Liberals invoke S.39, refuse to provide evidence

[captainamazing]

This is akin to playing poker. After I show my cards and produce a straight flush, Trudeau laughs triumphantly and claims to have a Royal flush but refuses to show me his cards and asks the pit boss if its ok to take all my chips without showing his hand of cards. What a piece of $h!t.

[rembolt]

'Statistically, an AR-15 is much less likely to be involved in a crime than a Liberal Member of Parliament......'

Ahem, looking at you Mr. PM with three CONVICTIONS....And those are just what you've been caught for !

Can we please get some bumper stickers with first line on it . it is the absolute truth .

[cycoblade]

So can I use Section 39 next May when the RCMP come asking for my AR?
Sorry officer, I cannot provide that to you because it is too sensitive for the general public to know about and may endanger national security.

[Dime]

Wow, how is S39 even a thing?

[CaberTosser]

Our team: Ethical, transparent, provides evidence, acts in good faith, raised funds by people volunteering towards a worthy cause.

Liberals: Unethical, obfuscators, won't provide evidence they claim to have, ban possessions in bad faith, use taxpayer money to fight taxpayers, invoked section S.39 (the courtroom equivalent of flipping over the Risk board in a petulant tantrum)


What is ominous to me, is that with every Orwellian action the Liberals get away with, they only become inspired and figure that they've not pushed the envelope enough.

[HawkWei]

"Don't trust the liberal, they never made any right choice so far. ---- Confucius 1200 BCE"

[Big-boss-man]

***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***

lately it is a difference of about 6 months between a conspiracy theory and news worthy fact so time will tell.

IMO it is that they are hiding conversations with Cuckier and Provost but I like where are you going with the UN angle.

[Mixter]

None of this surprises me with Govt, and in particular this Govt, anymore…
What surprises me is how many people in this country still support him after seeing how he does business.

Forget these are guns…it could be any commodity. People should be appalled that the Govt is abusing Canadians rights in this manner and flipping the bird to the federal courts.

[Big-boss-man]

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/b...SJD_thesis.pdf

I hope that Wolverine .303 has the opportunity to read this.

Nice find. I will point out that in Canada there is case law that says:

Stevenson J.A. in Calgary General Hospital v.United Nurses of Alberta, Local One, England, Post and Mearns (1983), 1983 ABCA 226 (CanLII), 50 A.R. 250 (C.A.), at page 254

The term "bias" covers a spectrum of disqualification ranging from partiality, on one hand, to the extreme of corruption, on the other. The standard applied to adjudicators is that there will be disqualification not only for bias but if there is a reasonable apprehension of bias

In Newfoundland Telephone Co. v. Newfoundland (Board of Commissioners of Public Utilities), 1992 CanLII 84 (SCC), [1992] 1 S.C.R. 623, At page 636 it says:

The duty to act fairly includes the duty to provide procedural fairness to the parties. That simply cannot exist if an adjudicator is biased. It is, of course, impossible to determine the precise state of mind of an adjudicator who has made an administrative board decision. As a result, the courts have taken the position that an unbiased appearance is, in itself, an essential component of procedural fairness. To ensure fairness the conduct of members of administrative tribunals has been measured against a standard of reasonable apprehension of bias. The test is whether a reasonably informed bystander could reasonably perceive bias on the part of an adjudicator.

The minister of the Crown or the Clerk of the Privy Council in the case of s39 is the adjudicator, and I am reasonable person who perceives Bias.

[Big-boss-man]