Did you people ever listen to Judge Bell and I in Federal Court in 2015?
David Amos<david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com> | Sun, Nov 19, 2023 at 10:24 PM |
To: NightTimePodcast <NightTimePodcast@gmail.com>, paulpalango <paulpalango@protonmail.com> | |
the Sunday Night show - Nov 19, 2023 Nighttime Podcast - Youtube Channel 9.19K subscribers Started streaming 60 minutes ago Chat Sharon McCaskeyHi folks KBearDid I miss last weeks show? Michael Keefethere wasn't a show last week Michael KeefeJordan was out of town I believe UGLEEHi everyone Michael Keefehello @ UGLEE UGLEEHi Michael how are you Michael KeefePretty good my friend Michael KeefeHow is everyone tonight? Bryan Kellowayjust getting home from Jay's Chicken fight club... Michael Keefe@nighttime any updates on Jay's Chicken? LOL Bryan KellowayI heard Jay's was sold Michael Keefe@Bryan REALLY? BeccaASo many of them out there now gaining a following Bryan KellowayYeah, I can't confirm it, but I heard someone bought it, and Chickies Pizza will run it. Michael KeefeBad way to get 15 minutes of fame Bryan KellowayIt made great meme's J McLeodHe's the guy who they were doing that search of his brother's property in Shad Bay. WoodsfanaticLike sure they will be chauffeurs to court Laura AWhy does she stick around? I'd probably leave fi Laura Aleave town BeccaACan Adam explain the aftermath of wortmans properties in Portapique , how the gov was able to obtain them and then relist them for sale ? BeccaAShe called the killers close lawyer friend , that’s even worse BeccaAThey thought she was a suspect and pulled up to a young girl walking and told her to hop in the car without getting out, identifying, or cuffing her first? madelayneklein Nah, hell no. It was dark, the poor girl wasn't about to study what they were wearing BeccaAThey don’t tell any suspect to get in the car un searched Laura ASo it was put there for training purposes? Nicholas Langillethey act as "law endorcement" so hall monitors. protection ability? slim Nicholas Langilletakes 45 mins to respond. how can they protect? BeccaAImpossible to be a trained professional with a 6 month course Nicholas Langilledont they have qualified crime scene tech units? Laura AFacing deportation, probably doesn't have a work permit. Possibly collecting social assistance. Subscribers-only mode. Messages that appear are from people who’ve subscribed to this channel for 10 minutes or longer. Learn more WoodsfanaticPaul dont go there. They need to update the laws. Times are changing David AmosDid you people ever listen to Judge Bell and I in Federal Court in 2015? WoodsfanaticIt's uncomfortable to change. The judge is likely a boomer David AmosCheck your emails >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ---------- Original message ---------- >>>>> From: "McGrath, Stephen T" <Stephen.McGrath@novascotia.ca >>>>> Date: Sat, 8 Sep 2018 12:40:22 +0000 >>>>> Subject: Automatic reply: Does anyone recall the email entitled "So >>>>> Stephen McGrath if not you then just exactly who sent me this latest >>>>> email from your office?" >>>>> To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com> >>>>> >>>>> Thanks for your message, however I am no longer at the Department of >>>>> Justice, and this email account is not being monitored. >>>>> >>>>> Please contact Kim Fleming at Kim.Fleming@novascotia.ca (phone >>>>> 902-424-4023), or Vicky Zinck at Victoria.Zinck@novascotia.ca (phone >>>>> 902-424-4390). Kim and Vicky will be able to redirect you. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ---------- Original message ---------- >>>>> From: Justice Website <JUSTWEB@novascotia.ca> >>>>> Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2017 14:21:11 +0000 >>>>> Subject: Emails to Department of Justice and Province of Nova Scotia >>>>> To: "motomaniac333@gmail.com" <motomaniac333@gmail.com> >>>>> >>>>> Mr. Amos, >>>>> We acknowledge receipt of your recent emails to the Deputy Minister of >>>>> Justice and lawyers within the Legal Services Division of the >>>>> Department of Justice respecting a possible claim against the Province >>>>> of Nova Scotia. Service of any documents respecting a legal claim >>>>> against the Province of Nova Scotia may be served on the Attorney >>>>> General at 1690 Hollis Street, Halifax, NS. Please note that we will >>>>> not be responding to further emails on this matter. >>>>> >>>>> Department of Justice >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ---------- Original message ---------- >>>>> From: David Amos motomaniac333@gmail.com >>>>> Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 15:16:38 -0400 >>>>> Subject: Attn Laura Lee Langley, Karen Hudson and Joanne Munro I just >>>>> called all three of your offices to inform you of my next lawsuit >>>>> against Nova Scotia >>>>> To: LauraLee.Langley@novascotia.ca >>>>> Joanne.Munro@novascotia.ca >>>>> Cc: David Amos david.raymond.amos@gmail.com >>>>> >>>>> https://novascotia.ca/exec_ >>>>> >>>>> https://novascotia.ca/exec_ >>>>> >>>>> Laura Lee Langley >>>>> 1700 Granville Street, 5th Floor >>>>> One Government Place >>>>> Halifax, Nova Scotia B3J 1X5 >>>>> Phone: (902) 424-8940 >>>>> Fax: (902) 424-0667 >>>>> Email: LauraLee.Langley@novascotia.ca >>>>> >>>>> https://novascotia.ca/just/ >>>>> >>>>> Karen Hudson Q.C. >>>>> 1690 Hollis Street, 7th Floor >>>>> Joseph Howe Building >>>>> Halifax, NS B3J 3J9 >>>>> Phone: (902) 424-4223 >>>>> Fax: (902) 424-0510 >>>>> Email: Karen.Hudson@novascotia.ca >>>>> >>>>> https://novascotia.ca/sns/ceo. >>>>> >>>>> Joanne Munro: >>>>> 1505 Barrington Street, 14-South >>>>> Maritime Centre >>>>> Halifax, Nova Scotia B3J 3K5 >>>>> Phone: (902) 424-4089 >>>>> Fax: (902) 424-5510 >>>>> Email: Joanne.Munro@novascotia.ca >>>>> >>>>> If you don't wish to speak to me before I begin litigation then I >>>>> suspect the Integrity Commissioner New Brunswick or the Federal Crown >>>>> Counsel can explain the email below and the documents hereto attached >>>>> to you and your Premier etc. >>>>> >>>>> Veritas Vincit >>>>> David Raymond Amos >>>>> 902 800 0369 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>>>> From: David Amos motomaniac333@gmail.com >>>>> Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2017 09:32:09 -0400 >>>>> Subject: Attn Integrity Commissioner Alexandre Deschênes, Q.C., >>>>> To: coi@gnb.ca >>>>> Cc: david.raymond.amos@gmail.com >>>>> >>>>> Good Day Sir >>>>> >>>>> After I heard you speak on CBC I called your office again and managed >>>>> to speak to one of your staff for the first time >>>>> >>>>> Please find attached the documents I promised to send to the lady who >>>>> answered the phone this morning. Please notice that not after the Sgt >>>>> at Arms took the documents destined to your office his pal Tanker >>>>> Malley barred me in writing with an "English" only document. >>>>> >>>>> These are the hearings and the dockets in Federal Court that I >>>>> suggested that you study closely. >>>>> >>>>> This is the docket in Federal Court >>>>> >>>>> http://cas-cdc-www02.cas-satj. >>>>> >>>>> These are digital recordings of the last three hearings >>>>> >>>>> Dec 14th https://archive.org/details/ >>>>> >>>>> January 11th, 2016 https://archive.org/details/ >>>>> >>>>> April 3rd, 2017 >>>>> >>>>> https://archive.org/details/ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> This is the docket in the Federal Court of Appeal >>>>> >>>>> http://cas-cdc-www02.cas-satj. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The only hearing thus far >>>>> >>>>> May 24th, 2017 >>>>> >>>>> https://archive.org/details/ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> This Judge understnds the meaning of the word Integrity >>>>> >>>>> Date: 20151223 >>>>> >>>>> Docket: T-1557-15 >>>>> >>>>> Fredericton, New Brunswick, December 23, 2015 >>>>> >>>>> PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Bell >>>>> >>>>> BETWEEN: >>>>> >>>>> DAVID RAYMOND AMOS >>>>> >>>>> Plaintiff >>>>> >>>>> and >>>>> >>>>> HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN >>>>> >>>>> Defendant >>>>> >>>>> ORDER >>>>> >>>>> (Delivered orally from the Bench in Fredericton, New Brunswick, on >>>>> December 14, 2015) >>>>> >>>>> The Plaintiff seeks an appeal de novo, by way of motion pursuant to >>>>> the Federal Courts Rules (SOR/98-106), from an Order made on November >>>>> 12, 2015, in which Prothonotary Morneau struck the Statement of Claim >>>>> in its entirety. >>>>> >>>>> At the outset of the hearing, the Plaintiff brought to my attention a >>>>> letter dated September 10, 2004, which he sent to me, in my then >>>>> capacity as Past President of the New Brunswick Branch of the Canadian >>>>> Bar Association, and the then President of the Branch, Kathleen Quigg, >>>>> (now a Justice of the New Brunswick Court of Appeal). In that letter >>>>> he stated: >>>>> >>>>> As for your past President, Mr. Bell, may I suggest that you check the >>>>> work of Frank McKenna before I sue your entire law firm including you. >>>>> You are your brother’s keeper. >>>>> >>>>> Frank McKenna is the former Premier of New Brunswick and a former >>>>> colleague of mine at the law firm of McInnes Cooper. In addition to >>>>> expressing an intention to sue me, the Plaintiff refers to a number of >>>>> people in his Motion Record who he appears to contend may be witnesses >>>>> or potential parties to be added. Those individuals who are known to >>>>> me personally, include, but are not limited to the former Prime >>>>> Minister of Canada, The Right Honourable Stephen Harper; former >>>>> Attorney General of Canada and now a Justice of the Manitoba Court of >>>>> Queen’s Bench, Vic Toews; former member of Parliament Rob Moore; >>>>> former Director of Policing Services, the late Grant Garneau; former >>>>> Chief of the Fredericton Police Force, Barry McKnight; former Staff >>>>> Sergeant Danny Copp; my former colleagues on the New Brunswick Court >>>>> of Appeal, Justices Bradley V. Green and Kathleen Quigg, and, retired >>>>> Assistant Commissioner Wayne Lang of the Royal Canadian Mounted >>>>> Police. >>>>> >>>>> In the circumstances, given the threat in 2004 to sue me in my >>>>> personal capacity and my past and present relationship with many >>>>> potential witnesses and/or potential parties to the litigation, I am >>>>> of the view there would be a reasonable apprehension of bias should I >>>>> hear this motion. See Justice de Grandpré’s dissenting judgment in >>>>> Committee for Justice and Liberty et al v National Energy Board et al, >>>>> [1978] 1 SCR 369 at p 394 for the applicable test regarding >>>>> allegations of bias. In the circumstances, although neither party has >>>>> requested I recuse myself, I consider it appropriate that I do so. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> AS A RESULT OF MY RECUSAL, THIS COURT ORDERS that the Administrator of >>>>> the Court schedule another date for the hearing of the motion. There >>>>> is no order as to costs. >>>>> >>>>> “B. Richard Bell” >>>>> Judge >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Below after the CBC article about your concerns (I made one comment >>>>> already) you will find the text of just two of many emails I had sent >>>>> to your office over the years since I first visited it in 2006. >>>>> >>>>> I noticed that on July 30, 2009, he was appointed to the the Court >>>>> Martial Appeal Court of Canada Perhaps you should scroll to the >>>>> bottom of this email ASAP and read the entire Paragraph 83 of my >>>>> lawsuit now before the Federal Court of Canada? >>>>> >>>>> "FYI This is the text of the lawsuit that should interest Trudeau the >>>>> most >>>>> >>>>> http://davidraymondamos3. >>>>> >>>>> 83 The Plaintiff states that now that Canada is involved in more war >>>>> in Iraq again it did not serve Canadian interests and reputation to >>>>> allow Barry Winters to publish tlhe following words three times over >>>>> five years after he began his bragging: >>>>> >>>>> January 13, 2015 >>>>> This Is Just AS Relevant Now As When I wrote It During The Debate >>>>> >>>>> December 8, 2014 >>>>> Why Canada Stood Tall! >>>>> >>>>> Friday, October 3, 2014 >>>>> Little David Amos’ “True History Of War” Canadian Airstrikes And >>>>> Stupid Justin Trudeau? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Vertias Vincit >>>>> David Raymond Amos >>>>> 902 800 0369 >>>>> >>>>> P.S. Whereas this CBC article is about your opinion of the actions of >>>>> the latest Minister Of Health trust that Mr Boudreau and the CBC have >>>>> had my files for many years and the last thing they are is ethical. >>>>> Ask his friends Mr Murphy and the RCMP if you don't believe me. >>>>> >>>>> Subject: >>>>> Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 12:02:35 -0400 >>>>> From: "Murphy, Michael B. \(DH/MS\)" MichaelB.Murphy@gnb.ca >>>>> To: motomaniac_02186@yahoo.com >>>>> >>>>> January 30, 2007 >>>>> >>>>> WITHOUT PREJUDICE >>>>> >>>>> Mr. David Amos >>>>> >>>>> Dear Mr. Amos: >>>>> >>>>> This will acknowledge receipt of a copy of your e-mail of December 29, >>>>> 2006 to Corporal Warren McBeath of the RCMP. >>>>> >>>>> Because of the nature of the allegations made in your message, I have >>>>> taken the measure of forwarding a copy to Assistant Commissioner Steve >>>>> Graham of the RCMP “J” Division in Fredericton. >>>>> >>>>> Sincerely, >>>>> >>>>> Honourable Michael B. Murphy >>>>> Minister of Health >>>>> >>>>> CM/cb >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Warren McBeath warren.mcbeath@rcmp-grc.gc.ca wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2006 17:34:53 -0500 >>>>> From: "Warren McBeath" warren.mcbeath@rcmp-grc.gc.ca >>>>> To: kilgoursite@ca.inter.net, MichaelB.Murphy@gnb.ca, >>>>> nada.sarkis@gnb.ca, wally.stiles@gnb.ca, dwatch@web.net, >>>>> motomaniac_02186@yahoo.com >>>>> CC: ottawa@chuckstrahl.com, riding@chuckstrahl.com,John. >>>>> Oda.B@parl.gc.ca,"Bev BUSSON" bev.busson@rcmp-grc.gc.ca, >>>>> "Paul Dube" PAUL.DUBE@rcmp-grc.gc.ca >>>>> Subject: Re: Remember me Kilgour? Landslide Annie McLellan has >>>>> forgotten me but the crooks within the RCMP have not >>>>> >>>>> Dear Mr. Amos, >>>>> >>>>> Thank you for your follow up e-mail to me today. I was on days off >>>>> over the holidays and returned to work this evening. Rest assured I >>>>> was not ignoring or procrastinating to respond to your concerns. >>>>> >>>>> As your attachment sent today refers from Premier Graham, our position >>>>> is clear on your dead calf issue: Our forensic labs do not process >>>>> testing on animals in cases such as yours, they are referred to the >>>>> Atlantic Veterinary College in Charlottetown who can provide these >>>>> services. If you do not choose to utilize their expertise in this >>>>> instance, then that is your decision and nothing more can be done. >>>>> >>>>> As for your other concerns regarding the US Government, false >>>>> imprisonment and Federal Court Dates in the US, etc... it is clear >>>>> that Federal authorities are aware of your concerns both in Canada >>>>> the US. These issues do not fall into the purvue of Detachment >>>>> and policing in Petitcodiac, NB. >>>>> >>>>> It was indeed an interesting and informative conversation we had on >>>>> December 23rd, and I wish you well in all of your future endeavors. >>>>> >>>>> Sincerely, >>>>> >>>>> Warren McBeath, Cpl. >>>>> GRC Caledonia RCMP >>>>> Traffic Services NCO >>>>> Ph: (506) 387-2222 >>>>> Fax: (506) 387-4622 >>>>> E-mail warren.mcbeath@rcmp-grc.gc.ca >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> http://www.archive.org/ >>>>> >>>>> http://www.archive.org/ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> FEDERAL EXPRES February 7, 2006 >>>>> Senator Arlen Specter >>>>> United States Senate >>>>> Committee on the Judiciary >>>>> 224 Dirksen Senate Office Building >>>>> Washington, DC 20510 >>>>> >>>>> Dear Mr. Specter: >>>>> >>>>> I have been asked to forward the enclosed tapes to you from a man >>>>> named, David Amos, a Canadian citizen, in connection with the matters >>>>> raised in the attached letter. Mr. Amos has represented to me that >>>>> these are illegal FBI wire tap tapes. I believe Mr. Amos has been in >>>>> contact >>>>> with you about this previously. >>>>> >>>>> Very truly yours, >>>>> Barry A. Bachrach >>>>> Direct telephone: (508) 926-3403 >>>>> Direct facsimile: (508) 929-3003 >>>>> Email: bbachrach@bowditch.com >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Alexandre Deschênes, Q.C., >>>>> Office of the Integrity Commissioner >>>>> Edgecombe House, 736 King Street >>>>> Fredericton, N.B. CANADA E3B 5H1 >>>>> tel.: 506-457-7890 >>>>> fax: 506-444-5224 >>>>> e-mail:coi@gnb.ca >>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail. Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2023 23:32:25 -0300 Subject: RE Jason Lavigne mentioned on the Sunday Night show - Sept 2, 2023 To: media@yellowhead.vote Cc: motomaniac333@gmail.com Press Contact: Jason Lavigne 587-206-8683 media@yellowhead.vote ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail. Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2023 23:07:09 -0300 Subject: Fwd: the Sunday Night show - Sept 2, 2023 To: Mark.Flynn@rcmp-grc.gc.ca, Brigitte.Voitel@rcmp-grc.gc.ca "Nathalie.Drouin" <Nathalie.Drouin@justice.gc.ca <Marco.Mendicino@parl.gc.ca>, mcu <mcu@justice.gc.ca>, PREMIER <PREMIER@gov.ns.ca>, info <info@gg.ca>, "Nathalie.G.Drouin" <Nathalie.G.Drouin@pco-bcp.gc. <ian.fahie@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>, "Mark.Blakely" <Mark.Blakely@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>, "warren.mcbeath" <warren.mcbeath@rcmp-grc.gc.ca <washington.field@ic.fbi.gov>, "fin.minfinance-financemin. <fin.minfinance-financemin. <Frank.McKenna@td.com>, "Katie.Telford" <Katie.Telford@pmo-cpm.gc.ca>, "kris.austin" <kris.austin@gnb.ca>, "michael.macdonald" <michael.macdonald@ <Michael.Duheme@rcmp-grc.gc.ca <Sean.Fraser@parl.gc.ca>, "rick.perkins" <rick.perkins@parl.gc.ca>, "stephen.ellis" <stephen.ellis@parl.gc.ca>, "Kevin.leahy" <Kevin.leahy@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>, "pierre.poilievre" <pierre.poilievre@parl.gc.ca>, premier <premier@ontario.ca>, "rob.moore" <rob.moore@parl.gc.ca>, nsinvestigators <nsinvestigators@gmail.com>, "Pineo, Robert" <rpineo@pattersonlaw.ca>, andrew <andrew@frankmagazine.ca>, Newsroom <Newsroom@globeandmail.com>, oldmaison <oldmaison@yahoo.com>, "martin.gaudet" <martin.gaudet@fredericton.ca> <blaine.higgs@gnb.ca>, "Bill.Hogan" <Bill.Hogan@gnb.ca> Cc: motomaniac333 <motomaniac333@gmail.com>, NightTimePodcast <NightTimePodcast@gmail.com> https://www.youtube.com/watch? the Sunday Night show - Sept 2, 2023 Nighttime Podcast - Youtube Channel 9.09K subscribers 34 watching now Streamed live 80 minutes ago Provide feedback and comments on the episode: nighttimepodcast.com/contact Top Chat Доктор ЛаркенYessssss! Bobbi Jo BurgoyneGood evening everybody Michael KeefeHope everyone is enjoying the Labour Day weekend! Joelle BrounerHi Adam, Jordan, and Paul Mike BruneauEvening! Nighttime Podcast - Youtube Channelsound ok Faye CourtneyGood evening all Faye CourtneySound is good Nighttime Podcast - Youtube Channelthnx M.P.Adam wears a tie and jacket at a campfire? lol Grumpee Chatomg i was thinking the same thing lol Grumpee Chatbriefcase full of marshmallows schoonerdept of fisheries same thing. useless Michael KeefeLOL @Grumpee Chat & M.P. Robert BrackenIf Paul ever has a moment ( notwithstanding that his plate is full), he should consider the current political prisoners known as the " Coutts Four", in Alberta. Robert BrackenJason Lavigne has highlighted many of the issues with the Coutts Four, the shenanigans of the crown and police, and has interviewed many knowledgeable people, including former T.O detective, Don Best. Michael KeefeCTV's "police expert" Chris Lewis (former OPP head honcho) said that the RCMP doesn't have to publicly apologize Michael Keefebecause the Commissioner Lucki did when she was testifying before the MCC Minhopaul should speak with Jason. I have been watching a few of his videos. Couttsfour sad what they are doing to Canadian Citizens. locking them up in prison until they learn their silence. Subscribers-only mode. Messages that appear are from people who’ve subscribed to this channel for 10 minutes or longer. Learn more schoonerthey won't even apologize for the firehall shotings David AmosYou have mail Darrell CurrieThe “families” and the “victims”. David AmosHow many Deputy Commissioners got the same mail you did? Julia JonesOMG David AmosThey wrote something about me in 2004 David AmosI was the go to guy for the RCMP about motorcycles when two of you were high school David AmosEverybody knows the RCMP are covering up their failures with bikers and the mob David AmosDid you dudes even bother to read the lawsuit I filed in 2015? David AmosDo you listen Judge Richard Bell and I and what we discussed in open court on December 14th 2015? David AmosRichard Bell represented the former RCMP Commissioner in 2004 David AmosI dare you to ask me about the CRA and I Michael Keefethey were held accountable...they lost their jobs David AmosI always name everyone M UWe need a newspaper like the old “ Bedford/Sackville daily newspaper “ Michael Keefe@nighttime podcast Aftershow tonight? David AmosAdam Rogers and I have spoken to each other he knows I ran for public office just like he did M UWhat do you think of JT travel advisory to the United States? David AmosI spoke to Palango in 2009 and was not impressed schoonerHeidi (Burkholder) Stevenson David AmosI wonder if the RCMP are reading my comments M.P.haven't seen or heard about it @MU M UYes M URidiculous Grumpee Chattalk back radio was the best lol Grumpee Chatall the old farts talked to each other that way here |
Suspending criminal's deportation over improper pronouns was 'inappropriate' and 'unwarranted': ruling
Federal Court judge Richard Bell took a 'flawed' course of action and went far beyond his powers when raising the Charter question, a panel of judges ruled
OTTAWA — A Federal Court judge raised an “inappropriate,” “unwarranted” and “unrelated” issue when he suspended a U.K. citizen’s deportation over questions whether the use of gender-neutral pronouns in a single government document violated the man’s Charter rights.
On Thursday, the Federal Court of Appeal issued the uncommonly critical ruling overturning an order last summer by now retired Federal Court judge Richard Bell that raised eyebrows in the legal community.
In their ruling, the appeal judges admitted the case in front of them was borne from a “rather unusual” question.
On June 6, the day before he was set to be deported from Canada, Colin James Ewen, who is male and uses he/him pronouns, was in front of Bell attempting a last-ditch effort to have his expulsion delayed due to a medical issue after years of costly and lengthy legal battles.
Ewen was first ordered expelled from Canada in 2019 over an assault conviction he received while still living in the U.K. that made him ineligible to stay in the country.
As Bell began the hearing, he warned Ewen and government lawyer Nathan Joyal that he wanted to raise a completely new issue of his own, without any prompting by either the government or Ewen, who was self-represented.
The judge told them he noticed that the government occasionally used gender-neutral pronouns “they/them” along with the male pronouns “he/him” pronouns in a document filed on a tight deadline the day before.
Speaking to Crown lawyer Joyal, Bell asked if this constituted a case of misgendering Ewen, which “some social scientists say” is akin to committing violence against them, he said.
After exchanging with an evidently perplexed Joyal and Ewen, who was self-represented, Bell announced he was adjourning the hearing and suspending Ewen’s deportation, ordering that both parties submit arguments on whether the use of gender-neutral pronouns had violated Ewen’s Charter rights. The government appealed that order.
Writing on behalf of the panel of three judges, the appeals court Chief Justice Yves de Montigny said Bell took a “flawed” course of action and went far beyond his powers when raising the Charter question.
“It is obvious that (Bell) put an issue to the parties that was of particular interest to him, and that he knew such issue would come as a surprise to the parties,” the ruling said.
Bell’s decision to suspend Ewen’s deportation to “inquire into whether the Government of Canada’s use of gender-neutral pronouns in its submissions infringed (Ewen’s) Charter rights has no basis” in immigration laws, reads the ruling. By introducing it, the judge therefore “exceeded his jurisdiction and overstepped his role as an independent and impartial judicial decision-maker.”
“He could be seen as going ‘in search of a wrong to right’,” De Montigny wrote.
Furthermore, had Ewen been profoundly affected by the pronouns in the government document, he should and could have raised the issue himself, the appeals judges ruled.
“I appreciate that (Ewen) is self-represented, but if he felt that his dignity was affected or imperiled by the use of gender-neutral pronouns, it was for him to raise it,” it continued.
Because Bell’s order forced the government to miss its planned deportation date for Ewen, immigration authorities must now secure a new deportation date for Ewen.
To that point, the appeals judges made sure to list every step in the process necessary to enforce a new future removal order against Ewen and the new possibilities available to him to postpone his deportation.
“If the (government)t were to choose to take these steps, (Ewen) would have an opportunity to make a request for deferral of removal. He could apply for leave and for judicial review of a negative deferral decision and could once again seek an urgent stay of removal on the basis of a fresh evidentiary record and of an updated set of circumstances,” De Montigny wrote.
Ewen did not respond to a request for comment by deadline.
National Post
Judge prevents deportation of convicted criminal because of wrong pronoun usage
Federal Court judge delays deportation over gender neutral pronouns used by government
A U.K. citizen set to be deported because of “serious criminality” gets to stay in Canada for at least a bit longer because a judge, unprompted by either the Crown or the defendant, wondered if the use of gender-neutral pronouns in a single government document violated the man’s Charter rights.
On June 6, the day before he was set to be deported from Canada, Colin James Ewen, who is male and uses he/him pronouns, was at the Federal Court attempting a last-ditch effort to have his expulsion delayed after years of legal battles.
Ewen’s wish was ultimately granted by Justice Richard Bell that day, but for a reason neither he nor government lawyer Nathan Joyal expected, and that appears to have raised eyebrows amidst lawyers and the Federal Court of Appeal.
Ewen was first ordered to be expelled from the country by the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) in October 2019 over the fact that he had been convicted of assault causing bodily harm while he still lived in the U.K. The tribunal determined his conviction reached the threshold of “serious criminality” in Canada, making him ineligible to stay in the country. Ewen has unsuccessfully argued that the charge should not be taken into account since it was considered “spent” in the U.K.
He was also arrested for assault by Ontario Provincial Police in March 2022.
As Bell began the June 6 hearing, he warned Ewen and Joyal that he wanted to bring up an issue that “will come as a bit of a surprise” as it had not been raised by either the government or Ewen, who was self-represented, according to a transcript of the hearing.
The senior justice, who was appointed by Stephen Harper in 2015 and is also the chief justice of the Court Martial Appeal Court, said he noticed that in a document filed the day before, the government occasionally used gender-neutral pronouns “they/them” alongside male “he/him” pronouns.
“One of my questions is this: is gender identification a protected right under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms,” Bell asked Joyal.
“If one reads the social science literature on this whole issue of gender identity, some authors go so far as to call this, this misnaming of identity as being a violence committed towards somebody, which is quite shocking to me, but that’s what some of the social scientists say,” the judge later added.
Joyal quickly responded that he did not believe there was a violation of Ewen’s rights because “it is a gender neutral term, the use of it would thereby not violate the applicant’s gender identification in the circumstances.
“I don’t believe that this is a live issue in this matter, respectfully,” he added.
Bell then turned to Ewen to ask him how he felt about the occasional use of “they/them” in the document. Ewen first complained that it was “a little bit confusing” to read and that “it’s not very direct.”
It was only when Bell asked if he felt it affected his dignity that Ewen responded, “kind of, yes.”
That’s when Bell announced he would adjourn the hearing and request that both Ewen and the government provide their arguments as to if they believed the use of gender neutral pronouns had violated his Charter rights. He also stayed Ewen’s deportation scheduled for the next day, meaning he would be allowed to stay in Canada until the new Charter question was resolved.
Bell’s decision to stay the deportation over a question that none of the parties raised regarding the government’s use of “they/them” gender neutral pronouns appears to be raising eyebrows amongst government lawyers as well as the Federal Court of Appeal.
In an interview, veteran immigration lawyer Stéphane Handfield, who is not involved in the case, said he’d never seen anything like it.
“In 31 years of practice, I have never been confronted with a situation where the judge, during a hearing, brought up an argument that neither of the parties had raised in their memorandums,” said the Montreal-based lawyer.
Shortly after Bell suspended Ewen’s deportation, government lawyers appealed the judge’s order and asked the Federal Court of Appeal to set it aside or declare the “new constitutional issue” he raised to be irrelevant.
The appeal argues the Federal Court “exceeded its jurisdiction by raising a new Charter issue” that “does not arise from, and is unrelated to, the matters which were under review” and that “has no factual foundation” in the case.
According to the appeal, the fact that the order made Ewen miss his scheduled flight out of Canada meant that the government will likely have to restart the removal process, creating further delays to his expulsion from the country.
“Any subsequent attempt to remove (Ewen) will require a new removal process and a new date for removal, which would be subject to a fresh application for judicial review and stay motion, should (Ewen) so decide,” reads the document.
Neither Ewen nor Joyal responded to emailed requests for comment by deadline.
On June 29, the Federal Court of Appeal agreed to expedite the case in a ruling that appears to question Bell’s ruling.
“The Federal Court has taken an immigration matter that in the public interest requires a prompt hearing and determination, and has transformed it into a section 15 Charter matter unrelated to any immigration issues whatsoever,” reads the order by Federal Court of Appeal judge David Stratas.
“And for good measure, through its June 6, 2023 interim stay order, the Federal Court has prevented the immigration matter from continuing,” Stratas adding, noting the “unusual circumstances” of the case.
The Federal Court of Appeal case is scheduled to be heard in mid-September.
Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark nationalpost.com and sign up for our politics newsletter, First Reading, here .
Copyright Postmedia Network Inc., 2023
Editorial: More pronoun absurdity
By Catholic Register EditorialCanada’s Federal Court may have unwittingly brought us to peak gender pronoun nonsense. We can only hope — or better yet pray — for a return to earth it puts our feet back on sensible ground.
As the National Post reported last week, a Federal court justice has further delayed the four-year attempt to deport an individual with a record of “serious criminality.” Why? Because the miscreant in question said he was offended by the pronouns used to identify him in court documents.
Colin James Ewen, a U.K. citizen, identifies as a man and uses (quelle surprise!) “he/him” as his gender reference points for earthly existence. But what ho? Justice Richard Bell noted that the legalese justifying Ewen’s heave-ho from Canada in 2019 referred to him as “they/them” instead.
Shock waves ensued when Justice Bell, unbidden by either the Crown or Ewen’s own lawyer, wondered whether calling “he/him” a “they/them” might violate a Charter right to perpetual protection of transient pronoun modification. A ringing hint that no such Charter right exists should have been conveyed by the very fact of the judge having to ask the question in the first place.
In fact, the Post reports, government lawyers were so gob-smacked that they argued even if such a right ever existed, it would have no bearing on the case before the court. Undeterred, the justice noted some social scientists maintain “misnaming” is a form of “violence.” He appears oblivious to the irony that the deportee in the dock stood convicted at least twice of assault, including assault causing bodily harm, and so “he/him” personally knew the difference between real violence and social science soft soap.
Nevertheless, clearly being a quick study as well as quick with his fists, Ewen replied “kind of, yes” when Justice Bell asked “he/him” if his dignity had been violated by fashionable clerks using “they/them” instead of his declared pronouns. The result was a reprieve from deportation until at least a mid-September hearing. A door might have opened as well for the start of a long and arduous trek up the legal slopes to the windy heights of a Supreme Court Charter decision.
Hope and prayer must ride with the alternative prospect that the sheer nonsensical nature of Ewen’s case will slam that door shut on the destabilizing effect of discovering “pronoun preference” in the bedrock of our guaranteed rights and freedoms.
Respecting an adult individual’s declared “he/she/his/her/they/them” identifier is without question an essential of civility, charity and good citizen common sense. But we lost our footing when we sought to codify it as an overarching bureaucratic imperative rather than preserving it as a prerogative of common language for the common good. The consequences of such codification becoming the supreme law of the land would be even more injurious for our capacity to properly discern what’s what in the world.
We need only look for evidence to current political perturbations in Saskatchewan and New Brunswick. In both provinces, public school systems usurped familial authority over the gender and pronoun choices of elementary students, prompting legislative responses to answer parental concerns. A result? Fissures threatening to become crevasses between individual citizens and broader social groups — as if we need more of that given our already chasmic political divides.
The reductio ad absurdum of the Ewen case, in which a man convicted of serious violent criminality is left walking free among us because of the “violence” of mistaken pronouns, illustrates the Babel-like fall from grace that portends if we continue up the current politico-legal pronominal path. God willing, our tongues and our feet will soon find rest on saner, solid ground.
“One of my questions is this: is gender identification a protected right under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms,” said Federal Court of Canada Justice Richard Bell at a hearing covered by the National Post.
“If one reads the social science literature on this whole issue of gender identity, some authors go so far as to call this, this misnaming of identity, as being a violence committed towards somebody, which is quite shocking to me, but that’s what some of the social scientists say.”
British resident Colin James Ewen — a male who uses he/him/his pronouns —was at the Federal Court in June attempting a last-ditch effort to have his expulsion delayed after years of legal battles.
Ewen’s wish was granted by Bell, but for a reason Canadian government lawyer Nathan Joyal and he did not expect, and that appears to be raising eyebrows among lawyers and the Federal Court of Appeal.
He was first ordered to be expelled from Canada by the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) in 2019 because he had been convicted of assault causing bodily harm while living in the United Kingdom.
The IRB determined his conviction reached the threshold of serious criminality in Canada, making him ineligible to stay.
He was arrested for assault by the Ontario Provincial Police in 2022.
Bell warned Joyal and him that he wanted to bring up an issue which “will come as a bit of a surprise.” This issue had not been raised by the Canadian government or him.
When Bell went through a document filed the previous day, he said the government used they/them/theirs pronouns with he/him/his pronouns.
Joyal responded by saying he did not believe there was a violation of Ewen’s rights, as “it is a gender neutral term, the use of it would thereby not violate the applicant’s gender identification in the circumstances.”
“I don’t believe that this is a live issue in this matter, respectfully,” he said.
Bell turned to Ewen to ask him how he felt about the occasional use of they/them/theirs in the document. He complained it was a little confusing to read and indirect.
The situation changed when he asked if it had affected his dignity, with him saying yes.
That is when Bell announced he would adjourn the hearing and request Ewen and the government provide their arguments as to if they believed the use of gender-neutral pronouns had violated his Charter rights.
He stayed his deportation scheduled for the next day, allowing him to stay in Canada until the new Charter question was resolved.
Government lawyers appealed the order soon after his deportation was suspended and asked the Federal Court of Appeal to set it aside or declare the new constitutional issue he raised to be irrelevant.
They argue the Federal Court exceeded its jurisdiction by raising a new Charter issue not arising from and unrelated to the matters which were under review and has no factual foundation in the case.
The fact he missed his scheduled flight out of Canada means the government will likely have to restart the removal process, creating further delays to his expulsion.
“Any subsequent attempt to remove [Ewen] will require a new removal process and a new date for removal, which would be subject to a fresh application for judicial review and stay motion, should [Ewen] so decide,” they said.
The Federal Court of Appeal agreed to expedite the case in a ruling which appeared to question Bell, scheduling it to be heard in mid-September.
“The Federal Court has taken an immigration matter that, in the public interest requires a prompt hearing and determination, and has transformed it into a Section 15 Charter matter unrelated to any immigration issues whatsoever,” said Federal Court of Appeal Justice David Stratas.
Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) officials targeted a 219% increase in deportations this year in January.
The CBSA claimed the past rates were not good enough.
“In regard to overall removals, the agency experienced year-over-year increases from fiscal year 2017 to 2021,” it said.
Opposition blasts Liberals for 'political' appointments of judges that reward party donors
Critics say the partisan process brings political influence into important decisions made by Canada’s courts
Article content
Donating Judges is a series of articles examining the politicization of federal appointments to Canada’s courts and tribunals. It is the result of an eight-month data analysis investigation by the National Post and the Investigative Journalism Foundation (IJF).
OTTAWA — Federal opposition parties are criticizing the Liberal government for perpetuating a judicial and tribunal appointment process they say rewards party donors and undermines the public’s trust in the Canadian legal system.
“The public’s confidence in our judicial system is the backbone of our society. We want a judicial system that is neutral, effective and independent. Moving ahead with political appointments considerably undermines the public’s confidence and is akin to playing with fire,” Bloc Québécois MP and justice critic Rhéal Fortin said in an interview.
On Wednesday, the National Post and the Investigative Journalism Foundation (IJF) revealed that an overwhelming majority — 76.3 per cent — of federal judicial and tribunal appointees under the Trudeau government who had made political donations had given to the Liberal Party of Canada.
That is considerably more than appointees who were Conservative party donors (22.9 per cent) and appointees who gave to the New Democratic Party (17.9 per cent).
The data, compiled from judicial appointments since 2016, the first full year the Trudeau Liberals were in power, and Elections Canada’s political donations database, also suggest the Liberals have not appointed a single Bloc Québécois donor to one of dozens of federally appointed courts of tribunals in more than seven years since they came to power.
Legal scholars said the findings raise serious questions about the continued politicization of the judicial appointment process by the Liberals, who doggedly criticized the previous Conservative government on the issue and promised reforms in 2016.
Fortin, a lawyer by trade, said that partisanship within the judicial appointment process ultimately undermines the public’s confidence in the country’s legal system and brings political influence into important decisions made by Canada’s courts.
The Liberal government has defended its appointment track record and process, insisting that all nominations are purely based on merit.
“The judicial appointment process is focused on merit, on the needs of courts, and on building a bench that reflects the country it serves. Importantly, an applicant’s political donation record is not a factor in the decision to recommend them for a judicial appointment,” David Taylor, spokesperson for new Justice Minister Arif Virani, said last week.
Taylor pointed to the fact that roughly 80 per cent of the appointments analyzed by the Post and IJF were not political donors.
Of the total 1,308 appointments reviewed, 240 (18.3 per cent) had donated to a political party. In comparison, under one per cent of eligible Canadians donate to a political party on average.
Fortin said he is very concerned with the level of partisanship in federal judicial and tribunal appointments revealed by the Post and IJF.
By doing this, the government is influencing decisions to come from courts
Rheal Fortin, Bloc MP, justice critic
“By doing this, the government is influencing decisions to come from courts,” Fortin said. “The government is exerting an influence on tribunals by appointing people who are aligned with it and share an opinion with it on important issues.”
“It’s an uncouth way to influence the law for years to come,” he added. “Two things, rewarding people and influencing rulings, will result in undermining the public’s confidence in our judicial system.”
Fortin was also frustrated by data suggesting that no Bloc Québécois donor had been appointed to a court or tribunal by the Liberals since 2016.
“Clearly, there aren’t many believers in Quebec’s independence who believe they have a chance of being appointed by the federal governments, and their concern is obviously real,” he said.
“It appears that federalist ministers of justice will certainly not appoint someone who thinks differently than them on important issues like the Constitution,” he added.
- Trudeau’s law society: Exclusive data analysis reveals Liberals appoint judges who are party donors
- Why Canada has the most activist Supreme Court in the world — and how it's changed the country
In a brief statement provided by Conservative Party of Canada (CPC) leader Pierre Poilievre’s office, the party’s justice critic MP Rob Moore strongly criticized the Liberals for their failure to appoint judges in a timely manner.
There are roughly 80 vacant seats currently waiting to be filled by the federal government, a situation nearing crisis levels and recently denounced by Supreme Court Chief Justice Richard Wagner.
“Appointing judges is the prime minister’s responsibility, but instead of filling the high number of vacancies to keep criminals off our streets, Trudeau is holding out to appoint his Liberal insider friends,” said Moore.
“Because Trudeau has failed to appoint judges, dangerous, violent criminals have walked away free because no judges were available to hear their cases,” he added, promising that his party would create a justice system where “victims, not criminals, come first.”
Fortin also pointed to previous media reports that highlighted the Liberals’ use of Liberalist, a partisan database, and MP party networks to vet potential judicial appointments before they are confirmed for the role.
The prime minister’s office said it no longer uses “partisan databases” to vet judicial candidates.
The NDP has seen a significant increase in party donors appointed as judges or tribunal members since the Liberals came to power, from 12.5 per cent in 2016 to 28 per cent of donor appointees in 2022. The party did not provide a response for comment by deadline.
Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark nationalpost.com and sign up for our politics newsletter, F
https://realwomenofcanada.ca/concern-about-judicial-appointments/
National Head Office
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 8813, Station T, Ottawa, ON K1G 3J1
Phone: 613.236.4001 Fax: 613.236.7203
Concern About Judicial Appointments
REAL Women of Canada Media Release. May 28, 2014.
It is astonishing to witness the sudden concern about judicial appointments.
The opposition parties and the legal establishment obviously feel threatened by Prime Minister Harper’s prerogative to make judicial appointments. Problems with the judicial appointment process never seemed to bother the politicians or the legal establishment before Mr. Harper’s tenure.
The former federal Liberal party was revealed, during the Gomery hearings in 2005 by Liberal organizer, Benoit Corbell, as having appointed to the Bench eight or ten Quebec lawyers who worked for the federal Liberal party in Quebec during the 2000 federal election. Further, thirteen other Quebec judges, appointed after the 2000 federal election, had donated money exclusively to the federal Liberal party in the years immediately preceding their appointments.
These patronage appointments to the Bench, however, were not limited to the province of Quebec, as a University of Guelph study, conducted in 2007, revealed that 30% of almost 1,000 judges appointed in other provinces from 1988-2003 – the years of Conservative Brian Mulroney and Liberal Jean Chrétien – donated to the party in power in the five years before they secured their jobs.
The judicial appointments made by former Liberal Justice Minister, Irwin Cotler (2004 – 2006), also reveal that a significant number of prominent Liberal politicians and friends were appointed to the Bench during his term of office (Source: Lawyers Weekly, May 20th, 2005).
Michael Brown – former Executive Assistant and Senior Policy Advisor to Mr. Cotler: appointed to the Ontario Superior Court;
Randall Echlin – former General Counsel to the Ontario Liberal party (who also contributed to Allan Rock’s leadership in 2002): appointed to the Ontario Superior Court;
Marsha Colleen Erb – Liberal fundraiser and personal friend of former Liberal Cabinet Minister Anne McLellan: appointed to the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench;
John J. Gill – Co-Chair in 2004 of the Alberta federal Liberal Campaign:
appointed to the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench;
Vital Ouellette – unsuccessful former Provincial and federal Liberal candidate for 3 elections: appointed to the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench;
Bryan Mahoney – unsuccessful federal candidate in Alberta in 2 federal elections: appointed to the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench;
Edmond Blanchard – former Liberal Finance Minister in New Brunswick:
appointed to the Federal Court;
Yves de Montigny – former Chief of Staff to Mr. Cotler: appointed to the Federal Court;
Georgette Sheridan – Liberal MP from Saskatoon, defeated in the 1997 federal election: appointed to the Federal Tax Court;
Rosalie Abella – wife of Irving Abella, friend of Mr. Cotler, both former Presidents of the Canadian Jewish Congress: appointed to the Supreme Court of Canada.
Perhaps the judicial appointments by Mr. Harper and the current concern about Madam Justice Beverley McLachlin contacting the government about judicial appointments, have more to do with politics than is being openly acknowledged.
Source: REAL Women of Canada
Harper organizer appointed to bench
New Brunswick lawyer Richard Bell has been appointed to sit as a judge in the Court of Queen's Bench in Moncton,in Prime Minister Stephen Harper's first round of judicial appointments.
Bell,a lawyer in Fredericton, is a former New Brunswick co-chair of Harper's political campaigns.
The federal Tories announced the appointment in Ottawa on Tuesday.
Bell has been a lawyer for26 years and is bilingual.He also has an interesting political history.
A former federal Liberal,in 1997 he lost a controversial nomination race in the riding of Tobique-Mactaquac.
He switched to the Canadian Alliance, which later merged to become the Conservative Party of Canada.
Bell co-chaired Harper's campaign for the leadership of the new party in 2004.
He also co-chaired the party's election campaigns in New Brunswick in 2004 and 2006.
Senior Federal Court judge under fire for objections to Indigenous principles and land acknowledgments
A senior judge of the Federal Court of Canada has strongly objected to showing respect for Indigenous people by acknowledging their unceded traditional lands in courtroom proceedings, a common practice at the Supreme Court of Canada as well as government and corporate events.
Justice Richard Bell was also critical of the Mi’kmaq concept known as “two-eyed seeing,” which encourages courts and other Canadian institutions to examine environmental and social issues from both Indigenous and Western perspectives.
Justice Bell made the remarks while hearing a judicial review case in Halifax in late May, challenging the federal government for failing to properly assess the risks of exploratory drilling for oil and gas off the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador. Sierra Club Canada, World Wildlife Fund and Ecology Action Centre were urging the court to quash a ruling by Ottawa to exempt the drilling from an environmental assessment.
“Aren’t we being a bit stereotypical toward the European version of the world in this two-eyed vision?” Justice Bell asked when the concept was raised in court. “Well, I don’t think my forebearers were very short-sighted about anything ... I don’t buy into any of that.”
As the case got underway on May 25, Justice Bell addressed lawyer James Gunvaldsen-Klaassen, who represents the three environmental groups, after he said: “I want to gratefully acknowledge that I live and work on the unceded territory of the Mi’kmaq, also known as Halifax, Nova Scotia.”
Justice Bell stopped Mr. Gunvaldsen-Klaassen and criticized him for making such an acknowledgement.
“This regard to the territory creates a problem for the court – any court – because we are called upon to decide territorial issues on a daily basis. So, what is the court supposed to respond when you do that?” Justice Bell said. “Do you understand the dilemma that puts judges in when they are faced with such an acknowledgement and we are supposed to sit there and say ‘yes,’ ‘no,’ [or] nothing. What do judges do, sir?”
It is standard practice before the Supreme Court of Canada and other courts to acknowledge unceded traditional Native lands in opening sessions or when governments or public institutions make announcements.
Mr. Gunvaldsen-Klaassen responded that he was expressing his “own personal conscience” and wasn’t seeking a finding from the court.
However, Justice Bell told Mr. Gunvaldsen-Klaassen that if he felt strongly about acknowledging traditional Indigenous territory, he should seek permission from First Nations leaders that he is coming on to their lands.
“Write the chiefs of the appropriate First Nations and get their permission, and then if you get their permission, then the Court will hear you,” he said. “In the future, you ask the permission of the First Nations you are concerned about.”
Canada’s first Indigenous justice minister, Jody Wilson-Raybould, would not comment directly on the case, but said recognizing First Nations territory at the outset of proceedings “in some ways complements the symbolism of the court and the evolution of our legal orders in Canada.”
The following day, Justice Bell took issue when Crown counsel lawyers Sarah Drodge and Melissa Grant raised the concept of “two-eyed seeing,” an idea first advocated by Mi’kmaq Elder Albert Marshal. He argued that “beneficial outcomes are much more likely in any given situation when we are willing to bring two or more perspectives into play.”
The two federal justice lawyers argued that consideration of Indigenous and Eurocentric views were a “great development,” adding that the two-eyed principle is being increasingly incorporated into government policy-making.
Justice Bell, who is also Chief Justice of the Court Martial Appeal Court of Canada, said he interpreted two-eyed seeing as giving the impression that “those of us of European descent are short-sighted and basically visionless.
“If my interpretation is correct and European peoples are supposed to be short-sighted, man, is that ever a misapplication ... of my experience with respect to what some very brave people did in the world in the past four or five or six hundred years,” he said. “Much of it doesn’t show a short-sighted vision of the world to me.”
Later in the proceedings, Justice Bell said, “maybe I was being over-sensitive” in raising objections to the concept of two-eyed seeing.
In a statement to The Globe and Mail on Sunday, Mr. Gunvaldsen-Klaassen said that the three environmental groups involved in the case “strongly disagree with the negative comments from the bench about the guiding principle” of two-eyed seeing.
“As predominantly settler organizations, it is incumbent on us to name and address systemic inequities and biases that disproportionately harm Indigenous peoples and communities,” he said. “It is essential to dismantle the white colonial privilege that exists within the legal profession and the administration of justice in Canada. This work is critical to building a more accessible justice system – one that is free of arbitrary barriers created by prejudice and white privilege, and trusted by all people in Canada.”
Ms. Wilson-Raybould added the justice system has interacted with Indigenous peoples differently, reflecting the legacy of deeply rooted colonialism.
“It is time for greater leadership by the bench, the bar and governments to move these changes forward in a systematic way,’ she said.
This is not the first time Justice Bell has engendered controversy. In 2017, he wrote a character reference for former federal judge Robin Camp after he stepped down following a Canadian Judicial Council recommendation that he be removed from the bench.
While sitting as a judge in 2014, Mr. Camp had asked why a rape complainant didn’t resist by keeping her knees together.
Justice Bell, a friend of Mr. Camp’s, wrote a letter of support to allow him to rejoin the legal profession. “He’s just a very, very good person,” he wrote.
https://willzuzak.ca/lp/cotler/cotler-press-2005-04-06.html
Fr. Alphonse de Valk, Catholic Insight, 06-Apr-2005
Cotler's drive for sodo-matrimony is in fact an assault upon the Christian foundations of Canadian society, in particular upon the family, which is the cornerstone of our whole national fabric.
The intemperate Mr. Cotler © Copyright 1997-2004 Catholic Insight Updated: Apr 6th, 2005 - 14:29:00 |
The Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, today announced the appointment of the Honourable Yves de Montigny, a judge of the Federal Court of Appeal, as the new Chief Justice of the Federal Court of Appeal.
Chief Justice de Montigny replaces the Honourable Marc Noël, who retired effective August 1, 2023.
Quote
“I wish the Honourable Yves de Montigny every success as he takes on his new role as Chief Justice of the Federal Court of Appeal. He is a respected member of the legal community and has extensive experience in many areas of the law. I am confident Chief Justice de Montigny will be a great asset to the Federal Court of Appeal.”
Quick Facts
- Chief Justices and Associate Chief Justices in Canada are responsible for the leadership and administration of their courts. They also serve as members of the Canadian Judicial Council, which works to improve the quality of judicial services in the superior courts of Canada.
- Chief Justices and Associate Chief Justices are appointed by the Governor General on the advice of Cabinet and the recommendation of the Prime Minister.
Biographical Note
Docket: A-156-23
Citation: 2023 FCA 225
CORAM: |
DE MONTIGNY C.J. GOYETTE J.A. HECKMAN J.A.
|
BETWEEN: |
THE MINISTER OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS |
Appellant |
and |
COLIN JAMES EWEN |
Respondent |
Heard at Ottawa, Ontario, on September 12, 2023.
Judgment delivered at Ottawa, Ontario, on November 16, 2023.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: |
DE MONTIGNY C.J. |
CONCURRED IN BY: |
GOYETTE J.A. HECKMAN J.A. |
Date: 20231116
Docket: A-156-23
Citation: 2023 FCA 225
CORAM: |
DE MONTIGNY C.J. GOYETTE J.A. HECKMAN J.A.
|
BETWEEN: |
THE MINISTER OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS |
Appellant |
and |
COLIN JAMES EWEN |
Respondent |
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
DE MONTIGNY C.J.
[1] This appeal raises a rather unusual question with respect to the jurisdiction of the Federal Court to order an interim stay within an urgent motion to stay a removal order (the Order). More specifically, the issue to be decided is whether the Motion Judge could, on his own motion, raise at the hearing an issue pursuant to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (U.K.), 1982, c. 11 (Charter), that is unrelated to any immigration matters and order an interim stay of the respondent’s removal from Canada in order to adjudicate that issue.
[2] Having carefully thought the matter through, I am of the view that this course of action was not only inappropriate and unwarranted, but more importantly, in excess of the Federal Court’s jurisdiction. For the reasons that follow, I would grant the appeal, quash the Federal Court’s interlocutory order of June 6, 2023 for lack of jurisdiction, and decline to refer the underlying motion for a stay to the Federal Court as doing so would serve no useful purpose.
I. Background
[3] The respondent, Mr. Colin James Ewen, is a citizen of the United Kingdom (UK) presently residing in Canada. He is the subject of a removal order because he was declared inadmissible to Canada by the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB) in October 2019, on grounds of serious criminality. This was based on the respondent’s three separate convictions of offences committed between 1997 and 2005 in the UK, one of which, if committed in Canada, would constitute an offence punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least ten years pursuant to paragraph 36(1)(b) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27 (IRPA). As a result, the IRB issued a deportation order (which is one of three types of removal orders) against him. The respondent was also charged with offences in Canada from 2013 to 2019, which did not form part of the IRB’s inadmissibility assessment.
[4] The respondent filed an application for leave and judicial review of the 2019 inadmissibility decision in January 2023, for which a decision on leave is still pending (IMM-748-23). He has also filed an application for leave and judicial review of the IRB’s 2019 removal order, which was dismissed by the Federal Court on August 18, 2023 (IMM-558-22).
[5] The respondent was first scheduled for removal on March 6, 2023, but the removal was deferred and rescheduled for April 12, 2023. The respondent made a request for deferral, which was refused by the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) on March 30, 2023; an application for judicial review of that decision was dismissed by the Federal Court on April 12, 2023 (IMM-4332-23). Nevertheless, the removal was again postponed due to a medical issue resulting in a hospital visit, and rescheduled for June 7, 2023 (Direction to report).
[6] The respondent again requested a deferral of his removal on the basis of arguments previously rejected by the CBSA and the Federal Court in his earlier proceedings. Additionally, he argued that he ought not to be removed to the UK until he either receives a medical diagnosis for his health issues, or a decision on both his application for judicial review of the IRB’s inadmissibility decision and on his pending spousal sponsorship application. This request was refused by the CBSA on May 31, 2023.
[7] On June 1, 2023, Mr. Ewen then filed with the Federal Court an application for leave and judicial review of the CBSA’s refusal to defer his removal, as well as a motion to stay the removal. The oral hearing of that stay motion took place on June 6, 2023.
[8] At the start of the hearing, the parties were asked if they had any preliminary matters to raise (to which they answered in the negative). The Motion Judge then raised on his own initiative a new issue in these terms:
I have, I have one issue, and it’s an issue that, that I’ve been observing for some time and this, this appears to be an opportunity to raise it. And it will come as a bit of a surprise to both parties […].
(Transcript, Public Appeal Book, Tab 3, at pp. 18-19.)
[9] The Motion Judge proceeded to highlight the use of “he”
and “him”
in the appellant’s written submissions to refer to the respondent, and
contrasted these with other parts of the appellant’s submissions where “they/their”
are used in reference to the respondent. After referring to many of
these discrepancies in the appellant’s written submissions, the Motion
Judge asked the appellant’s counsel whether the use of “they/their”
pronouns allegedly violated the respondent’s Charter right to his gender identity. After being told that “they”
was used as a gender neutral pronoun, he then turned to the respondent
and asked what he had to say about this. The respondent said that he
found the use of “they/their”
a little confusing, and the following exchange then took place between the Motion Judge and the respondent:
THE COURT: And how do you identify, Mr. Ewen? You identify as a he, a she or a they?
COLIN JAMES EWEN: I identify as a he.
THE COURT: And how do you feel about the Government of Canada identifying you as a they or a their or a them?
COLIN JAMES EWEN: It’s not very direct. If you’re dealing with someone that is he, it should be stated that he said this, he did that. Not they did this, or they did that, or them. It is pretty confusing as well.
THE COURT: What about your dignity? Does it affect your dignity?
COLIN JAMES EWEN: Kind of, yes, because it is not directly aimed at me, you know. I identify as a he, not a they, not a she, not a them.
(Transcript, Public Appeal Book, Tab 3, at p. 27.)
[10] The Motion Judge then directed the parties to file written submissions on three questions on the issue of gender identification and the Charter:
(i)Is gender identification a protected right under the Charter, specifically section 15?
(ii)If so, in the circumstances, has Mr. Ewen’s right to his gender identification been violated by the Government of Canada in its submissions on this judicial review application? and
(iii)If his right to gender identification has been violated, what is the appropriate remedy, if any, under section 24 of the Charter?
(See Transcript, Public Appeal Book, at p. 28. See also Order of Justice Bell dated June 6, 2023, (the Order), at pp. 14-15.)
[11] The Court made no final determination of the stay motion, but instead granted an interim stay of the removal, to an unspecified date, in order to receive the requested written submissions.
[12] In light of the Order granting an interim stay, the removal was cancelled. If Mr. Ewen is eventually to be removed at a later date, the CBSA will have to schedule a new removal date. At that point, Mr. Ewen will have the opportunity to make another request for deferral of removal and, if it is dismissed, an application for leave and for judicial review, and stay motion.
[13] Following the Order at issue in this appeal which, in addition to the granting of an interim stay, also required section 15 Charter submissions, the appellant filed a notice of appeal and brought a motion for a stay of the Order pending this appeal. This Court exceptionally granted a stay of the Order pending appeal, and ordered that the appeal be expedited as requested by the appellant. The appellant also consented to an order that, pending final judgment in this appeal, the respondent shall not be removed from Canada.
II. Issues
[14] This appeal raises three issues:
Does this Court have jurisdiction to hear this appeal of an interlocutory order of the Federal Court?
Did the Federal Court err by failing to exercise its jurisdiction to determine the stay motion before it, and/or exceed its jurisdiction by raising a new Charter issue that was not raised by the parties?
If the first two questions are answered in the affirmative, should this Court refer the stay motion back to the Federal Court?
III. Analysis
A. Does this Court have jurisdiction to hear this appeal of an interlocutory order of the Federal Court?
[15] It
is beyond dispute that interlocutory decisions in immigration matters
are not ordinarily subject to appeals pursuant to the preclusive clause
contained in paragraph 72(2)(e) of IRPA, which states that “no appeal lies from the decision of the Court with respect to the application or with respect to an interlocutory judgment”
.
Furthermore, an appeal from a final judgment is only available when the
judge rendering it certifies a serious question of general importance
(see paragraph 74(d) of IRPA).
[16] Yet, paragraph 27(1)(c) of the Federal Courts Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7 authorizes an appeal from an interlocutory judgment of the Federal Court. On the basis of that provision, a body of jurisprudence has developed, empowering this Court in exceptional circumstances to entertain an appeal of an interlocutory decision, or of a final decision where no question has been certified, despite the statutory bars found in the IRPA.
[17] In a long line of cases going back to at least the decision of this Court in Subhaschandran v. Canada (Solicitor General), 2005 FCA 27 at paras. 13, 17, it has been recognized that appellate review may be available when a case raises “very fundamental matters”
or “truly exceptional matters”
that “strike right at the rule of law”
: Mahjoub v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration),
2017 FCA 144 at paras. 19-21. There is an additional exception to the
rule that no appeal lies from interlocutory orders. Where the alleged
error has been made in the context of a “separate, divisible judicial act”
, and involves the exercise of a power that is not found in the IRPA, appellate review is not governed by that Act: Harkat v. Canada (Attorney General), 2021 FCA 209 at para. 25; Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Tobiass, [1997] 3 S.C.R. 391, 1997 CanLII 322 (S.C.C.) at para. 66.
[18] In my view, the case at bar exemplifies this second exception. The Motion Judge’s decision to order an interim stay to inquire into whether the Government of Canada’s use of gender-neutral pronouns in its submissions infringed the respondent’s Charter rights has no basis in the IRPA’s provisions. The preclusive clauses found in paragraphs 72(2)(e) and 74(d) of IRPA therefore cannot find application in the very particular and exceptional circumstances of this case.
B. Did the Federal court err by failing to exercise its jurisdiction to determine the stay motion before it, and/or exceed its jurisdiction by raising a new Charter issue that was not raised by the parties?
[19] The Federal Court exceeded its jurisdiction by unilaterally raising a new Charter issue that did not stem from the issues as framed by the parties, and that was irrelevant to the underlying motion for a stay of removal or the application for leave for judicial review.
[20] Reading from the transcript, it is obvious that the Motion Judge put an issue to the parties that was of particular interest to him, and that he knew such issue would come as a surprise to the parties. Before the parties could even address the merits of the respondent’s motion for a stay, the Motion Judge stated:
I have, I have one issue, and it’s an issue that, that I’ve been observing for some time and this, this appears to be an opportunity to raise it. And it will come as a bit of a surprise to both parties, but I’ll, I’ll go through it […].
(Transcript, Public Appeal Book, Tab 3, at pp. 18-19.)
[21] The Motion Judge then proceeded to take the appellant’s counsel through both parties’ records, highlighting the usage of “he”
and “him”
in reference to the respondent, and contrasted that usage with the inconsistent use of “he/him”
and “they/their”
pronouns in the appellant’s written submissions. Not being satisfied by
the appellant’s counsel’s oral response at the hearing that attempted
to clarify its usage of “they/their”
pronouns as gender-neutral terminology, and counsel’s apology for any
confusion caused, the Motion Judge adjourned the hearing and ordered an
interim stay until the Charter issue, that he had himself identified,
could be argued in a separate hearing and be ultimately decided.
[22] This course of action was flawed. In R. v. Mian, 2014 SCC 54 [Mian],
the Supreme Court provided some guidance as to when and how appellate
courts should exercise their discretion to raise new issues. While
recognizing that appellate courts have that discretion, the Supreme
Court signalled that it should be used sparingly and “only in rare circumstances”
. It further explained that a new issue should only be raised “when failing to do so would risk an injustice”
, “whether there is a sufficient record on which to raise the issue”
, and where it would not result in “procedural prejudice to any party”
(at para. 41). In my view, these guiding principles, which derive from
the dual role of courts to remain independent and impartial, and also to
ensure that justice is done, apply by analogy with equal force to a
reviewing court, especially in a summary procedure. In the case at bar, I
find that the Motion Judge failed to properly exercise his discretion
in raising a new issue.
[23] First, I fail to see how the failure to raise the section 15 Charter issue would have worked an injustice to the respondent, especially once the confusion was clarified at the hearing. I appreciate that the respondent is self-represented, but if he felt that his dignity was affected or imperiled by the use of gender-neutral pronouns, it was for him to raise it. His tentative answer at the hearing when prompted by the Court is far from convincing in this respect. Moreover, it is clear that counsel for the appellant was prejudiced by the Motion Judge’s unexpected line of reasoning to order an interim stay. Of course, the appellant was given the opportunity to address the Motion Judge’s concerns in writing at a later date, but that was done at the expense of being able to enforce a removal order and to have a timely decision of the Court on the motion for a stay of the Direction to report.
[24] Perhaps
more importantly, there was no sufficient record on which to raise the
Charter issue. This consideration is particularly important when a new
issue raised relates to the Charter. By raising a claim of Charter
infringement absent a sufficient evidentiary record, the Motion Judge
exceeded his jurisdiction and overstepped his role as an independent and
impartial judicial decision-maker. Contrary to the teachings of the
Supreme Court, he could be seen as going “in search of a wrong to right”
(Mian at para. 42).
[25] In several cases, this Court and the Supreme Court have cautioned that an administrative tribunal should not raise a new section 15 Charter issue on its own initiative: see, for example, Weatherley v. Canada (Attorney General), 2021 FCA 158 at para. 20. Similarly, in Kahkewistahaw First Nation v. Taypotat, 2015 SCC 30, the Supreme Court was quite clear that it was an error for a court of appeal to decide an appeal on the basis of a section 15 Charter violation in the absence of any factual record (paras. 25-27).
[26] In the present case, the requisite elements to determine a Charter issue were absent:
There was no statement of claim or notice of application alleging a Charter breach and pleading the required elements to which the appellant could respond;
There was no evidence before the Federal Court from the respondent respecting an alleged breach of his section 15 Charter rights;
The respondent did not raise the issue when the Federal Court asked if the parties had any preliminary issues, nor did he seek a declaration of a breach or a remedy under subsection 24(1) of the Charter; and
There was no opportunity to file evidence or to cross-examine.
[27] From
the very early cases dealing with Charter issues, the Supreme Court has
made it crystal clear that courts must not resolve them in a factual
vacuum. As the Court stated in Mackay v. Manitoba, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 357, 1989 CanLII 26 (S.C.C.) at p. 361 [Mackay], “[t]o attempt to do so would trivialize the Charter and inevitably result in ill-considered opinions”
. See also: R. v. Edwards Books and Art Ltd., [1986] 2 S.C.R. 713, 1986 CanLII 12 (S.C.C.) at pp. 762, 767-768; Konesavarathan v. University of Guelph Radio, 2020 FCA 148 at para. 12; Revell v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration),
2019 FCA 262 at para. 67. It is for a claimant to demonstrate, through
evidence, that there is a nexus between government action and an alleged
section 15 infringement.
[28] An urgent motion for a stay is obviously not the appropriate procedure to assess a new Charter claim, especially when the issue has not been raised by the parties in the underlying application for judicial review. These motions, by their very nature, are dealt with expeditiously and on the basis of a stripped-down record, and many of the procedural rights required for a Charter issue to be properly litigated and adjudicated are lacking. Further submissions, as ordered by the Motion Judge, will not cure these shortcomings. Moreover, a decision of the Federal Court on the Charter issue could be immune from appellate review as a result of section 72 of IRPA and the requirement of there being a certified question. Finally, I would add that subsection 18.2 of the Federal Courts Act does not authorize the granting of interim declarations in the context of an interim stay for relief, because declarations are final: see Francis v. Mohawk Council of Akwesasne, 1993 CarswellNat 423, [1993] F.C.J. No. 369 (F.C.) at para. 2; Peter Hogg, Wade Wright, and Patrick Monahan, Liability of the Crown, 4th ed. (Toronto: Thomson Reuters Canada, 2011) at p. 39.
[29] For all of the above reasons, I am of the view that the Order is fundamentally flawed and should be quashed.
[30] At the hearing and in his oral submissions, the respondent argued that the Federal Court properly exercised its jurisdiction in issuing the Order and the interim stay because in so doing, it was managing its proceedings to ensure that he was treated fairly and equally. The respondent is correct to point out that judges are advised to ensure equality in its proceedings, as well as to ensure that self-represented litigants are treated fairly: see Ethical Principles for Judges (Ottawa: The Canadian Judicial Council, 2021) at p. 35, para. 4.B.3 and p. 41, para. 5.A.8. For a recent application of these principles, see: Haynes v. Canada (Attorney General), 2023 FCA 158.
[31] While judges must strive to ensure that self-represented litigants receive the same level of procedurally fair justice as that accorded to other Canadians, these principles are not a licence to circumvent the scope of the Federal Courts Act. Furthermore, the advisory principles relate to procedural accommodations, and are not meant to authorize the judge to stray from their role as a neutral arbiter between the parties, and even much less to advocate on behalf of a party or to pursue their own line of inquiry. There is a line to be drawn between ensuring a procedurally fair process free from discrimination or other abusive behaviour, and raising a new substantive question (be it in relation to Charter rights) that is absent from the parties’ submissions and does not stem from the issues as framed by the parties.
C. If the first two questions are answered in the affirmative, should this Court refer the stay motion back to the Federal Court?
[32] Being of the view that the interim stay order should be quashed, the normal course of action would be to refer the matter back to the Federal Court so as to adjudicate the underlying motion for a stay.
[33] The appellant claims that when the respondent’s removal was cancelled, the stay motion became moot because there was no longer a live controversy between the parties: Borowski v. Canada (Attorney General), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 342, 1989 CanLII 123 (S.C.C.) at pp. 353-54 [Borowski]. He argues that this is not a case in which this Court should exercise its discretion to decide a moot matter: Borowski at pp. 358-363. The appellant also relies on the principle that courts should refrain from deciding questions where there is no obvious, useful purpose to be served by granting the relief sought or where a proceeding would have no practical effect.
[34] It is not necessary for the resolution of this matter to decide whether or not the stay motion is moot. Regardless of whether one invokes the case law on mootness or the case law to the effect that a matter should not be sent back following an appeal when no purpose would be served by such a remedy, the underlying motion for a stay can no longer proceed and should not proceed given the following circumstances.
[35] The respondent is no longer subject to an imminent enforced removal. In light of the interim stay order, the removal of the respondent could not occur on June 7 and was cancelled by the CBSA. As pointed out by the appellant, any future enforcement of the removal order will involve the following steps:
A new pre-removal interview;
A new removal date;
A new direction to report;
The opportunity for the respondent to submit a request for deferral of removal; and
A further opportunity, if unsuccessful on his request for deferral, to submit an application for leave and judicial review, as well as a new motion for a stay of removal.
[36] If the appellant were to choose to take these steps, the respondent would have an opportunity to make a request for deferral of removal. He could apply for leave and for judicial review of a negative deferral decision and could once again seek an urgent stay of removal on the basis of a fresh evidentiary record and of an updated set of circumstances.
[37] Returning the stay motion to the Federal Court would not promote judicial economy and would serve no useful purpose. Stay motions are meant to be summary proceedings to deal with an urgent situation, with a bare bone record and very little time for the Court to ponder the issues raised by the parties. Were this Court to refer the stay motion back to the Federal Court, it would be argued based on a stale record and on a set of circumstances over five months out of date, making any decision on the motion of limited relevance and usefulness. Now that Mr. Ewen is no longer subject to an imminent enforced removal pursuant to a Direction to report, it is preferable to leave the issues that he raised in his stay motion for the consideration of the Federal Court in the context of the underlying judicial review application or a contemporaneous record should a new motion for stay of removal be made.
IV. Conclusion
[38] For all of the above reasons, I would grant the appeal and set aside the Federal Court’s interlocutory Order of June 6, 2023. I would not refer the underlying stay motion back to the Federal Court, as this would serve no useful purpose. The interim stay ordered by this Court on June 29, 2023 of all proceedings in file IMM-6831-23 should be lifted with respect to the application for leave and judicial review. There shall be no costs in this appeal.
“Yves de Montigny”
C.J.
“I agree.
Nathalie Goyette J.A.”
“I agree.
Gerald Heckman J.A.”
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: |
A-156-23
|
|
|
STYLE OF CAUSE: |
THE MINISTER OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS v. COLIN JAMES EWEN
|
|
|
PLACE OF HEARING: |
Ottawa, Ontario
|
||
DATE OF HEARING: |
September 12, 2023
|
||
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: |
DE MONTIGNY c.j.
|
||
CONCURRED IN BY: |
GOYETTE J.A. HECKMAN J.A.
|
||
DATED: |
november 16, 2023
|
||
APPEARANCES:
Zoe Oxaal Nathan Joyal
|
For The Appellant
|
Colin James Ewen
|
For The Respondent (ON HIS OWN BEHALF)
|
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Shalene Curtis-Micallef Deputy Attorney General of Canada |
For The Appellant
|
No comments:
Post a Comment