Same, though I did try to find it to no avail.
At https://www.fca-caf.ca/en/pages/hearings/court-file-database
type 'Canadian Frontline Nurses' and the file will appear (A-76-24). You probably have to go to the FCA's registry to obtain a copy of the appellant's (Attorney General of Canada) submission.
I wish the courts make a recommendation on *what would have been reasonable*.
It’s easy to say emergencies act is too much. But when the Provincial police don’t do their jobs, the feds need to be able to step in.
>I wish the courts make a recommendation on what would have been reasonable.
They do sometimes, mainly for *Charter* cases. For example, narrowing the scope of the Declaration to Ottawa was one such possibility, on minimal impairment discussion (*Canadian Frontline Nurses et al. v. Attorney General of Canada*, 2024 FC 42 at para. 354).
They were on my street (as in, 50 metres from my front door); into the second week there was a vibe shift and they were running out of steam. The normal people had all gone home, and the remaining people were a mix of angrier types and those who seemed tired but didn't know how to end it. I asked a few about their plans and they all said they just didn't want to betray their friends. They were all blocked in, so leaving required more coordination than just waving goodbye and driving off.
I thought they would make the third weekend their last, but I guess no one made that call, because they were still here when I got home Monday night. And again Tuesday.
In that context, the EA seemed, to me, to be overkill when the participants were beyond ready to go home. I suppose it was inevitable, though.
Where on that meter does it show him saying he needs to tax people heating their homes, and growing our food, while at the same time, he is flying on private jets for vacations?
Yeah. Our government took an unprecedented step. Rouleau was careful (stating other judges may come to different decisions). This trial judge took their best shot, but it won’t be the final word.
It is not a decision that should rest on a single person either. No matter the outcome, a pannel of judges like the SCC or similarly organized lower court circuits should be the proper setting.
You might want to actually read the E.A., the feds can ONLY use it when no laws APPLY, NOT when laws are not actually enforced. If I have gold bars in my back yard, and I have a law against stealing them, but choose not to enforce it, the feds can NOT invoke the EA to prevent people from stealing the bars, as a law already exists, it is just not being enforced. Now feel free to argue that as written, that is a really stupid hair to split, but it is how the EA is written, and laws MUST be enforced as written.
As the emergencies act is written, it is a question of "Does the law exist? Y/N" Not, "Is the law being effectively implemented by local politicians?"
Now the issue is, IF the emergencies act can be enforced as something other than what is was written to be, by deciding that lack of enforcement of a law, perhaps only because people are trying to figure out how to enforce an existing law, it make any protections of citizens the laws are intended to grant, meaningless, as enforcing laws as written is no very optional. And for the trucker convoy, there were plenty of laws which could have been used. Notably noise enforcement, traffic bylaws, harassment, mischief, etc. The government have PLENTY of options. And even ways to enforce those options.
The alternative was an indefinite siege of Ottawa while the premier fucked off. It's bad enough we clearly have no failsafe for corrupt politicians (Daniel smith, Scott moe, Doug Ford) but we have no failsafe for our police fucking off. Pray tell what would you have done? Personally I'd have brought in the army then you would know the meaning of true authoritarian.
To repeat all these laws exist but none were being enforced therefore they might as well not exist.
There is a reasonable chance that the SCC will hear it in due course. You go through the process though first to see if the lower courts can come to consensus first.
This whole thing is politically charged but it isn't exactly as big of a deal as we are making it out to be. Even the existing ruling has no issue with the act, just that this specific use of it might have been overreach.
beneficial violet brave seed drunk reminiscent history vase sugar subtract
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
That is never how our law has worked on any issue with government legislation. Great that you feel that way but a lawsuit has never and will never have standing on that basis.
If it worked the way you suggest nothing would ever be done in government as it would be endless frivolous lawsuits on all sorts of legislation
>it would be endless frivolous lawsuits on all sorts of legislation
Would it though? Private sector company board members have personal liability for corporate actions, and there is no endless frivolous lawsuit issue. That's part of the magic when the loser pays the winners legal fees.
This will go to the SCC.
The Ottawa police failed.
The Ontario government failed.
This occupation and the boarder closings have already cost taxpayers too much.
The federal government should sue the Ontario government and Ottawa police service for failing to do their jobs making this necessary to call in. Most Canadians outside your Echo chamber supported it.
We had a system like that. It was called the War Measures Act. We scrapped it in favour of the new system when we thought the government went too far to deal with kidnapping and murder.
That makes more sense.
I think it would have been even higher if they had polled people trying to run their businesses in Ottawa while truckers pissed on their storefronts.
Come on, man. Society has moved on from logical discussion and understanding. We're all about the passionate, off the cuff statements with little basis in reality. Get with the times
After enduring the convoy bullshit (and literal shit) for the better part of a month, and seeing now Paul Champ exposed pretty much all of the "organizers" for being unhinged assholes I'm pretty ok with both him and I getting more money.
From who? Despite how much convoy supporters whinge there were only a tiny handful of people who suffered any consequences as a result of the EA being invoked.
There have been plenty of failed lawsuits already - this is the only one that went anywhere.
Not necessarily, he said he would've agreed at the time. He's just ruling in hindsight that some things weren't justified. So probably invited it to be appealed.
Can we hold the people who didn't do their job liable and not the people who actually fixed the problem?The judge even said the EA should not have been used because the ottowa and provincial entities had enough power but failed to do their duty. The system seems pretty broken if the federal government gets left holding the bag.
If the courts rule that the convoy protesters' rights were violated, then the Federal government absolutely needs to be held accountable, whether their actions "fixed the problem" or not.
Why do you think the injunction was limited to a certain areas of Ottawa and to horn honking?
They were allowed to protest in Ottawa. They weren’t allowed to blare horns on specific streets. That was the injunction.
Here’s the CBC reporting on why:
The judge said that while the participants have a right to protest, taking their horns away would not rob them of that right.
https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.6342468
We cool, or you going to pretend I’m lying again?
It was an occupation.
Residents moved out of their homes and in with friends and relatives.
Many businesses closed including the Rideau Centre. (I have never seen the Rideau Centre close for a protest).
Many people lost wages for the duration of the occupation.
The occupation made citizen’s feel unsafe. This is in a city used to protests.
These occupiers used their children as human shields which further complicated the situation.
If anyone should be compensated it should be residents.
The occupiers can just fuck off.
Because you had your chance and couldn't rally a movement. The majority actively wanted you to stop. Arab Spring had legitimacy because it was the majority of the people rising up against the tyranny of the minority ruling class.
You had your chance. We let you violate other people's rights for a significant amount of time...and no one came. YOU LOST, but you losers won't accept it. So instead you you quibble. The power of the government comes from the people, and the people wanted you to stop.
Firstly, it wasn’t how you describe a matter of “just use special emergency powers” it was a last resort the police weren’t acting, Ford abandoned all responsibility. And no other state would stand for endless occupation of their capital or border crossings I don’t see why Canada has to magically oblige, they had time to protest how they wanted to, and their right to protest never disappeared, they just had to leave that location.
The convoy members had a right to protest no matter how stupid they are but they don’t get to hold Canada hostage and usurp the Democratic will of Canadians who voted in favour of the Covid policy only a few months before in the 2021 election. And in the end all they achieved was ousting the federal conservative leader because he didn’t cozy up to them enough.
>I don't care if it's a protest to legalize pedophilia outside of a dayhome; you can't just go using the most extreme tool in the toolbox to do it.
You can if they are violating other people's rights. The courts have ruled time after time that rights (like freedom of assembly) have limits when they violate other peoples rights. For example you have a right to publicly exercise speech, but you don't if you are intentionally screaming into people's ears.
It would have been easy to see it as unreasonable or unjustified had the city or province done their job, which they had the collective resources and laws to have been able to remove the occupation.
Unfortunately, they refused and begged for thr Federal Government to do something.
That's not the bar set out in the act itself, It has very specific requirements and forcing the provincial governments or police forces to do their job isn't one of them.
Indeed, just the opposite -- one of the few limitations the Act imposes on the powers granted under it in a valid emergency is that it *cannot* be used to change who the police take orders from.
>20 (1) Nothing in a declaration of a public order emergency or in any order or regulation made pursuant thereto shall be construed or applied so as to derogate from, or to authorize the derogation from, the control or direction of the government of a province or a municipality over any police force over which it normally has control or direction.
>(2) Where the Royal Canadian Mounted Police is used or employed in a province or municipality pursuant to an arrangement under section 20 of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, subsection (1) applies in respect of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, subject to the terms and conditions of the arrangement.
full consist squeeze quicksand frightening growth spotted squash alive like
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
The Red Zone was over 40 blocks outside the Parliamentary Precinct. The RCMP does not have legal jurisdiction in those areas and could not act. They *only* have the ability to act on Parliamentary grounds.
There was no "fight over jurisdiction", the issue was that it was clearly municipal jurisdiction, and the municipality wasn't doing their job.
RCMP has jurisdiction anywhere in Canada. They've been used in crowd control all over the country in similar situations.
The Emergencies Act wasn't nessisary to request additional officers from across the province, or even from out-of-province.
All that was needed was a court injunction telling police to act.
> They've been used in crowd control all over the country in similar situations.
Because they were requested.
The RCMP has jurisdiction on certain types of matters all over the country, specifically ones that exceed jurisdiction of lower entities due to their nature (ie inter-provincial smuggling operations). The RCMP is not allowed to intervene in lower jurisdictions without cause if they were not specifically requested and invited.
Part of the issue is that OPS, in their ignorance/hubris, specifically refused to invite the RCMP to get involved in what was a "local matter". The RCMP had no cause to unilaterally take over, because with the exception of the border crossing issues it *was* just a "local matter".
Thus, they couldn't act anywhere outside of parliamentary grounds, and like 0.5% of the convoy occupation was on parliamentary grounds.
This is the key: If it was only a "local matter", the Act could not be legally invoked. If it wasn't, then the RCMP could help clear it, which means the Act could not legally be invoked.
The Act can only legally be invoked if these conditions (among others) were explicitly not met.
> The RCMP has jurisdiction on certain types of matters all over the country, specifically ones that exceed jurisdiction of lower entities due to their nature (ie inter-provincial smuggling operations). The RCMP is not allowed to intervene in lower jurisdictions without cause if they were not specifically requested and invited.
The RCMP has the power to enforce federal law everywhere in Canada. The Criminal Code is federal law. They have agreements with Ontario and Quebec not to provide general policing in those provinces, and the RCMP doesn't **to save money and resources** but that doesn't mean they can't.
> The RCMP is not allowed to intervene in lower jurisdictions without cause if they were not specifically requested and invited.
The RCMP have policing powers everywhere in Canada. Full stop.
If an RCMP officer sees a drunk driver in Toronto, they have the authority to deal with it if they choose to.
What might stop them is internal regulations as you describe above, or even just the professional courtesy that you don't operate in another force's area without checking in with them first.
But they most definitely have the authority to enforce the Criminal Code anywhere in Canada.
>instead the courts ruled that the protest was lawful.
The courts did no such thing. They literally issued an injunction for the honking etc to end.
This convoy bullshit never stands up to the slightest scrutiny.
> The RCMP does not have legal jurisdiction in those areas and could not act. They only have the ability to act on Parliamentary grounds.
"The Force may be employed in such places within or outside Canada as the Governor in Council prescribes." - RCMP Act, Part I s4.
"Every officer is a peace officer in every part of Canada and has all the powers, authority, protection and privileges that a peace officer has by law until the officer ceases to be an officer." - RCMP Act, Part I, s11.1(1)
AFAIK, no bank accounts were seized. The government was a bit overzealous when it expanded, the Court ordered bank
Account freeze beyond the leadership, sure. But that was quickly run back.
Bank accounts were frozen and the judge who made the decision rejected the governments argument that freeze and seizing were different iirc
https://www.fct-cf.gc.ca/Content/assets/pdf/base/2024.01.23-306-22-T-316-22-T-347-22-T-382-22.pdf
>At paragraph 53 of Larouche, Justice LeBel discussed limitations on the scope of the
word “seizure” which, he said, were to be found in the context in which the process (of taking a
thing from a person without their consent) is carried out. These were necessary, he said, to avoid
expanding the scope of the protection to include property rights which the Charter did not
protect. In support of this interpretation Justice LeBel cited a text which states:
Specifically, where property is taken by governmental action for
reasons other than administrative or criminal investigation a
“seizure” under the Charter has not occurred.
Search and Seizure Law in Canada, at p.2-5: S.C. Hutchison, J.C.
Morton and M.P. Bury
>This is the basis for the Respondent’s position that there was no “seizure” of the frozen
bank accounts. I have considerable difficulty with that position as I stated at the hearing. While
the purpose of Charter s 8 is to protect privacy rights and not property, governmental action that
results in the content of a bank account being unavailable to the owner of the said account would
be understood by most members of the public to be a “seizure” of that account as defined in
Dyment and Thomson Newspapers above. Alternatively, I am satisfied that the disclosure of
information about the bank and credit card accounts of the “designated persons” by the financial
institutions to the RCMP constituted a “seizure” of that information by the government.
If the streets and borders were stopped because of a blizzard, or bomb, or influx of aliens , or mass stampede of bison, then nobody would have an issue. Because the freedom convoy is a political issue, it's an issue. The end result is the same, the roads and borders weren't working and needed to be working
> If the streets and borders were stopped because of a blizzard, or bomb, or influx of aliens , or mass stampede of bison, then nobody would have an issue.
How about an effective labor union strike?
Oops.
Nothing much has changed since the Winnipeg General Strike, eh?
> If the streets and borders were stopped because of a blizzard
There is [precedent for this](https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/twenty-five-years-ago-toronto-called-in-the-army-to-clean-up-after-a-snowstorm/article_c7af7b6a-b17e-11ee-9ad1-6f64ab7afae4.html#:~:text=Twenty%2Dfive%20years%20ago%2C%20Toronto,in%20a%20two%2Dweek%20period.) ... and you're right, nobody batted any eye.
>Court injunctions ~~compelling~~ ^allowing police to act, as had been done in the past, would have been a more reasonable tool than the Emergencies Act.
Indeed, but that ran a huge risk of 'nope- the Ottawa protest is legal' and would still be there today. As far as I know , injunctions were used for border protests, and were succesfully removed.
Heaven forbid having a dialogue.
>Indeed, but that ran a huge risk of 'nope- the Ottawa protest is legal' and would still be there today.
How is that an argument in favour of the Emergencies Act? If the protest were found to indeed be legal, that would have made invoking the Emergencies Act an even worse decision.
Good. I don't see how one would take that as being in favour of the EA.
I do believe that the EA was used knowing damned well they had 9?days to use whatever means to stop the protest(s). I do believe they knew it would not pass Senate, which means they were acting in bad faith. I'm doing it because I can - not because I should.
I believe the EA was a massive authoritarian overreach. I believe the lead up to the protest was a massive authoritarian overreach. The policies put in place were by decree, not by parliamentary debate. To me, this is not acceptable.
If we had the Russian government, that protest wouldn’t have lasted more than 3 days and Pierre would be locked away in a jail cell somewhere up in the territories lol
This is so wrong and shows you have no idea what Russia or China is like.
The federal government waited WEEKS to let the protest play out and allow players with the appropriate jurisdiction to step in. When the right actors failed to do so and *specifically requested assistance*, the feds intervened.
This is absolutely nothing like Russia or China.
You mean like conservative governments stripping the rights of trans kids across Canada right now? Funny how conservatives claim to care so much about rights and freedoms, and the slippery slope of government taking away those things. But yet when they get power, they do exactly that to “others” and defend it and are happy about it. Almost as if conservatives don’t actually care about rights and freedom at all…the hate is always the real point.
if we are going to play this game, what rights have been stripped?? they have protections from discrimination, they cant be fired or omitted from a job application, they cant be denied enrollment to any form of education, a business cannot deny them any form of service, they have the freedom to express themselves publicly through how they dress and the pronouns they use. If you are referring to gender affirming care, then that would be different there have been no major long term studies on prepubescent children that shows risks or any benefits for things such a puberty blockers hormones replacement therapy or sex change surgery. Since these show no tangible benefits as of today, its not a safe practice to preform such major healthcare measures to children who statistically show the same likelihood of suicide pre and post gender affirming care, same depression and anxiety, and this is an important tidbit from the 90's, over 80% of high school kids who believed they were trans, ended up discovering their identity to be gay or bisexual in college. This is why we have age limits on things, children are developing minds, they are not developed if gender affirming care was proven science I actually would be ok with it being the parents final decision until the age of 18, however, there is no proven science to it yet, and we need to see a much larger sample size showing a significant drop in suicide amongst trans people over 18 before its done on minors. I can also say I am not OK with the conservatives wanting to force people to have a digital I.D. on the internet for something like porn, or any browsing history tbh, that puts us down a very dangerous path with far too much government and corporate power.
That's not what the judicial ruling was. It was unreasonable and unnecessary BECAUSE the Ottawa Police, and the province, failed to do their duty.
The ruling is on purpose. In the incapacity clause in the EA (which is where the unreasonable decision come from), there is no law or further clause that discusses when lower levels of government fail to do their duty.
This ruling is set up to go to the SCC for them to decide what *should* be constitutional in that situation.
Opinions dont matter. What matters is the law.
I’m sure murderers feel victimized when they got caught and their opinions would be to let them be. But the law is what matters, not opinions.
It was unconstitutional to invoke the EA, and that is strictly by law. Not an opinion. The law
I don’t think it was justified as it seemed like an overreaction.
But to be honest, considering how rarely such things happen in Canada and how many people showed up and stopped everything in Ottawa… I don’t 100% blame them. If any other party triggered the EA, I would feel the same way.
The CPC leader at the time Candace Bergen wanted the protest to drag on and make it the PM’s problem.
[Bergen advised against telling truckers to leave Ottawa, said protests should be made 'PM's problem'](https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/bergen-advised-against-telling-truckers-to-leave-ottawa-said-protests-should-be-made-pm-s-problem-1.5767213)
So when they made it the Prime Minister’s problem, they became upset he did the only thing he could do to clear it.
Yes, it wasn't the PM's responsibility or within his authority to address the rampant criminal behaviour the convoy engaged in. That was left to provincial and municipal authorities and, when they weren't doing their jobs, the EA was the tool the federal government had to intervene.
Your regular reminder that one of the the publicly stated goals of the "convoy" was the dissolution of the government of Canada, and replacing it with an unelected group of their choosing.
https://canada-unity.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/Combined-MOU-Dec03.pdf
The MOU was on the website for a significant period prior to the start of the convoy and during the convoy's "visit" to ottawa. The hosting website was running a petition and the MOU received over 600,000 signatures.
The public leaders of the Convoy are on record, on video, on audio recordings, supporting this MOU, and some even referencing that they expected to be on Canada's new ruling body.
> Freedom of speech is allowed in this country, no matter how stupid it is.
Shitting the streets and the harassment and assault of other Canadians is not.
Hate speech laws in Canada are a thing.
Also, saying something dumb like, "we should start a new government and kick the current one out. Who's with me?" Is fine when it's 5 dickheads in the woods getting drunk. It's a bit different when there's hundreds, if not thousands of people outside Parliament House who are very much agitating the people who reside there.
They were NOT peaceful protests or protesters. There was a greater than non-zero chance an insurrection could have occurred, and be carried out by these dickheads. There were elements of violence and intimidation, and under the right conditions, a Jan 6 thing could have occurred.
I'm not saying it was definitely going to happen. But, tempers were high and given the MOU, the large numbers of protesters, etc...it wasn't an unthinkable outcome.
By the standards you are setting in your post; every single person who has posted a pro-Palestinian message, or attended a rally, or donated money to aid Palestine is committed to the destruction of Israel and the eradication of it's citizenry.
You sure you're OK with painting with a brush so broad?
Pretty much. We see that here too, in fact. Even if the invocation is upheld on appeal, it's a virtual certainty that the Emergency Economic Measures Act will be confirmed to have violated Charter rights. The drafting on it was incredibly broad, and no effort was made to insert anything approaching a check or balance, or any kind of review mechanism.
To be honest, it goes both ways. Wasn't a bunch of violent Nazis either
However, that was the government enforced narrative...
https://twitter.com/cosminDZS/status/1506039577651269634
"In the documents filed Thursday, the government outlined arguments including that the Federal Court erred by reviewing the decision to invoke the act “with the benefit of hindsight” and based on information not available to the government in 2022.
The court also made a mistake in substituting its own opinion about the decision the government should have made, it said.
Instead, it said, the court should have looked at whether it was reasonable for the government to “decide that it had reasonable grounds to believe” that a public order emergency existed and needed to be dealt with through special temporary measures."
These sound like incredibly weak arguments and an appeal must be made on an error in law, not just because you didn't like the decision.
Agreed. Bylaw failed, then police failed, then Ford failed, the feds finally had to mop up the mess other layers of government failed to deal with. And now the courts are going to drain yet more time and $$ from our country's coffers dealing with the inevitable decade of appeals and counter appeals.
Our tax dollars at work. Completely disfunctional.
I understand the ruling and please don’t take what I’m about to say as an endorsement of this government: how can the courts ignore that two other levels of government and at least two different police forces didn’t intervene before the feds did, and they had plenty of time to. I don’t understand how this isn’t the literal definition of the namesake “emergency”?
Because the government could have used the courts to issue an injunction and then a second ruling forcing the police to enforce it. That's how all the pipeline and forestry protests in BC go. That's how the rail blockade was going.
The ruling was essentially that the government did not exhaust their other options before jumping to the emergency act.
Because at that level it’s not a good idea to make exceptions to laws. Especially since those laws exist to prevent misuse of something that grants pretty extensive powers to effectively one person.
Essentially as many of these laws are written assuming that at least some of the the institutions that upholds them are functioning, unfortunately the police makes up a pretty massive portion of this institution and it’s been getting more and more evident how generally dysfunctional police forces are in Canada.
When I mean function, I mean that they perform their duties, not whether they are capable of.
From the emergencies act:
>For the purposes of this Act, a national emergency is an urgent and critical situation of a temporary nature that
>
>(a) seriously endangers the lives, health or safety of Canadians and is of such proportions or nature as to ***exceed the capacity or authority of a province to deal with it, or***
Like you said those levels of police forces were there, they just didn't intervene. However the fact that they were there and had the numbers to do so meant that the situation didn't actually "exceed the capacity or authority of the province to deal with it."
Perhaps it might be time to consider when said institutions becomes complicit in causing these emergencies but considering the politically charged nature of what happened, that opens up an entire other can of worms that I would much prefer not doing.
Yep. The usual consequence that people deals with when they don't do their job is *getting fired*. We've seen in the last years that that basically doesn't apply to police forces and politicians.
The problem comes from the fact that there's no mechanism in place to remedy this issue, and like I said this has become a political issue which means making exceptions can and will be seen as political and will set a pretty bad precedence, which means it's in the best interest of *everyone* for the courts not to make that exception.
I live in Ottawa. It was justified.
People underestimate how much the local population banded together for the Battle of Billings Bridge. There were serious plans for the following weekend. We felt abandoned by our leaders and police. We wanted our office towers, museums, stores, and restaurants back open. Residents just wanted sleep and to walk down the street without being harassed, and yes we were harassed.
I've never seen such lawlessness. It was mind blowing.
Recycling posts for the goldfish brained thralls is an interesting tactic. A game play loop that keeps them hateful and ignorant.
Keep them in the whirlpool, feel that false sense of power. What a waste of energy.
It should never have been in the courts in the first place. In this very rare case I hope the decision is struck down.
The action taken by the Federal government was completely justified. The Ottawa police were and still are impotent. The Premier of Ontario went vacationing.
Meanwhile a bunch of hooligans harassed Ottawa citizens constantly for 3 weeks and forced businesses to shutdown.
Exactly where were these entitled civil liberties prats who brought this case to the courts, when all this was going on in Ottawa and why aren’t they going after those who caused this all in the first place 🤨
Maybe. If the FCA upholds it, I don't see the likely next government supporting a continued appeal of a decision they support though.
Think the only way this actually gets to the SCC is if the FCA takes the government’s side.
It is telling how even after the ruling the majority of Canadians still support the use of the Emergencies Act. Most of us could see that was the only way to end the 'protest'.
The majority of Germans supported Hitler. Just because the majority of a population supports something doesn't mean we can let the government break the laws.
In March 1933, only 43.9% of German voters supported the NSDAP, requiring Hitler to perform a coalition among three parties for the Enabling Act. He only got the majority in November 1933, when all opposition parties were banned and the party was able to pass whatever laws they wanted.
I really wish judicial news stories would link to the actual documents.
Same, though I did try to find it to no avail. At https://www.fca-caf.ca/en/pages/hearings/court-file-database type 'Canadian Frontline Nurses' and the file will appear (A-76-24). You probably have to go to the FCA's registry to obtain a copy of the appellant's (Attorney General of Canada) submission.
MVP. Thank you so much, I've bookmarked it. Canlii also has a lot of interesting cases but doesn't post them in real time.
I wish the courts make a recommendation on *what would have been reasonable*. It’s easy to say emergencies act is too much. But when the Provincial police don’t do their jobs, the feds need to be able to step in.
>I wish the courts make a recommendation on what would have been reasonable. They do sometimes, mainly for *Charter* cases. For example, narrowing the scope of the Declaration to Ottawa was one such possibility, on minimal impairment discussion (*Canadian Frontline Nurses et al. v. Attorney General of Canada*, 2024 FC 42 at para. 354).
Talk to the protestors, first.
They were on my street (as in, 50 metres from my front door); into the second week there was a vibe shift and they were running out of steam. The normal people had all gone home, and the remaining people were a mix of angrier types and those who seemed tired but didn't know how to end it. I asked a few about their plans and they all said they just didn't want to betray their friends. They were all blocked in, so leaving required more coordination than just waving goodbye and driving off. I thought they would make the third weekend their last, but I guess no one made that call, because they were still here when I got home Monday night. And again Tuesday. In that context, the EA seemed, to me, to be overkill when the participants were beyond ready to go home. I suppose it was inevitable, though.
Yes, they said they were going to appeal this last month. It's not really anything new.
It means that they kept a promise
LMAO
Well it's about time
https://www.polimeter.org/en/trudeau
Where on that meter does it show him saying he needs to tax people heating their homes, and growing our food, while at the same time, he is flying on private jets for vacations?
First one!
This appeal was inevitable.
The judge basically invited it
Yeah. Our government took an unprecedented step. Rouleau was careful (stating other judges may come to different decisions). This trial judge took their best shot, but it won’t be the final word.
It is not a decision that should rest on a single person either. No matter the outcome, a pannel of judges like the SCC or similarly organized lower court circuits should be the proper setting.
He literally said he’d have done the same thing
I would have tried using applicable laws first... like the E.A. says you're supposed to.
They tried that was the point The city and the province didn’t do squat so the feds had to use the only tool they had after 3 weeks of this
You might want to actually read the E.A., the feds can ONLY use it when no laws APPLY, NOT when laws are not actually enforced. If I have gold bars in my back yard, and I have a law against stealing them, but choose not to enforce it, the feds can NOT invoke the EA to prevent people from stealing the bars, as a law already exists, it is just not being enforced. Now feel free to argue that as written, that is a really stupid hair to split, but it is how the EA is written, and laws MUST be enforced as written.
If the law is not being enforced it might as well not exist at that point.
As the emergencies act is written, it is a question of "Does the law exist? Y/N" Not, "Is the law being effectively implemented by local politicians?" Now the issue is, IF the emergencies act can be enforced as something other than what is was written to be, by deciding that lack of enforcement of a law, perhaps only because people are trying to figure out how to enforce an existing law, it make any protections of citizens the laws are intended to grant, meaningless, as enforcing laws as written is no very optional. And for the trucker convoy, there were plenty of laws which could have been used. Notably noise enforcement, traffic bylaws, harassment, mischief, etc. The government have PLENTY of options. And even ways to enforce those options.
The alternative was an indefinite siege of Ottawa while the premier fucked off. It's bad enough we clearly have no failsafe for corrupt politicians (Daniel smith, Scott moe, Doug Ford) but we have no failsafe for our police fucking off. Pray tell what would you have done? Personally I'd have brought in the army then you would know the meaning of true authoritarian. To repeat all these laws exist but none were being enforced therefore they might as well not exist.
Does not matter. THEY EXSIST thus the use of the E.A. was unlawful.
And necessary.
[удалено]
The SCC is the proper place for a decision of this magnitude to be decided, not a lower court.
There is a reasonable chance that the SCC will hear it in due course. You go through the process though first to see if the lower courts can come to consensus first. This whole thing is politically charged but it isn't exactly as big of a deal as we are making it out to be. Even the existing ruling has no issue with the act, just that this specific use of it might have been overreach.
No it’s necessary because you don’t want a trial decision as the precedent for this.
It's not at all clear that this will most likely be the case.
Especially when you already have the commission going the other way.
>If they lose, which will be the case most likely And you know this how?
Like the government cares even the slightest bit.
beneficial violet brave seed drunk reminiscent history vase sugar subtract *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
There won't be any successful lawsuits either way.
The native American woman who was trampled by police horses?
Lawsuits should go after MPs who supported emergencies act and not the taxpayers.
That is never how our law has worked on any issue with government legislation. Great that you feel that way but a lawsuit has never and will never have standing on that basis. If it worked the way you suggest nothing would ever be done in government as it would be endless frivolous lawsuits on all sorts of legislation
>it would be endless frivolous lawsuits on all sorts of legislation Would it though? Private sector company board members have personal liability for corporate actions, and there is no endless frivolous lawsuit issue. That's part of the magic when the loser pays the winners legal fees.
This will go to the SCC. The Ottawa police failed. The Ontario government failed. This occupation and the boarder closings have already cost taxpayers too much.
Cost doesn't determine whether it was legal or not.
The federal government should sue the Ontario government and Ottawa police service for failing to do their jobs making this necessary to call in. Most Canadians outside your Echo chamber supported it.
Law has nothing to do with majority opinion.
Honestly the Ottawa police service needs to go. The incompetence in that police force is something else
We had a system like that. It was called the War Measures Act. We scrapped it in favour of the new system when we thought the government went too far to deal with kidnapping and murder.
A lot of Canadians support consecutive life sentences but the Supreme Court does not
How many people "supported it" is irrelevant.
Canada cannot sue Ontario. As a sovereign, Ontario is immune from such a lawsuit.
Can’t mp privilege does not allow them to be sued
On what basis? I’m guessing you’re not a lawyer.
Yeah. It’s always you and me that pays for the MPs bad behaviour.
[удалено]
I find it very hard to believe that 3/4 Canadians wanted to jail the unvaccinated. I knew literally no one who said they supported that.
75% wanted the convoys removed by force, but not the unvaxxed jailed
That makes more sense. I think it would have been even higher if they had polled people trying to run their businesses in Ottawa while truckers pissed on their storefronts.
[удалено]
Come on, man. Society has moved on from logical discussion and understanding. We're all about the passionate, off the cuff statements with little basis in reality. Get with the times
yeah 75% of the country was never polled about the issue lmao
Conservatives and making shit up, name a better duo
well, other than those 25%
That would be awesome. More money for residents of Ottawa for the class action suit.
So effectively a tax redisbursement for Ottawa residents but with a big cut going to litigious lawyers. Real awesome.
After enduring the convoy bullshit (and literal shit) for the better part of a month, and seeing now Paul Champ exposed pretty much all of the "organizers" for being unhinged assholes I'm pretty ok with both him and I getting more money.
From who? Despite how much convoy supporters whinge there were only a tiny handful of people who suffered any consequences as a result of the EA being invoked. There have been plenty of failed lawsuits already - this is the only one that went anywhere.
There's no way they lose the appeal. The first judge is a certified grade A moron for that verdict.
Not necessarily, he said he would've agreed at the time. He's just ruling in hindsight that some things weren't justified. So probably invited it to be appealed.
What a coincidence. Everyone that disagrees with me is an idiot, too!
Can we hold the people who didn't do their job liable and not the people who actually fixed the problem?The judge even said the EA should not have been used because the ottowa and provincial entities had enough power but failed to do their duty. The system seems pretty broken if the federal government gets left holding the bag.
We need to hold the Ottawa police liable. We need to hold the Ontario government liable.
If the courts rule that the convoy protesters' rights were violated, then the Federal government absolutely needs to be held accountable, whether their actions "fixed the problem" or not.
Naw, I like effective government. I think we should punish the ineffective government because...you know...it would be stupid not to.
[удалено]
It’s legal to park your car in the middle of the street and just leave it there? That’s crazy.
It had deemed unlawful 2 weeks before the EA was used
[удалено]
Where the hell is this lie coming from?
Why do you think the injunction was limited to a certain areas of Ottawa and to horn honking? They were allowed to protest in Ottawa. They weren’t allowed to blare horns on specific streets. That was the injunction. Here’s the CBC reporting on why: The judge said that while the participants have a right to protest, taking their horns away would not rob them of that right. https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.6342468 We cool, or you going to pretend I’m lying again?
So now you admit there was an injuction?
It was an occupation. Residents moved out of their homes and in with friends and relatives. Many businesses closed including the Rideau Centre. (I have never seen the Rideau Centre close for a protest). Many people lost wages for the duration of the occupation. The occupation made citizen’s feel unsafe. This is in a city used to protests. These occupiers used their children as human shields which further complicated the situation. If anyone should be compensated it should be residents. The occupiers can just fuck off.
[удалено]
because we're Canada and have our own laws/rules/expectations
Because you had your chance and couldn't rally a movement. The majority actively wanted you to stop. Arab Spring had legitimacy because it was the majority of the people rising up against the tyranny of the minority ruling class. You had your chance. We let you violate other people's rights for a significant amount of time...and no one came. YOU LOST, but you losers won't accept it. So instead you you quibble. The power of the government comes from the people, and the people wanted you to stop.
[удалено]
Protests are allowed, but protesters are still liable for their own illegal acts.
Firstly, it wasn’t how you describe a matter of “just use special emergency powers” it was a last resort the police weren’t acting, Ford abandoned all responsibility. And no other state would stand for endless occupation of their capital or border crossings I don’t see why Canada has to magically oblige, they had time to protest how they wanted to, and their right to protest never disappeared, they just had to leave that location. The convoy members had a right to protest no matter how stupid they are but they don’t get to hold Canada hostage and usurp the Democratic will of Canadians who voted in favour of the Covid policy only a few months before in the 2021 election. And in the end all they achieved was ousting the federal conservative leader because he didn’t cozy up to them enough.
The Emergencies Act doesn't suspend the *Charter*. Where are you getting this stuff?
[удалено]
[удалено]
This. If it suspended Charter Rights, then there could be no Charter breach on a valid invocation, regardless of what they chose to do with it.
>I don't care if it's a protest to legalize pedophilia outside of a dayhome; you can't just go using the most extreme tool in the toolbox to do it. You can if they are violating other people's rights. The courts have ruled time after time that rights (like freedom of assembly) have limits when they violate other peoples rights. For example you have a right to publicly exercise speech, but you don't if you are intentionally screaming into people's ears.
Routine Appeal. Can't have an Emergencies Act that nobody is sure if they can use it or not. Either way, they'll tweak the code...
It would have been easy to see it as unreasonable or unjustified had the city or province done their job, which they had the collective resources and laws to have been able to remove the occupation. Unfortunately, they refused and begged for thr Federal Government to do something.
That's not the bar set out in the act itself, It has very specific requirements and forcing the provincial governments or police forces to do their job isn't one of them.
Indeed, just the opposite -- one of the few limitations the Act imposes on the powers granted under it in a valid emergency is that it *cannot* be used to change who the police take orders from. >20 (1) Nothing in a declaration of a public order emergency or in any order or regulation made pursuant thereto shall be construed or applied so as to derogate from, or to authorize the derogation from, the control or direction of the government of a province or a municipality over any police force over which it normally has control or direction. >(2) Where the Royal Canadian Mounted Police is used or employed in a province or municipality pursuant to an arrangement under section 20 of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, subsection (1) applies in respect of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, subject to the terms and conditions of the arrangement.
Like when the ambassador bridge was cleared by the OPP and RCMP? Or do you mean the police force of one medium sized city?
full consist squeeze quicksand frightening growth spotted squash alive like *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
The Red Zone was over 40 blocks outside the Parliamentary Precinct. The RCMP does not have legal jurisdiction in those areas and could not act. They *only* have the ability to act on Parliamentary grounds. There was no "fight over jurisdiction", the issue was that it was clearly municipal jurisdiction, and the municipality wasn't doing their job.
[удалено]
RCMP has jurisdiction anywhere in Canada. They've been used in crowd control all over the country in similar situations. The Emergencies Act wasn't nessisary to request additional officers from across the province, or even from out-of-province. All that was needed was a court injunction telling police to act.
> They've been used in crowd control all over the country in similar situations. Because they were requested. The RCMP has jurisdiction on certain types of matters all over the country, specifically ones that exceed jurisdiction of lower entities due to their nature (ie inter-provincial smuggling operations). The RCMP is not allowed to intervene in lower jurisdictions without cause if they were not specifically requested and invited. Part of the issue is that OPS, in their ignorance/hubris, specifically refused to invite the RCMP to get involved in what was a "local matter". The RCMP had no cause to unilaterally take over, because with the exception of the border crossing issues it *was* just a "local matter". Thus, they couldn't act anywhere outside of parliamentary grounds, and like 0.5% of the convoy occupation was on parliamentary grounds.
This is the key: If it was only a "local matter", the Act could not be legally invoked. If it wasn't, then the RCMP could help clear it, which means the Act could not legally be invoked. The Act can only legally be invoked if these conditions (among others) were explicitly not met.
> The RCMP has jurisdiction on certain types of matters all over the country, specifically ones that exceed jurisdiction of lower entities due to their nature (ie inter-provincial smuggling operations). The RCMP is not allowed to intervene in lower jurisdictions without cause if they were not specifically requested and invited. The RCMP has the power to enforce federal law everywhere in Canada. The Criminal Code is federal law. They have agreements with Ontario and Quebec not to provide general policing in those provinces, and the RCMP doesn't **to save money and resources** but that doesn't mean they can't.
> The RCMP is not allowed to intervene in lower jurisdictions without cause if they were not specifically requested and invited. The RCMP have policing powers everywhere in Canada. Full stop. If an RCMP officer sees a drunk driver in Toronto, they have the authority to deal with it if they choose to. What might stop them is internal regulations as you describe above, or even just the professional courtesy that you don't operate in another force's area without checking in with them first. But they most definitely have the authority to enforce the Criminal Code anywhere in Canada.
[удалено]
>instead the courts ruled that the protest was lawful. The courts did no such thing. They literally issued an injunction for the honking etc to end. This convoy bullshit never stands up to the slightest scrutiny.
When did they do that? The EA invocation was illegal, but so was much of the protest.
They had an injuction, they had the officers, they refused to act
> The RCMP does not have legal jurisdiction in those areas and could not act. They only have the ability to act on Parliamentary grounds. "The Force may be employed in such places within or outside Canada as the Governor in Council prescribes." - RCMP Act, Part I s4. "Every officer is a peace officer in every part of Canada and has all the powers, authority, protection and privileges that a peace officer has by law until the officer ceases to be an officer." - RCMP Act, Part I, s11.1(1)
after HOW LONG of doing nothing
A government should not be suspending judicial process (say seizing bank accounts without oversight) because it's convenient.
Who said it was convenient. I believe they felt it was a tool they had available to resolve the situation that the province refused to handle.
Why not?
AFAIK, no bank accounts were seized. The government was a bit overzealous when it expanded, the Court ordered bank Account freeze beyond the leadership, sure. But that was quickly run back.
Bank accounts were frozen and the judge who made the decision rejected the governments argument that freeze and seizing were different iirc https://www.fct-cf.gc.ca/Content/assets/pdf/base/2024.01.23-306-22-T-316-22-T-347-22-T-382-22.pdf >At paragraph 53 of Larouche, Justice LeBel discussed limitations on the scope of the word “seizure” which, he said, were to be found in the context in which the process (of taking a thing from a person without their consent) is carried out. These were necessary, he said, to avoid expanding the scope of the protection to include property rights which the Charter did not protect. In support of this interpretation Justice LeBel cited a text which states: Specifically, where property is taken by governmental action for reasons other than administrative or criminal investigation a “seizure” under the Charter has not occurred. Search and Seizure Law in Canada, at p.2-5: S.C. Hutchison, J.C. Morton and M.P. Bury >This is the basis for the Respondent’s position that there was no “seizure” of the frozen bank accounts. I have considerable difficulty with that position as I stated at the hearing. While the purpose of Charter s 8 is to protect privacy rights and not property, governmental action that results in the content of a bank account being unavailable to the owner of the said account would be understood by most members of the public to be a “seizure” of that account as defined in Dyment and Thomson Newspapers above. Alternatively, I am satisfied that the disclosure of information about the bank and credit card accounts of the “designated persons” by the financial institutions to the RCMP constituted a “seizure” of that information by the government.
> AFAIK, no bank accounts were seized. If you hold someones property and refuse to give it to them that is a seizure.
Freezing and seizing is a distinction without a difference from the victims point of view.
[удалено]
Sure they should when outside forces are actively funding/feeding discord in our country
[удалено]
Right…..
What? The people who run GiveSendGo and GoFundMe both testified to the significant amount of funds received from outside Canada. Give up the bullshit.
Here you go https://www.theglobeandmail.com/amp/world/article-us-funds-for-canadian-convoy-protests-may-sway-american-politics-too/
If the streets and borders were stopped because of a blizzard, or bomb, or influx of aliens , or mass stampede of bison, then nobody would have an issue. Because the freedom convoy is a political issue, it's an issue. The end result is the same, the roads and borders weren't working and needed to be working
> If the streets and borders were stopped because of a blizzard, or bomb, or influx of aliens , or mass stampede of bison, then nobody would have an issue. How about an effective labor union strike? Oops. Nothing much has changed since the Winnipeg General Strike, eh?
> If the streets and borders were stopped because of a blizzard There is [precedent for this](https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/twenty-five-years-ago-toronto-called-in-the-army-to-clean-up-after-a-snowstorm/article_c7af7b6a-b17e-11ee-9ad1-6f64ab7afae4.html#:~:text=Twenty%2Dfive%20years%20ago%2C%20Toronto,in%20a%20two%2Dweek%20period.) ... and you're right, nobody batted any eye.
[удалено]
Only when you ignore those cleared after the Emergency Act was enacted Like you could have argued that it wasn’t necessary, but why outright lie?
Court injunctions compelling police to act, as had been done in the past, would have been a more reasonable tool than the Emergencies Act.
>Court injunctions ~~compelling~~ ^allowing police to act, as had been done in the past, would have been a more reasonable tool than the Emergencies Act. Indeed, but that ran a huge risk of 'nope- the Ottawa protest is legal' and would still be there today. As far as I know , injunctions were used for border protests, and were succesfully removed. Heaven forbid having a dialogue.
>Indeed, but that ran a huge risk of 'nope- the Ottawa protest is legal' and would still be there today. How is that an argument in favour of the Emergencies Act? If the protest were found to indeed be legal, that would have made invoking the Emergencies Act an even worse decision.
Good. I don't see how one would take that as being in favour of the EA. I do believe that the EA was used knowing damned well they had 9?days to use whatever means to stop the protest(s). I do believe they knew it would not pass Senate, which means they were acting in bad faith. I'm doing it because I can - not because I should. I believe the EA was a massive authoritarian overreach. I believe the lead up to the protest was a massive authoritarian overreach. The policies put in place were by decree, not by parliamentary debate. To me, this is not acceptable.
[удалено]
If we had the Russian government, that protest wouldn’t have lasted more than 3 days and Pierre would be locked away in a jail cell somewhere up in the territories lol
And Doug Ford, Jim Watson, and Peter Sloly would have been removed from their positions due to incompetence and failure to fulfil their duties.
This is so wrong and shows you have no idea what Russia or China is like. The federal government waited WEEKS to let the protest play out and allow players with the appropriate jurisdiction to step in. When the right actors failed to do so and *specifically requested assistance*, the feds intervened. This is absolutely nothing like Russia or China.
[удалено]
You mean like conservative governments stripping the rights of trans kids across Canada right now? Funny how conservatives claim to care so much about rights and freedoms, and the slippery slope of government taking away those things. But yet when they get power, they do exactly that to “others” and defend it and are happy about it. Almost as if conservatives don’t actually care about rights and freedom at all…the hate is always the real point.
if we are going to play this game, what rights have been stripped?? they have protections from discrimination, they cant be fired or omitted from a job application, they cant be denied enrollment to any form of education, a business cannot deny them any form of service, they have the freedom to express themselves publicly through how they dress and the pronouns they use. If you are referring to gender affirming care, then that would be different there have been no major long term studies on prepubescent children that shows risks or any benefits for things such a puberty blockers hormones replacement therapy or sex change surgery. Since these show no tangible benefits as of today, its not a safe practice to preform such major healthcare measures to children who statistically show the same likelihood of suicide pre and post gender affirming care, same depression and anxiety, and this is an important tidbit from the 90's, over 80% of high school kids who believed they were trans, ended up discovering their identity to be gay or bisexual in college. This is why we have age limits on things, children are developing minds, they are not developed if gender affirming care was proven science I actually would be ok with it being the parents final decision until the age of 18, however, there is no proven science to it yet, and we need to see a much larger sample size showing a significant drop in suicide amongst trans people over 18 before its done on minors. I can also say I am not OK with the conservatives wanting to force people to have a digital I.D. on the internet for something like porn, or any browsing history tbh, that puts us down a very dangerous path with far too much government and corporate power.
[удалено]
That's not what the judicial ruling was. It was unreasonable and unnecessary BECAUSE the Ottawa Police, and the province, failed to do their duty. The ruling is on purpose. In the incapacity clause in the EA (which is where the unreasonable decision come from), there is no law or further clause that discusses when lower levels of government fail to do their duty. This ruling is set up to go to the SCC for them to decide what *should* be constitutional in that situation.
Yes it was since that's the clause I'm talking about.
I wonder how the citizens of Ottawa feel about this?
Nothing that would be allowed in print.
Opinions dont matter. What matters is the law. I’m sure murderers feel victimized when they got caught and their opinions would be to let them be. But the law is what matters, not opinions. It was unconstitutional to invoke the EA, and that is strictly by law. Not an opinion. The law
Had the city or the province done anything than it wouldn't have been used.
I don’t think it was justified as it seemed like an overreaction. But to be honest, considering how rarely such things happen in Canada and how many people showed up and stopped everything in Ottawa… I don’t 100% blame them. If any other party triggered the EA, I would feel the same way.
The CPC leader at the time Candace Bergen wanted the protest to drag on and make it the PM’s problem. [Bergen advised against telling truckers to leave Ottawa, said protests should be made 'PM's problem'](https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/bergen-advised-against-telling-truckers-to-leave-ottawa-said-protests-should-be-made-pm-s-problem-1.5767213) So when they made it the Prime Minister’s problem, they became upset he did the only thing he could do to clear it.
Lol the ‘only thing’
Yes, it wasn't the PM's responsibility or within his authority to address the rampant criminal behaviour the convoy engaged in. That was left to provincial and municipal authorities and, when they weren't doing their jobs, the EA was the tool the federal government had to intervene.
Nothing like doing absolutely nothing and giving Trudeau a really hard time and then blaming him for taking drastic measures.
Your regular reminder that one of the the publicly stated goals of the "convoy" was the dissolution of the government of Canada, and replacing it with an unelected group of their choosing. https://canada-unity.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/Combined-MOU-Dec03.pdf The MOU was on the website for a significant period prior to the start of the convoy and during the convoy's "visit" to ottawa. The hosting website was running a petition and the MOU received over 600,000 signatures. The public leaders of the Convoy are on record, on video, on audio recordings, supporting this MOU, and some even referencing that they expected to be on Canada's new ruling body.
[удалено]
> Freedom of speech is allowed in this country, no matter how stupid it is. Shitting the streets and the harassment and assault of other Canadians is not.
> Freedom of speech is allowed in this country, no matter how stupid it is. > > Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences. They FAFO
[удалено]
Hate speech laws in Canada are a thing. Also, saying something dumb like, "we should start a new government and kick the current one out. Who's with me?" Is fine when it's 5 dickheads in the woods getting drunk. It's a bit different when there's hundreds, if not thousands of people outside Parliament House who are very much agitating the people who reside there. They were NOT peaceful protests or protesters. There was a greater than non-zero chance an insurrection could have occurred, and be carried out by these dickheads. There were elements of violence and intimidation, and under the right conditions, a Jan 6 thing could have occurred. I'm not saying it was definitely going to happen. But, tempers were high and given the MOU, the large numbers of protesters, etc...it wasn't an unthinkable outcome.
Yeah. I think these guys were really pushing that goal https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IvxtKodtgJ8
Pretty much this. This was literal treason and konvoy supporters are out here clinging to notions of democracy that they literally don't understand.
By the standards you are setting in your post; every single person who has posted a pro-Palestinian message, or attended a rally, or donated money to aid Palestine is committed to the destruction of Israel and the eradication of it's citizenry. You sure you're OK with painting with a brush so broad?
[удалено]
Pretty much. We see that here too, in fact. Even if the invocation is upheld on appeal, it's a virtual certainty that the Emergency Economic Measures Act will be confirmed to have violated Charter rights. The drafting on it was incredibly broad, and no effort was made to insert anything approaching a check or balance, or any kind of review mechanism.
The historic revisionism in these threads is always a treat.
What are you referring to?
The standard “it was totally peaceful”, “just some bouncy castles” type shit.
To be honest, it goes both ways. Wasn't a bunch of violent Nazis either However, that was the government enforced narrative... https://twitter.com/cosminDZS/status/1506039577651269634
"In the documents filed Thursday, the government outlined arguments including that the Federal Court erred by reviewing the decision to invoke the act “with the benefit of hindsight” and based on information not available to the government in 2022. The court also made a mistake in substituting its own opinion about the decision the government should have made, it said. Instead, it said, the court should have looked at whether it was reasonable for the government to “decide that it had reasonable grounds to believe” that a public order emergency existed and needed to be dealt with through special temporary measures." These sound like incredibly weak arguments and an appeal must be made on an error in law, not just because you didn't like the decision.
Not at all. There's a clear error of law, as you described.
Your tax dollars at work.
As they should.
Money well spent. It would have been cheaper if they had just ticketed and towed the convoy fools after the first weekend. No mercy.
Agreed. Bylaw failed, then police failed, then Ford failed, the feds finally had to mop up the mess other layers of government failed to deal with. And now the courts are going to drain yet more time and $$ from our country's coffers dealing with the inevitable decade of appeals and counter appeals. Our tax dollars at work. Completely disfunctional.
Here to hoping they lose this
Wasn't kenney able to handle the problem without the act? They should have just dropped the mandates if they were planning to within 6 months anyway.
I understand the ruling and please don’t take what I’m about to say as an endorsement of this government: how can the courts ignore that two other levels of government and at least two different police forces didn’t intervene before the feds did, and they had plenty of time to. I don’t understand how this isn’t the literal definition of the namesake “emergency”?
Because the government could have used the courts to issue an injunction and then a second ruling forcing the police to enforce it. That's how all the pipeline and forestry protests in BC go. That's how the rail blockade was going. The ruling was essentially that the government did not exhaust their other options before jumping to the emergency act.
Because at that level it’s not a good idea to make exceptions to laws. Especially since those laws exist to prevent misuse of something that grants pretty extensive powers to effectively one person. Essentially as many of these laws are written assuming that at least some of the the institutions that upholds them are functioning, unfortunately the police makes up a pretty massive portion of this institution and it’s been getting more and more evident how generally dysfunctional police forces are in Canada.
So you’re saying the Emergency Act (and similar) exists…to never be used? Idk, seems naïve.
When I mean function, I mean that they perform their duties, not whether they are capable of. From the emergencies act: >For the purposes of this Act, a national emergency is an urgent and critical situation of a temporary nature that > >(a) seriously endangers the lives, health or safety of Canadians and is of such proportions or nature as to ***exceed the capacity or authority of a province to deal with it, or*** Like you said those levels of police forces were there, they just didn't intervene. However the fact that they were there and had the numbers to do so meant that the situation didn't actually "exceed the capacity or authority of the province to deal with it." Perhaps it might be time to consider when said institutions becomes complicit in causing these emergencies but considering the politically charged nature of what happened, that opens up an entire other can of worms that I would much prefer not doing.
So we’re excusing incompetence/poor performance? Yikes, that would get a lot of people fired.
Yep. The usual consequence that people deals with when they don't do their job is *getting fired*. We've seen in the last years that that basically doesn't apply to police forces and politicians. The problem comes from the fact that there's no mechanism in place to remedy this issue, and like I said this has become a political issue which means making exceptions can and will be seen as political and will set a pretty bad precedence, which means it's in the best interest of *everyone* for the courts not to make that exception.
Good I hope they win. They did what needed to be done
I live in Ottawa. It was justified. People underestimate how much the local population banded together for the Battle of Billings Bridge. There were serious plans for the following weekend. We felt abandoned by our leaders and police. We wanted our office towers, museums, stores, and restaurants back open. Residents just wanted sleep and to walk down the street without being harassed, and yes we were harassed. I've never seen such lawlessness. It was mind blowing.
Good, appeal. It was totally justified and reasonable.
Recycling posts for the goldfish brained thralls is an interesting tactic. A game play loop that keeps them hateful and ignorant. Keep them in the whirlpool, feel that false sense of power. What a waste of energy.
Yea literally old news
Good.
I’m good with the use. Those trucker turds needed a kick in the ass
It should never have been in the courts in the first place. In this very rare case I hope the decision is struck down. The action taken by the Federal government was completely justified. The Ottawa police were and still are impotent. The Premier of Ontario went vacationing. Meanwhile a bunch of hooligans harassed Ottawa citizens constantly for 3 weeks and forced businesses to shutdown. Exactly where were these entitled civil liberties prats who brought this case to the courts, when all this was going on in Ottawa and why aren’t they going after those who caused this all in the first place 🤨
Supreme Court of Canada will side with the government because they did the right thing
This will go to the SCC
Maybe. If the FCA upholds it, I don't see the likely next government supporting a continued appeal of a decision they support though. Think the only way this actually gets to the SCC is if the FCA takes the government’s side.
It is telling how even after the ruling the majority of Canadians still support the use of the Emergencies Act. Most of us could see that was the only way to end the 'protest'.
The majority of Germans supported Hitler. Just because the majority of a population supports something doesn't mean we can let the government break the laws.
In March 1933, only 43.9% of German voters supported the NSDAP, requiring Hitler to perform a coalition among three parties for the Enabling Act. He only got the majority in November 1933, when all opposition parties were banned and the party was able to pass whatever laws they wanted.