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/bitstream/1807/89682/3/Campagnolo_Yan_201806_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]

 

[Gele Donut]

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.

They still support him because he is doing what they want him to do. Quite a lot of Canadians don't like guns or are at best indifferent to guns and if some gun owning Canadians lose out that doesn't matter in the slightest.

 

[CP 5.3]

Donate to CCFR and other groups. Keep fighting!

 

[ambishooter]

Can we, as Citizens of Canada, invoke an action similar to Section 39? Billy the Blair(witch) knew from the start that his action was very weak. The Libs just wanted something that will look legally binding to support the ban. Regardless of how they do it, it still suppresses the legality of firearms ownership in Canada. Canadian gunowners are required to complete rigorous training and vetting before a license is issued. Blair(witch) cannot provide proof of legal intent that is fact-based, and this is the primary reason to invoke S-39. Who are legally authorized to review what they will be providing? There should be at least bi-partisan representation. Rumor still simmers for a Fall Fed Election. I wonder, how many licensed Canadians will vote against the Libs. The only concern here is who is willing to lead after the economic nosedive during this pandemic. Budget out of whack, pandemic not seen to end in at least next 2 years, and the known scandals facing the current ruling party (maybe more as it unravels). If at least 90% of licensed gunowners vote in the next election, we might have a chance. Remember, the average voter turnout is relatively weak, voting year after the other. Maybe, we can finally make a difference this time, vote these jokers out.

 

[eldercanuck]

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.

Truly a parable for our times, CaptainAmazing. This government is morally bankrupt, but I fear that the Prime Minstrel's many sycophantic backers won't hear (or care) about this latest assault on the rights of Canadian citizens, being unwilling/incapable of consuming information more than 140 characters at a time.

 

[halv18]

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.

These are the types of posts we need. Mind you, I love a good laugh at some of the stuff here haha

 

[RPgunguy]

Hopefully this plays out in our favor, to have the OIC tossed out. Thank you John for keeping us in the loop!
Great post Viper25!

 

[Ashcroft]

I see the government throwing everything they can into this. If they can make their position prevail it paves the way for all future actions limiting firearm ownership. If they lose this one they are set back years, back to square one.

 

[Oldly]

I have been buying prepaid gift cards to order online,the remainder has been donated for these court challenges,the problem is keeping track of it.i want to stick to just two or even one.what are the main court challenges at present.if this isn't the forum for this question sorry.

 

[My Third Eye]

Holy Fack,

Hiding evidence in a case like this seems so undemocratic and mad authoritarian. In a free society this should never be allowed to happen. What shady, pathetic excuse for a government we have. There is major work that needs to be done to save our crumbling nation. Sad and pathetic, unbelievably evil to attack law abiding citizens like this, and then say; can't tell you why, it's "too secret".

 

[Oldly]

I believe the truth will come out,just a matter of time and perseverance.fight the good fight.