewalling, they may be covering up something that could make heads roll due to the needless and preventable loss of life.
***Conspiracy notice *** tinfoil hat required ***
Do you guys maybe think…..just maybe their evidence includes conversations with outside influences like the UN… and just maybe their evidence includes the UN telling Canada to disarm their population. And there is a detailed plan that the UN has given to Canada that the true turd is using as evidence to disarm Canada???
***safe to remove tinfoil***
Do you guys maybe think…..just maybe their evidence includes conversations with outside influences like the UN… and just maybe their evidence includes the UN telling Canada to disarm their population. And there is a detailed plan that the UN has given to Canada that the true turd is using as evidence to disarm Canada???
***safe to remove tinfoil***
