From: Ministerial Correspondence Unit - Justice Canada <mcu@justice.gc.ca>
Date: Mon, Dec 23, 2024 at 2:44 PM
Subject: Automatic Reply
To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com>
Thank you for writing to the Honourable Arif Virani, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada.
Due to the volume of correspondence addressed to the Minister, please note that there may be a delay in processing your email. Rest assured that your message will be carefully reviewed.
We do not respond to correspondence that contains offensive language.
-------------------
Merci d'avoir écrit à l'honorable Arif Virani, ministre de la Justice et procureur
général du Canada.
En raison du volume de correspondance adressée au ministre, veuillez
prendre note qu'il pourrait y avoir un retard dans le traitement de
votre courriel. Nous tenons à vous assurer que votre message sera lu
avec soin.
Nous ne répondons pas à la correspondance contenant un langage offensant.
From: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Dec 23, 2024 at 2:44 PM
Subject: Fwd: Another year, another $100k or so for the lawyers.
To: <abrown@filion.on.ca>, <david.mcguinty@parl.gc.ca>, mcu <mcu@justice.gc.ca>, premier <premier@ontario.ca>, <pamela@whistleblowingcanada.com>
416.408.5563
abrown@filion.on.ca
Media Contact
Pamela Forward, President & Spokesperson
Cell 613-805-8266 Tel. 236-317-3949.
E-mail pamela@whistleblowingcanada.
From: Kelly Donovan <theethicalstandard@pb07.wixemails.com>
Date: Tue, Oct 15, 2024 at 1:19 PM
Subject: Last Hearing of 2024
To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com>
|
|
Date: Fri, Dec 20, 2024 at 12:11 PM
Subject: Another year, another $100k or so for the lawyers.
To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.
|
|
From: Ministerial Correspondence Unit - Justice Canada <mcu@justice.gc.ca>
Date: Mon, Dec 23, 2024 at 2:55 PM
Subject: Automatic Reply
To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com>
Thank you for writing to the Honourable Arif Virani, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada.
Due to the volume of correspondence addressed to the Minister, please note that there may be a delay in processing your email. Rest assured that your message will be carefully reviewed.
We do not respond to correspondence that contains offensive language.
-------------------
Merci d'avoir écrit à l'honorable Arif Virani, ministre de la Justice et procureur
général du Canada.
En raison du volume de correspondance adressée au ministre, veuillez
prendre note qu'il pourrait y avoir un retard dans le traitement de
votre courriel. Nous tenons à vous assurer que votre message sera lu
avec soin.
Nous ne répondons pas à la correspondance contenant un langage offensant.
From: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Dec 23, 2024 at 2:54 PM
Subject: Re: Another year, another $100k or so for the lawyers.
To: <abrown@filion.on.ca>, <david.mcguinty@parl.gc.ca>, mcu <mcu@justice.gc.ca>, premier <premier@ontario.ca>, <pamela@whistleblowingcanada.com>, <theethicalstandard@pb07.wixemails.com>
From: <pamela@whistleblowingcanada.
Date: Mon, Dec 23, 2024 at 2:50 PM
Subject: Out of Office
To: <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.
I am away until Jan. 6, 2025. I will respond as soon as I can on my return.
Pamela
President
Whistleblowing Canada Research Society
Tel. 236-317-3949
From: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, Oct 16, 2024 at 9:39 PM
Subject: Fwd: Your Inquiry to Whistleblower Partners
To: <mary@whistleblower.law>, <pamela@whistleblowingcanada.com>
If you wish to contact Whistleblowing Canada or any Director, you may use the contact form or telephone.
Telephone Nos. 236-317-3949 or 613-805-8266.
Our mailing address is:
701-1500 Riverside Dr., Ottawa, ON. K1G4J4
From: Luiza Sulikyan <luiza@whistleblower.law>
Date: Wed, Oct 16, 2024 at 7:53 PM
Subject: RE: Your Inquiry to Whistleblower Partners
To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.
Dear David,
Thank you for your case inquiry and for speaking with me. Unfortunately, I have conferred with colleagues, and Whistleblower Partners is declining to represent you in this matter. Our decision should not be read as a statement about the merits of your potential claim. Other firms may view your case differently and we encourage you to seek another opinion.
If you wish to pursue this matter, you should seek alternate counsel quickly. As time goes on, the risk increases that impediments to the claim might arise, or the claim might be barred entirely. These include, but are not limited to, the statute of limitations running out, evidence being lost, another whistleblower filing a claim before you, or a public disclosure of allegations similar to yours.
Sincerely,
Luiza Sulikyan
Luiza Sulikyan
LEGAL ASSISTANT
in |
Office: 415 707 6855 | Direct: 415 707 6864
luiza@whistleblower.law
From: Luiza Sulikyan
Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2024 12:36 PM
To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.
Subject: RE: Your Inquiry to Whistleblower Partners
Received, thank you. I will forward this to the attorney for review.
Best,
Luiza
Luiza Sulikyan
LEGAL ASSISTANT
in |
Office: 415 707 6855 | Direct: 415 707 6864
luiza@whistleblower.law
From: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.
Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2024 12:28 PM
To: Luiza Sulikyan <luiza@whistleblower.law>
Subject: Re: Your Inquiry to Whistleblower Partners
|
CAUTION: This is an external email. |
Full Committee Hearing
Review of Current Investigations and Regulatory Actions Regarding the Mutual Fund Industry
Date: Thursday, November 20, 2003 Time: 02:00 PM
Topic
The Committee will meet in OPEN SESSION to conduct the second in a series of hearings on the “Review of Current Investigations and Regulatory Actions Regarding the Mutual Fund Industry.”
Witnesses
Witness Panel 1
- Mr. Stephen M. Cutler
Director - Division of Enforcement
Securities and Exchange Commission
- Mr. Robert Glauber
Chairman and CEO
National Association of Securities Dealers
- Eliot Spitzer
Attorney General
State of New York
On Tue, Oct 15, 2024 at 4:21 PM Luiza Sulikyan <luiza@whistleblower.law> wrote:
Hello David,
It was a pleasure speaking with you on the phone. Feel free to send me the links that you mentioned, and I will send them to Mary Inman for review along with my notes from our phone call.Sincerely,
Luiza Sulikyan
Luiza Sulikyan
LEGAL ASSISTANT
in | Office: 415 707 6855 | Direct: 415 707 6864
luiza@whistleblower.lawSan Francisco
4 Embarcadero Center, Suite 1400
San Francisco, CA 94111
www.whistleblower.law
Vision, Mission, Values
Vision
We see a Canada where no truth-teller is punished for
telling the truth. Whistleblowing laws and cultures, both in Canadian
society at large and in its organizations, respect, protect, support,
value and
reward honest truth-tellers and appropriately address and sanction misconduct and wrongdoers.
Purpose and Mission
Whistleblowing Canada’s purpose is to advance education and understanding of the whistleblowing phenomenon through research thus capturing existing knowledge, discovering new knowledge and disseminating this information publicly.
Our mission is to improve the practice of whistleblowing, the lives of whistleblowers and Canadians at large and accountability in Canadian organizations by sharing knowledge through seminars, conferences, lectures and training for the benefit of the general public as well as employees, whistleblowers and leaders in Canadian public and private organizations.
Through research and education we will:
- identify solutions to common problems and best practices in relation to the identified issues and share the information publicly
- inform and engage Canadians in dialogue on whistleblowing and the development of a safe whistleblowing culture in Canada where truth-tellers are valued rather than punished
- inform the development of cultures where truth-tellers are recognized in tangible ways for their contribution to maintaining open, accountable, ethical public, private and non-profit sector organizations and democracy
- provide programs and services in support of our mission
We are supported by public donations, supplemented by volunteers, an annual benefit, and foundation grants for special initiatives such as case studies, seminars, panel discussions and conferences.
Values Statement
The founders of Whistleblowing Canada join with others around the world who respect whistleblowing as a basic human right and an element of a free and democratic society. At the core of these beliefs is an effort to help shape the values and norms that will prevail in our country’s social, cultural, economic and political life.
Board of Directors
Whistleblowing Canada is governed by a volunteer Board of Directors.
Pamela Forward, MA, GCCR - President
Pamela Forward is a workplace mediator, researcher and founding Director of Whistleblowing Canada. A graduate of Carleton University (BA Political Science, Graduate Studies in Conflict Resolution, MA Legal Studies) and a former registered nurse, Pamela has had a varied career in business, health care and government (federal public service and advisor to federal cabinet Ministers). Over the years, much of her work has been with people in conflict and crisis situations. As well, she has coached new mediators in Carleton University’s, Department of Law- Conflict Resolution Program, and law students in the University of Ottawa, Department of Law.
Pamela’s experience includes both management and advisory positions at the national and international levels. She has been active in professional organizations, community organizations, and political organizations throughout her career which included running as a Candidate for a seat in Ontario's legislature. Her interest in whistleblowing advocacy began in the 1990’s when she joined with others to support whistleblowers in the Federal Public Service.
Her in-depth, qualitative case study on whistleblowing and drug safety issues at Health Canada, a federal department, was aimed at better understanding why reprisals occur. The study highlighted many system flaws resulting in reprisals against truth-tellers and impunity for wrong-doers.
This blend of knowledge and experience has stimulated an abiding interest in supporting conflict-friendly, ethical and accountable organizations and inspired the founding of Whistleblowing Canada Research Society. A native Newfoundlander, Pamela has traveled extensively, particularly in the Middle and Far East and has lived in Spain.
Jennifer Fraser, PhD - Director, Secretary
Dr. Jennifer Fraser is the founder of Bullied Brain.com. She has a PhD in Comparative Literature from the University of Toronto. She has been published by an American and a Canadian university press. An award-winning teacher of 20 years, Jennifer taught literature classes at U of T and ultimately university prep schools where she also directed youth theatre. In 2012, Jennifer was pulled into a child abuse crisis at the school where she was working. When it became apparent that the Board and school administrators were going to cover up, she reported to the Commissioner for Teacher Regulation.
When it became apparent that the Commissioner was going to cover up, she took his corrupt decisions and gave them to the Ombudsperson's Office in British Columbia. The cover up by the school and government were exposed on the front page of the Toronto Star and on CTV's W5 investigative journalism show. She published a book about the crisis, Teaching Bullies: Zero Tolerance on the Court or in the Classroom. This book went to number one on Amazon in the sport psychology category. Jennifer's knowledge of child abuse in another BC private school led to frantic requests for the foot-dragging Ombudsperson’s Office to intervene. Her significant concern was that this latest victim was suicidal, but the Ombuds was not moved. The student killed herself on November 21, 2017.
Jennifer's new book, The Bullied Brain: Heal Your Scars and Restore Your Health is to save individuals like her student from seeking support from those in power and authority as finding such support is doubtful. It teaches individuals how to prevent the brain scarring bullying and abuse that are rampant in our society and how to heal if the harm has been done. Dr. Michael Merzenich, the "Father of Neuroplasticity" says The Bullied Brain is "scientifically the most thorough treatment of the subject on planet earth."
Now coaching clients, doing speaking engagements, teaching online and in person courses, giving interviews, writing a blog "How I Became an Unlikely Whistleblower," for her website BulliedBrain.com and writing a regular blog for PsychologyToday, Jennifer hopes to bring about healthy, positive change especially for children and youth.
Paloma Raggo, PhD - Director
Dr. Paloma Raggo is an assistant professor at the School of Public Policy and Administration and teaches in the Master of Philanthropy and Nonprofit Leadership (MPNL) program. Carleton University’s new Master of Philanthropy and Nonprofit Leadership is the first and only program of its kind in Canada. Paloma has a PhD in political science with a dual specialty in public policy/administration and international relations from the Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs at Syracuse University. Her research interests include international nonprofit/INGO leadership, organizational accountability, global philanthropy, online teaching, and mixed methodologies. From 2011 to 2013, she served as the associate director of the Institute for Qualitative and Multi-Method Research (IQMR) of the Consortium for Qualitative Research Methods held at Syracuse University. She has received research related awards from the Canadian Association of Nonprofit Research and Social Economy Research (ANSER-ARES) (Best Thesis 2015), the Association for Research on Nonprofit Organizations and Voluntary Action (ARNOVA) (Emergent Scholar Award 2014), the Society for Political Methodology and the Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research (ICPSR) (John Garcia Award 2011). She is currently working on her book: Leadership and Accountability in International Nonprofit Organizations and has received funding from SSHRC for a project on transnational accountability.
Dr. Dan Ryan - Director
Dr. Daniel A.J. Ryan is a seasoned leader, statistician, and educator with over 30 years of experience driving innovation and positive change in higher education and research. With expertise in modern data analytics and emerging technologies, Dr. Ryan has held senior leadership positions at five Canadian universities and two research institutions, where he has been instrumental in shaping educational programs that align with community priorities.
A dedicated advocate for community engagement, Dr. Ryan has served on numerous public and not-for-profit boards, contributing to initiatives that enhance education, research, and public service. His strategic approach to leadership has consistently fostered collaborations between academia, industry, and the public sector.
Dr. Ryan holds a BSc in Honours Biology and an MSc and PhD in Applied Statistics from the University of Guelph. His academic and professional career has spanned Ontario, Nova Scotia, Australia, Prince Edward Island, and British Columbia, underscoring his global perspective and commitment to educational excellence.
Marc Tasse - Director -Treasurer
Marc Tasse, MBA, CPA, CA, CFFF, CPA (USA), CFS (USA), CICA (USA), CACM (USA) is a part-time Professor at the University of Ottawa’s Faculty of Law and the Telfer School of Business.
With more than 30 years of international experience, Mr. Tassé is recognized by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), the World Bank Group (WBG), the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and Transparency International (TI), as an international leading expert in the fight against bribery, corruption and money laundering.
Among Canadian public initiatives, Mr. Tassé has testified twice before the Canadian House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance, and once before the Canadian House of Commons Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics.
A sought-after investigative and forensic accountant, with experience with a Big 4 accounting firm (Deloitte), Tassé is a guest contributor on fraud, corruption and ethical misconduct for CBC/Radio-Canada.
Tassé has been published internationally and quoted extensively, in various prestigious publications including The Financial Post, The Globe and Mail, and The Wall Street Journal. He regularly delivers various awareness sessions on ethical issues to management and executives of Fortune 500 companies.
An award-winning lecturer at the University of Ottawa’s Faculty of Law and at the Telfer Executive MBA program, Mr. Tassé has delivered various presentations on corporate ethics and financial crimes, at some of the world’s premier universities such as Harvard University.
Advisory Board
Canada
Dean Baxendale, is a distinguished figure in the realms of communications and publishing, currently serving as the CEO of Optimum Publishing International and the China Democracy Fund. With a prolific career that spans various facets of the industry, he is celebrated for his roles as an entrepreneur, writer, columnist, publisher, educator, and communications specialist. Baxendale's academic journey began at the British Columbia Institute of Technology, where he completed a degree in Marketing Management in 1980, followed by studies in economics at Simon Fraser University in British Columbia, Canada.
From a young age, Baxendale harbored a deep interest in civic engagement and politics, a passion that has informed his lifelong commitment to public policy. His expertise has significantly impacted several domains, including healthcare, Indigenous rights, technology, and industrial infrastructure, collaborating with both the Liberal and Conservative parties of Canada.
In 2017, Baxendale took the helm of Optimum Publishing International, revitalizing the forty-five-year- old legacy left by its founder, Michael Baxendale. Under his leadership, Optimum has carved a niche in publishing works focused on public policy, global affairs, transnational organized crime, global human rights issues, and geopolitics. He has authored six notable books critiquing the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) human rights practices, transnational repression, and their extensive efforts to sway academia, business, and politics in the Western sphere, with four titles achieving recognition on the Globe and Mail Best Seller List.
Since 2021, Baxendale has been an influential voice against the CCP’s human rights violations and their complex web of influence operations and hybrid warfare tactics, contributing articles, columns, and academic papers on the subject. He has also been an active speaker, shedding light on these critical issues.
Collaborating with prestigious international organizations, including Hong Kong Watch, The Institute of Public Administration of Canada (IPAC), and the MacDonald Laurier Institute, Baxendale has played a pivotal role in human rights conferences and China-focused initiatives. His commitment to publishing integrity is evident in his work with whistleblowers and investigative journalists, ensuring that stories of truth are told with the utmost confidentiality and respect for those courageous enough to challenge power.
Dean Baxendale’s career is a testament to his unwavering dedication to fostering transparency, advocating for human rights, and contributing to informed public discourse through his publishing endeavors.
Dan Behiels is a former Detective and whistleblower from Edmonton, Alberta. He is trained in complex investigation practices and has experience in organized crime, money laundering, and concealed homicide protocols. Dan is an accredited project manager (PMP) and has worked on legislation and policy initiatives to protect whistleblowers in Alberta.
Carroll Boydell teaches in the Criminology Department at Kwantlen Polytechnic University in Surrey, British Columbia. She holds an MA and a PhD in Forensic Psychology and Law from Simon Fraser University. She teaches a variety of courses about psychological aspects and explanations of criminal and deviant behaviour. Her research interests lie at the intersection of psychology and the law and focuses on disclosures of wrongdoing made by witnesses and informants, and how the accuracy of their disclosures can be improved.
Carroll has recently completed a study on:
Grant Buchan-Terrell is a seasoned lawyer, having advised public and private corporations since 1978 (in Ontario, Manitoba and Alberta). His expertise includes high-level, high-stake corporate and partnership governance, financings, shareholder dispute resolution, venture capital, insolvency, oppression remedies, employment, intellectual property (IP) advisory and securities law (due diligence, exempt offerings, advisor registration/regulation and IPOs). Grant’s current private practice is focused exclusively on business law – selling/buying a business and corporate/partnership governance. Before founding his own boutique firm – gbtlaw - on January 1, 2000, Grant practiced in large, medium and small law firms, and had a short stint as an inhouse counsel. From law school to the present, Grant has participated in a wide variety of local, GTA and provincial charities such as St. John Ambulance and NFPs, as well as organizations like Lions, Toastmasters and Junior Achievement. He has been a regular business law columnist for several Halton and area publications.
Capt. Sean Bruyea (Ret’d) served as an Intelligence Officer in the Canadian Air Force. As a leading advocate for the rights of serving military members, Veterans and their families, Sean Bruyea has made hundreds of media appearances as well as authoured over 125 articles appearing in most major Canadian newspapers and magazines over the past 20 years. As an outsider whistleblower he has blown the whistle repeatedly on government’s unfair and circumspect treatment of our disabled Veterans and their families.
Garry W.G. Clement is Chief Anti-money Laundering Officer for Versabank and President and CEO of Clement Advisory Group. During his 34 years of policing experience Garry has worked in roles as the National Director for the RCMP’s Proceeds of Crime Program, Liaison Officer in the Hong Kong Canadian High Commission, and has also worked as an investigator and undercover operator in some of the highest organized crime levels throughout Canada.
He has received numerous awards and commendations for his investigative abilities. Garry has authored and/or co-authored several papers in national and international publications on organized crime and money-laundering. He is also qualified as an expert witness on organized crime, money laundering, drug trafficking networks – both national and international - and Asian-based organized crime.
Kelly Donovan is a graduate of the University of Western Ontario, where she played varsity rugby, and holds a Bachelor of Science in Statistics. She entered into policing later in life after having a negative experience with police. A few years into her career, Kelly tried to expose corrupt practices when police investigate themselves, yet the retaliation she faced immediately following her unprotected disclosure led to her resignation. Kelly is now the change she wants to see in the world, as her corporation Fit4Duty – The Ethical Standard provides independent whistleblower program administration. Kelly’s advocacy has resulted in positive changes to policing laws in Ontario, Canada, and she continues to be a leading voice for ethical change in policing in Canada. Kelly knows better than anyone else that Canadian whistleblowers face a lifetime of retaliation. She has faced legal action by her former police service since 2018 which has already cost the public over $700,000.00. She works tirelessly towards laws that will ensure ethical Canadians are protected when they speak up about powerful individuals. Kelly’s website chronicles her journey as a police whistleblower: www.policevswhistleblower.ca
Julie Gouin, M.A., c.o., ASC is a licensed Guidance Counsellor and consultant in organizational psychology based in Québec. Since 2007, she has worked with individuals on career-related issues and helped organizations select and develop competent leaders. She has also served on the board of several non- profits and public institutions.
Julie Gouin holds a master's degree in counseling psychology and a bachelor's degree in international studies and modern languages from Université Laval, and a graduate diploma in nature and adventure- based intervention from UQAC. She is also a certified corporate director (ASC), having completed a university certification in corporate governance at the Collège des administrateurs de sociétés of Université Laval.
Having blown the whistle herself and suffered retaliation and the ensuing trauma, she has developed a keen interest in ethical suffering, moral injury, power and ego in the workplace, and the links between governance and organizational climate.
Joanna Gualtieri, Lawyer, was a pioneer in the whistleblowing movement in Canada, advocating that honest employees must have the right to speak out about workplace wrongdoing that threatens the public interest.
In the 1990s, Gualtieri worked as an analyst at Canada’s Department of Foreign Affairs. She identified what she believed to be systemic and widespread abuse of public monies, enabling lavish lifestyles for Canada’s diplomats through the provision of extravagant overseas diplomatic residences. This systemic abuse was estimated to cost taxpayers billions of dollars, in violation of the government’s own laws and policies.
As a lawyer, Joanna believed that the rule of law dictated that corrective action need be taken. As a citizen, Joanna believed the public had a right to honest, transparent, and responsible government. Unwilling to turn a blind eye, Gualtieri brought suit against not only the government but senior department officials to hold them accountable. In a landmark “David vs Goliath” case spanning more than a decade — making it the longest court case ever litigated in the Superior Court in Ottawa — Gualtieri fought for integrity, accountability and whistleblower rights.
After close to three decades work, Joanna has returned to her foundational belief: that any prosperous, free and accountable democracy requires an enlightened and engaged citizenry as the most potent force to challenge and reform governmental and institutional abuses of power and wrongdoing. While laws are essential, so too is an enlightenment cultural shift that appropriately recognizes the public’s collective power. To this end, Joanna is working on the development of TIP (The Integrity Principle), a project to educate and embolden young people about the indispensable role of integrity in vocational life by engaging them in real-life stories of ordinary people living integrity in action.
Sean Holman Associate Professor, Wayne Crookes Professor of Environmental and Climate Journalism at the University of Victoria.
Sean joined the faculty in 2021 from Mount Royal University, where he was an associate professor of journalism. Before entering academia, Sean was an investigative journalist and documentary filmmaker in British Columbia. As a journalist, he was best known as the founder and publisher of the pioneering online public affairs news service Public Eye, as well as the host and producer of the syndicated talk show Public Eye Radio. His bylines have appeared in the Columbia Journalism Review, the Globe and Mail, the Toronto Star, the Vancouver Sun, and the Times-Colonist. Sean is a frequent commentator on climate change coverage and government secrecy. His research focuses on how we use and misuse information, particularly against the backdrop of catastrophic climate change and biodiversity loss, as well as democratic decline.
Nancy Olivieri, MD, MA, FRCP(c) an internist and hematologist, began clinical research in the hemoglobin disorders, thalassemia and sickle cell disease at the Hospital for Sick Children, University of Toronto in 1982. In 2003, she obtained a Masters in Medical ethics and Law from King’s College, London, UK with a thesis examining ethical dilemmas in medical research.
Olivieri is famous for raising doubts about an experimental drug with which she was treating thalassemia patients. The drug was deferiprone and the drug company involved was Apotex. Once Olivieri discovered preliminary evidence of deferiprone’s toxicity, she did her duty and warned her patients as was her moral obligation. She did this in the face of hospital harrassment and company threats intended to silence her. She has been honored for so doing.
Her principled stand in putting patient safety first and the resulting scandal led to many changes. Her struggles and the sordid circumstances that were brought to light, eventually led universities to offer researchers some protection against illegitimate drug company pressure. Medical journals changed their publication rules. Research hospitals changed their policies.
Dr. Olivieri is currently Professor of Pediatrics, Medicine, and Public Health Sciences at University of Toronto, Senior Scientist at the Toronto General Hospital and Executive Director at Hemoglobal.
Vicky Poirier is a Chartered Professional Accountant (CPA) and expert in Forensic Accounting (CPA∙IFA, CFF). For the past ten years, she has owned and managed the Quantum Group, which regroups three complementary companies. She has over 27 years of experience in professional services. Ms. Poirier has been involved in processing hundreds of complaints, from managing their reception and supporting the authors of the complaints, to coordinating their treatment, analyzing their admissibility and investigating them in-depth. The quality of the services rendered by her and her team makes them a service provider of excellence and a leader in Quebec and Canada.
In 2016, Ms. Poirier and her team developed ALIASTM, a confidential and anonymous reporting mechanism. This technological tool, as well as the professional services that complement it, are present in several types of organizations (NPOs, SMEs, municipalities, sports federations, Crown corporations), in Canada and internationally. These services include expert investigative services and independent management of the reporting mechanism. Ms. Poirier also conducts training sessions and conferences about reprehensible acts prevention, investigation processes, interrogation techniques, etc.
Richard Rapoport is a Psychotherapist, Sex and couple counsellor, Clinical Supervisor, Organizational Consultant/Trauma Specialist, teacher, and author with both public and private sector experience in Canada and the United States.
He has decades of professional practice and personal experience with victimization by organizational and corporate harassment, intimidation, denigration, and immoral acts in the workplace environment, often compounded by the inability to seek recourse, appeal or justice.
His goal in working with organizations is to induce “Climate Change” in groups experiencing considerable stress, change, uncertainty, and even danger.
Richard has developed and presented bilingual corporate webinars on workplace harassment and bullying and the dehumanization of the victim for various organizations, including UNESCO.
He has worked with the Canadian Armed Forces (in addition to six years of military service in the U.S. Army and Canadian military), Indigenous First Nations settings, in Palliative Care and with professional athletes including World Champions, members of the NHL, and with police organizations, and emergency medical technicians.
Richard served as a talk radio therapist (‘Shrinkrap’) and television guest for many years, in addition to taking part in media related to the psychological impacts of working in prison environments.
He currently sees clients privately, from Health Canada, the Quebec Ministry of Health and Social Services, and is an Organizational Emergency Intervenor for Homewood Health and is a part-time Book Reviewer at the Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy.
Brent Rathgeber QC is a lawyer, author and former politician. Originally from Melville, Saskatchewan, he is currently practicing law in Edmonton, Alberta. He is a former Member of the Legislative Assembly of Alberta and a former Member of Parliament representing constituents from that province. On June 5, 2013, while an MP, Brent resigned from the Conservative caucus due to its lack of commitment to transparency and open government. He then sat as an Independent Member of Parliament.
In September 2014, Brent published his first book, “Irresponsible Government- The Decline of Parliamentary Democracy In Canada”. It chronicles the devolution of Parliamentary supremacy and transition to Executive Government, and provides prescriptions for re-calibrating power between the elected Parliament and the unelected Prime Minister’s Office. In 2015, Irresponsible Government was shortlisted for the Kobo Canadian Emergent Author Prize in the non-fiction category. Brent has become a tireless advocate for Parliamentary reform and has Op Ed pieces published in the National Post, Toronto Star, iPolitics and the Huffington Post.
In November 2014, Brent was awarded the honour of “Member of Parliament who best represents his constituents” by Maclean’s magazine. Awarded by all fellow MPs, the honour recognizes his ability to represent constituents more effectively when freed from party positions and discipline. Following the 2015 federal election, he returned to private life and the practice of law.
He now specializes in Alternative Dispute Resolution (Mediation and Arbitration). In 2018, he was appointed Ethics Advisor to the City of Edmonton (Elected Councilors). In 2019, he joined the Alberta Insurance Council (Regulator) as Director of Policy and General Counsel.
Brent lives in Edmonton with his spouse Katrina Black. In his spare time he enjoys sports, fitness, music, reading and writing.
Nadia Smaili, PhD, CPA, CGA, CFE, CFF, is a Full Professor of Accounting at the School of Management Science, University of Quebec in Montreal (ESG UQAM). Professor Smaili’s research focuses on financial statements fraud, whistleblowing and corporate governance. She has published in Journal of Business Ethics, ll, Journal of Management and Governance, Comptabilité- Contrôle-Audit (CCA) and Journal of Applied Business Research. Professor Smaili holds a Ph.D in business administration from HEC Montreal. She has developed several courses and postgraduate programs related to prevention and detection of fraud.
Kelly VanBuskirk, Q.C., PhD., C. Arb, practices in the field of litigation with emphasis on labour and employment law and human rights. He is an adjunct professor in the Faculty of Business at the University of New Brunswick and is a part-time instructor in the Faculty of Law. Kelly teaches the U.N.B. Workplace Investigations certificate course and has designed and implemented respectful workplace training programs for international organizations.
His current research interests include employee claims motivations, dispute resolution models, workplace harassment and accommodation of disabilities. Kelly’s articles and commentaries have appeared in many magazines, journals, newspapers, radio and TV. His book titled "Why Employees Sue: Rethinking Approaches to the Resolution of Employment Conflicts", was published by Thompson Reuters in April 2017.
Danny Weill is a business executive and qualified mediator who oversees the overall growth and strategy of ALIAS, a leading Canadian-based organization providing services in whistleblowing, case management and investigations. In working with large clients across a variety of sectors (including sports, not-for-profit, municipal work, education, etc), Danny brings a trauma-informed outlook to the two sides of the coin: the vantage point of the organization (risk management, action-oriented, and “doing the right thing”) and the whistleblower (reporting safely and confidently without fear of reprisal). In addition to his work in whistleblowing reporting, Danny also has a background in mental health industry, having helped deliver mental health services to millions around the world.
International
Mary Inman is a partner in the San Francisco office of Whistleblower Partners LLP and a veteran whistleblower lawyer, having worked exclusively representing whistleblowers for the past 26 years under the increasing array of U.S. and international whistleblower reward programs. Mary has helped her clients, including Theranos whistleblower Tyler Shultz and Facebook whistleblower Frances Haugen, forge partnerships with the various government agencies who leverage whistleblower information to expose corporate frauds across the tech, defence, healthcare, and finance industries. Mary is an internationally recognized expert on the extraterritorial reach of the U.S. whistleblower reward programs and a regular commentator on all things whistleblower for the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg, BBC, FT, Fortune and Time.
Tom Devine is Legal Director for the Government Accountability Project based in Washington, D.C. He is the Legal Director, and has worked at the organization since 1979. Since that time, Tom has formally or informally assisted over 7,000 whistleblowers in defending themselves against retaliation and in making real differences on behalf of the public – such as shuttering accident-prone nuclear power plants, rebuffing industry ploys to deregulate government meat inspection, blocking the next generation of the bloated and porous “Star Wars” missile defense systems, instituting a national commercial milk testing program for illegal animal drugs; and sparking the withdrawal of dangerous prescription drugs such as Vioxx. He has not lost a case since 2006, and has prevailed in advocacy at numerous U.S. courts of appeals as well as the Supreme Court.
Tom has been a leader in the campaigns to pass or defend 34 national or international whistleblower laws, including nearly all in the U.S. federally enacted over the last two decades.
Tom is the recipient of numerous awards and has authored or co-authored many books and other publications.
Ian Foxley is Founding Trustee and CEO of Parrhesia Inc., a retired army Lieutenant Colonel and the Founding Chairman of Whistleblowers UK.
In a 24-year army career he commanded a parachute squadron and 3rd (UK) Division Headquarters and Signal Regiment on operations in Bosnia-Herzegovina as well as appointments in Counter Terrorism (Special Projects) and Communications and Surveillance equipment procurement in the Ministry of Defence and has had many other achievements and awards.
His 15 years in commercial life, as a Procurement Project Manager, culminated as Programme Director for an Airbus Group subsidiary in a £1.96 billion UK Government project to modernise defence communications for the Saudi Arabian National Guard. In 2010, at great personal and professional risk, he blew the whistle after discovering secret payments to ‘additional’ sub-contractors in the Cayman Islands. His disclosures, and absolute commitment over the past ten years, directly initiated wider investigations into Airbus Group resulting in the largest fine (£3.6 billion) ever imposed on a commercial company under a Deferred Prosecution Agreement in the world. The direct benefit to the UK Exchequer has been over £900 million along with a significant, and globally acknowledged, success to UK law enforcement in the fight against corruption.
He co-founded Whistleblowers UK in 2012 as a whistleblower support group, and acted as Chairman until 2015, establishing the whistleblowing study programme at the annual Cambridge International Symposium on Economic Crime. He has contributed and co- ordinated responses to national consultations (Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards (PCOBS), the Business Innovations and Skills Departmental Consultation on Whistleblowing, the Armed Forces (Service Complaints and Financial Assistance) Act 2015, PCAW’s Whistleblowing Commission, the Independent Review of Whistleblowing in the NHS (Freedom to Speak Up), the Home Office Review of the UK Anti-17 Corruption Strategy, and the Independent Review of the Financial Reporting Council.
He is currently a member of the British Standards Institute (BSI) Standards Committee Panel on Whistleblowing and a research panel advisory member for an Economic and Social Research Council
Jacqueline Garrick, LCSW-C, BCETS, SHRM-CP, WPA
Executive Director, FAR Group (SDVOSB)
President/CEO, Whistleblowers of America
Ms.
Garrick founded Whistleblowers of America (WoA) as a nonprofit in 2017,
which provides voluntary peer support to those suffering the impacts of
Workplace Traumatic Stress. She developed the Whistleblower Retaliation
Checklist© (WRC) to identify negative psychosocial impacts on
victimized employees and provides forensic testimony. She is on the
Board of Directors for Brighton Marine, a homeless program in Boston.
Over the last few years, Professor Garrick, has taught for the
University of Southern California, School of Social Work and has
supervised interns from the University of West Florida. She is also
founder of the Workplace Promise Institute opened in Pensacola, FL in
2021, which is also the title of the annual conference WoA hosts.
Previously, she served as a US Army Social Work Officer and in executive
positions at the American Legion, the Departments of Veterans Affairs
(VA) and Defense (DoD) and with the US Congress House Committee on
Veterans Affairs. Her areas of expertise include policy and program
development for disabled veterans/wounded warriors, whistleblower mental
health, suicide prevention, and organizational leadership development.
She is a recognized public servant with awards from several
distinguished organizations. She is the founder of the FAR Group, which
provides consultation to public and private organizations that need
development, advocacy, and educational support. Ms. Garrick is a
published authored, media source, and an international public speaker
having also worked on projects in the former Soviet Union, for the US
military in Germany and Afghanistan, and the World Health Organization
in Switzerland. She has been an invited speaker in the United Kingdom,
South Africa, Greece, and Israel because of her co-authored book, The
Psychosocial Impacts of Whistleblower Retaliation. She is a social work
master’s graduate from Temple University and is currently enrolled in a
doctorate program at Middlesex University. Additional career training
was at Johns Hopkins and the Harvard Kennedy School of Government. She
is a licensed social worker (LCSW-C) in MD and is credentialed through
the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM-CP), a Board- Certified
Expert in Traumatic Stress (BCETS) and Whistleblower Protection Advocate
(WPA).
Georgina Halford-Hall is a founding member and has been CEO of WhistleblowersUK since November 2015. She is the director of strategy and policy for the All Party Parliamentary Group for Whistleblowing and leads a growing secretariat. Georgina is the Director of the Whistleblowing alternative Programme at the International Symposium of Economic Crime at Jesus College Cambridge for the last 9 years.
As a leading campaigner for global cooperation and collaboration to make whistleblowing work, Georgina has brought together some of the most talented thinkers in the field of ethics, compliance and governance, and law to develop 3 separate whistleblowing Bills. All of these Bills have been heard in the UK government and the most recent the Protection of Whistleblowing Bill is progressing through the Parliamentary process. Georgina divides her time between managing the strategic and policy work with hands-on support for whistleblowers.
She says, "As CEO of WhistleblowersUK I understand the impact of the word 'Whistleblower'. I regularly speak at conferences and in the media about the opportunity that whistleblowing presents to organisations and society more widely and I am delighted to become part of Whistleblowing Canada. Whistleblowing is complex but the risks arising from ignoring whistleblowers can have a catastrophic effect as demonstrated by events including the global pandemic. I believe that the secret to successfully transforming the way we think about whistleblowing is international collaboration."
Caroline Hunt-Matthes is Adjunct Professor at Grenoble Business School in France and Webster University in Geneva. Her research interests include whistleblowing, corporate social responsibility, academic integrity and diversity and inclusion. She is co editor and author of « whistleblowing and retaliation in the United Nations « ( Bristol University Press) 2021. She has championed the issue of safety of reporting channels and proper whistleblower protection as a foundation of good governance.
She is also an International Human Rights Investigator specialising in sexual violence.
She served as a United Nations staff as a peacekeeper and Investigator for 15 years in Rwanda and former Yugoslavia. She was also a UN whistleblower.
In addition to her advocacy for social justice she is passionate about nature, is a founding member of the Natures Rights Charity Scotland, A board member of the Earth Focus Foundation, Switzerland and Nanshe Foundation.
Tina Uys is Professor of Sociology at the University of Johannesburg (South Africa) and served as Head of Department for 15 years. She is a Certified Clinical Sociologist at the Association for Applied and Clinical Sociology. During 2013 she was a Fulbright Visiting Scholar at George Washington University in Washington, DC and at the University of Cincinnati in Cincinnati, Ohio. She is a past Vice-President of the International Sociological Association (ISA), past President of ISA’s Clinical Sociology and Social Psychology divisions, and a past President of the South African Sociological Association.
Tina is the author or editor of more than 50 publications. Her latest publication is Clinical Sociology for Southern Africa (2020), co-edited with Jan Marie Fritz. She is rated as an Internationally Recognised Researcher (B3) by the South African National Research Foundation. She specialises in clinical sociology with a particular focus on advancing the sociological understanding of whistleblowing.
Media Contact
Pamela Forward, President & Spokesperson
Cell 613-805-8266 Tel. 236-317-3949.
E-mail pamela@whistleblowingcanada.com
Notices*
Click on Notices* to see older posts.
December 10, 2024. Our Advisory Board Member, Caroline Hunt-Matthes announces new book - , “We the People: The United Nations Whistleblowers, Whistleblowing & Retaliation in the United Nations,”. Hunt-Matthes, lawyer and former United Nations investigator is a whistleblower herself. The book contains the stories of six UN whistleblowers. See Press Release here.
Nov. 28, 2024. Today Whistleblowing Canada released results of Survey of Ontario Lawyers on access to justice for whistleblowers. See Press Release here.
November 15, 2024. Discover Your Rights as a Whistleblower in Ontario. Thinking of speaking up but unsure about your rights? Watch two new videos we've developed with Justin A. Villeneuve, lawyer with WVGB Law Group and get a quick overview of whistleblowing protections in Ontario's public and private sectors. Learn about the laws, options, and safeguards in place to support you. Watch both videos here and gain the knowledge you need. Also download a copy of the List of Laws that could help you. This work was made possible with a grant from The Law Foundation of Ontario.
September 20, 2024. Our website has been reorganized. A lot of information you may be looking for has moved under the Knowledge and Learning Centre. Don't forget to check it out.
Whistleblowing & Retaliation in the United Nations
Additional information
| Weight | 0.600 kg |
|---|---|
| Format | |
| Publication Year | |
| Language | |
| Genre | |
| Author |
Whistleblowing in Ontario: What Are My Rights in the Public Sector?
From: Justin Villeneuve <jvill@wvgblaw.com>
Date: Tue, Jul 2, 2024 at 5:25 PM
Subject: Out of Office Re: Perhaps we should talk 506 434 8433
To: <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com>
Please note I will be out of the office uuntil July 22nd. For any
urgent matters please contact Tonia Braun tbraun@wvgblaw.com.
--
*Justin A. Villeneuve*
LSO No. 70483S
*WVGB Law Group*
2571 Carling Avenue
Suite 200,
K2B 7H7
*Phone:* (613) 505-5025
*E-mail: *jvill@ <jvilleneuve@vlitigationlaw.co
<http://wvglaw.com>
*The content of this email is confidential and intended for the recipient
specified in the message only. It is strictly forbidden to share any part
of this message with any third party without the sender's written consent.
If you received this message by mistake, please reply to this message and
follow with its deletion, so that we can ensure such a mistake does not
occur in the future.*
From: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Jul 2, 2024 at 5:24 PM
Subject: Perhaps we should talk 506 434 8433
To: <jvill@wvgblaw.com>
> 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
>
>
>> ---------- 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
>>
>>
>> ---------- Original message ----------
>> From: justin.trudeau.a1@parl.gc.ca
>> Date: Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 8:18 PM
>> Subject: Réponse automatique : RE My complaint against the CROWN in
>> Federal Court Attn David Hansen and Peter MacKay If you planning to
>> submit a motion for a publication ban on my complaint trust that you
>> dudes are way past too late
>> To: david.raymond.amos@gmail.com
>>
>> Veuillez noter que j'ai changé de courriel. Vous pouvez me rejoindre à
>> lalanthier@hotmail.com
>>
>> Pour rejoindre le bureau de M. Trudeau veuillez envoyer un courriel à
>> tommy.desfosses@parl.gc.ca
>>
>> Please note that I changed email address, you can reach me at
>> lalanthier@hotmail.com
>>
>> To reach the office of Mr. Trudeau please send an email to
>> tommy.desfosses@parl.gc.ca
>>
>> Thank you,
>>
>> Merci ,
>>
>>
>> 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 the 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
>>
>> Canada’s and Canadians free ride is over. Canada can no longer hide
>> behind Amerka’s and NATO’s skirts.
>>
>> When I was still in Canadian Forces then Prime Minister Jean Chretien
>> actually committed the Canadian Army to deploy in the second campaign
>> in Iraq, the Coalition of the Willing. This was against or contrary to
>> the wisdom or advice of those of us Canadian officers that were
>> involved in the initial planning phases of that operation. There were
>> significant concern in our planning cell, and NDHQ about of the dearth
>> of concern for operational guidance, direction, and forces for
>> operations after the initial occupation of Iraq. At the “last minute”
>> Prime Minister Chretien and the Liberal government changed its mind.
>> The Canadian government told our amerkan cousins that we would not
>> deploy combat troops for the Iraq campaign, but would deploy a
>> Canadian Battle Group to Afghanistan, enabling our amerkan cousins to
>> redeploy troops from there to Iraq. The PMO’s thinking that it was
>> less costly to deploy Canadian Forces to Afghanistan than Iraq. But
>> alas no one seems to remind the Liberals of Prime Minister Chretien’s
>> then grossly incorrect assumption. Notwithstanding Jean Chretien’s
>> incompetence and stupidity, the Canadian Army was heroic,
>> professional, punched well above it’s weight, and the PPCLI Battle
>> Group, is credited with “saving Afghanistan” during the Panjway
>> campaign of 2006.
>>
>> What Justin Trudeau and the Liberals don’t tell you now, is that then
>> Liberal Prime Minister Jean Chretien committed, and deployed the
>> Canadian army to Canada’s longest “war” without the advice, consent,
>> support, or vote of the Canadian Parliament.
>>
>> What David Amos and the rest of the ignorant, uneducated, and babbling
>> chattering classes are too addled to understand is the deployment of
>> less than 75 special operations troops, and what is known by planners
>> as a “six pac cell” of fighter aircraft is NOT the same as a
>> deployment of a Battle Group, nor a “war” make.
>>
>> The Canadian Government or The Crown unlike our amerkan cousins have
>> the “constitutional authority” to commit the Canadian nation to war.
>> That has been recently clearly articulated to the Canadian public by
>> constitutional scholar Phillippe Legasse. What Parliament can do is
>> remove “confidence” in The Crown’s Government in a “vote of
>> non-confidence.” That could not happen to the Chretien Government
>> regarding deployment to Afghanistan, and it won’t happen in this
>> instance with the conservative majority in The Commons regarding a
>> limited Canadian deployment to the Middle East.
>>
>> President George Bush was quite correct after 911 and the terror
>> attacks in New York; that the Taliban “occupied” and “failed state”
>> Afghanistan was the source of logistical support, command and control,
>> and training for the Al Quaeda war of terror against the world. The
>> initial defeat, and removal from control of Afghanistan was vital and
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>> 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
>>
>
>
> On 8/3/17, David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> If want something very serious to download and laugh at as well Please
>> Enjoy and share real wiretap tapes of the mob
>>
>> http://thedavidamosrant.
>> ilian.html
>>
>>> http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/
>>>
>>> As the CBC etc yap about Yankee wiretaps and whistleblowers I must
>>> ask them the obvious question AIN'T THEY FORGETTING SOMETHING????
>>>
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?
>>>
>>> What the hell does the media think my Yankee lawyer served upon the
>>> USDOJ right after I ran for and seat in the 39th Parliament baseball
>>> cards?
>>>
>>> http://archive.org/details/
>>> 6
>>>
>>> http://davidamos.blogspot.ca/
>>>
>>> http://www.archive.org/
>>>
>>> http://archive.org/details/
>>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>
>
>
> Sunday, 19 November 2017
> Federal Court of Appeal Finally Makes The BIG Decision And Publishes
> It Now The Crooks Cannot Take Back Ticket To Try Put My Matter Before
> The Supreme Court
>
> https://decisions.fct-cf.gc.
>
>
> Federal Court of Appeal Decisions
>
> Amos v. Canada
> Court (s) Database
>
> Federal Court of Appeal Decisions
> Date
>
> 2017-10-30
> Neutral citation
>
> 2017 FCA 213
> File numbers
>
> A-48-16
> Date: 20171030
>
> Docket: A-48-16
> Citation: 2017 FCA 213
> CORAM:
>
> WEBB J.A.
> NEAR J.A.
> GLEASON J.A.
>
>
> BETWEEN:
> DAVID RAYMOND AMOS
> Respondent on the cross-appeal
> (and formally Appellant)
> and
> HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
> Appellant on the cross-appeal
> (and formerly Respondent)
> Heard at Fredericton, New Brunswick, on May 24, 2017.
> Judgment delivered at Ottawa, Ontario, on October 30, 2017.
> REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY:
>
> THE COURT
>
>
>
> Date: 20171030
>
> Docket: A-48-16
> Citation: 2017 FCA 213
> CORAM:
>
> WEBB J.A.
> NEAR J.A.
> GLEASON J.A.
>
>
> BETWEEN:
> DAVID RAYMOND AMOS
> Respondent on the cross-appeal
> (and formally Appellant)
> and
> HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
> Appellant on the cross-appeal
> (and formerly Respondent)
> REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY THE COURT
>
> I. Introduction
>
> [1] On September 16, 2015, David Raymond Amos (Mr. Amos)
> filed a 53-page Statement of Claim (the Claim) in Federal Court
> against Her Majesty the Queen (the Crown). Mr. Amos claims $11 million
> in damages and a public apology from the Prime Minister and Provincial
> Premiers for being illegally barred from accessing parliamentary
> properties and seeks a declaration from the Minister of Public Safety
> that the Canadian Government will no longer allow the Royal Canadian
> Mounted Police (RCMP) and Canadian Forces to harass him and his clan
> (Claim at para. 96).
>
> [2] On November 12, 2015 (Docket T-1557-15), by way of a
> motion brought by the Crown, a prothonotary of the Federal Court (the
> Prothonotary) struck the Claim in its entirety, without leave to
> amend, on the basis that it was plain and obvious that the Claim
> disclosed no reasonable claim, the Claim was fundamentally vexatious,
> and the Claim could not be salvaged by way of further amendment (the
> Prothontary’s Order).
>
>
> [3] On January 25, 2016 (2016 FC 93), by way of Mr.
> Amos’ appeal from the Prothonotary’s Order, a judge of the Federal
> Court (the Judge), reviewing the matter de novo, struck all of Mr.
> Amos’ claims for relief with the exception of the claim for damages
> for being barred by the RCMP from the New Brunswick legislature in
> 2004 (the Federal Court Judgment).
>
>
> [4] Mr. Amos appealed and the Crown cross-appealed the
> Federal Court Judgment. Further to the issuance of a Notice of Status
> Review, Mr. Amos’ appeal was dismissed for delay on December 19, 2016.
> As such, the only matter before this Court is the Crown’s
> cross-appeal.
>
>
> II. Preliminary Matter
>
> [5] Mr. Amos, in his memorandum of fact and law in
> relation to the cross-appeal that was filed with this Court on March
> 6, 2017, indicated that several judges of this Court, including two of
> the judges of this panel, had a conflict of interest in this appeal.
> This was the first time that he identified the judges whom he believed
> had a conflict of interest in a document that was filed with this
> Court. In his notice of appeal he had alluded to a conflict with
> several judges but did not name those judges.
>
> [6] Mr. Amos was of the view that he did not have to
> identify the judges in any document filed with this Court because he
> had identified the judges in various documents that had been filed
> with the Federal Court. In his view the Federal Court and the Federal
> Court of Appeal are the same court and therefore any document filed in
> the Federal Court would be filed in this Court. This view is based on
> subsections 5(4) and 5.1(4) of the Federal Courts Act, R.S.C., 1985,
> c. F-7:
>
>
> 5(4) Every judge of the Federal Court is, by virtue of his or her
> office, a judge of the Federal Court of Appeal and has all the
> jurisdiction, power and authority of a judge of the Federal Court of
> Appeal.
> […]
>
> 5(4) Les juges de la Cour fédérale sont d’office juges de la Cour
> d’appel fédérale et ont la même compétence et les mêmes pouvoirs que
> les juges de la Cour d’appel fédérale.
> […]
> 5.1(4) Every judge of the Federal Court of Appeal is, by virtue of
> that office, a judge of the Federal Court and has all the
> jurisdiction, power and authority of a judge of the Federal Court.
>
> 5.1(4) Les juges de la Cour d’appel fédérale sont d’office juges de la
> Cour fédérale et ont la même compétence et les mêmes pouvoirs que les
> juges de la Cour fédérale.
>
>
> [7] However, these subsections only provide that the
> judges of the Federal Court are also judges of this Court (and vice
> versa). It does not mean that there is only one court. If the Federal
> Court and this Court were one Court, there would be no need for this
> section.
> [8] Sections 3 and 4 of the Federal Courts Act provide that:
> 3 The division of the Federal Court of Canada called the Federal Court
> — Appeal Division is continued under the name “Federal Court of
> Appeal” in English and “Cour d’appel fédérale” in French. It is
> continued as an additional court of law, equity and admiralty in and
> for Canada, for the better administration of the laws of Canada and as
> a superior court of record having civil and criminal jurisdiction.
>
> 3 La Section d’appel, aussi appelée la Cour d’appel ou la Cour d’appel
> fédérale, est maintenue et dénommée « Cour d’appel fédérale » en
> français et « Federal Court of Appeal » en anglais. Elle est maintenue
> à titre de tribunal additionnel de droit, d’equity et d’amirauté du
> Canada, propre à améliorer l’application du droit canadien, et
> continue d’être une cour supérieure d’archives ayant compétence en
> matière civile et pénale.
> 4 The division of the Federal Court of Canada called the Federal Court
> — Trial Division is continued under the name “Federal Court” in
> English and “Cour fédérale” in French. It is continued as an
> additional court of law, equity and admiralty in and for Canada, for
> the better administration of the laws of Canada and as a superior
> court of record having civil and criminal jurisdiction.
>
> 4 La section de la Cour fédérale du Canada, appelée la Section de
> première instance de la Cour fédérale, est maintenue et dénommée «
> Cour fédérale » en français et « Federal Court » en anglais. Elle est
> maintenue à titre de tribunal additionnel de droit, d’equity et
> d’amirauté du Canada, propre à améliorer l’application du droit
> canadien, et continue d’être une cour supérieure d’archives ayant
> compétence en matière civile et pénale.
>
>
> [9] Sections 3 and 4 of the Federal Courts Act create
> two separate courts – this Court (section 3) and the Federal Court
> (section 4). If, as Mr. Amos suggests, documents filed in the Federal
> Court were automatically also filed in this Court, then there would no
> need for the parties to prepare and file appeal books as required by
> Rules 343 to 345 of the Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98-106 in relation
> to any appeal from a decision of the Federal Court. The requirement to
> file an appeal book with this Court in relation to an appeal from a
> decision of the Federal Court makes it clear that the only documents
> that will be before this Court are the documents that are part of that
> appeal book.
>
>
> [10] Therefore, the memorandum of fact and law filed on
> March 6, 2017 is the first document, filed with this Court, in which
> Mr. Amos identified the particular judges that he submits have a
> conflict in any matter related to him.
>
>
> [11] On April 3, 2017, Mr. Amos attempted to bring a motion
> before the Federal Court seeking an order “affirming or denying the
> conflict of interest he has” with a number of judges of the Federal
> Court. A judge of the Federal Court issued a direction noting that if
> Mr. Amos was seeking this order in relation to judges of the Federal
> Court of Appeal, it was beyond the jurisdiction of the Federal Court.
> Mr. Amos raised the Federal Court motion at the hearing of this
> cross-appeal. The Federal Court motion is not a motion before this
> Court and, as such, the submissions filed before the Federal Court
> will not be entertained. As well, since this was a motion brought
> before the Federal Court (and not this Court), any documents filed in
> relation to that motion are not part of the record of this Court.
>
>
> [12] During the hearing of the appeal Mr. Amos alleged that
> the third member of this panel also had a conflict of interest and
> submitted some documents that, in his view, supported his claim of a
> conflict. Mr. Amos, following the hearing of his appeal, was also
> afforded the opportunity to provide a brief summary of the conflict
> that he was alleging and to file additional documents that, in his
> view, supported his allegations. Mr. Amos submitted several pages of
> documents in relation to the alleged conflicts. He organized the
> documents by submitting a copy of the biography of the particular
> judge and then, immediately following that biography, by including
> copies of the documents that, in his view, supported his claim that
> such judge had a conflict.
>
>
> [13] The nature of the alleged conflict of Justice Webb is
> that before he was appointed as a Judge of the Tax Court of Canada in
> 2006, he was a partner with the law firm Patterson Law, and before
> that with Patterson Palmer in Nova Scotia. Mr. Amos submitted that he
> had a number of disputes with Patterson Palmer and Patterson Law and
> therefore Justice Webb has a conflict simply because he was a partner
> of these firms. Mr. Amos is not alleging that Justice Webb was
> personally involved in or had any knowledge of any matter in which Mr.
> Amos was involved with Justice Webb’s former law firm – only that he
> was a member of such firm.
>
>
> [14] During his oral submissions at the hearing of his
> appeal Mr. Amos, in relation to the alleged conflict for Justice Webb,
> focused on dealings between himself and a particular lawyer at
> Patterson Law. However, none of the documents submitted by Mr. Amos at
> the hearing or subsequently related to any dealings with this
> particular lawyer nor is it clear when Mr. Amos was dealing with this
> lawyer. In particular, it is far from clear whether such dealings were
> after the time that Justice Webb was appointed as a Judge of the Tax
> Court of Canada over 10 years ago.
>
>
> [15] The documents that he submitted in relation to the
> alleged conflict for Justice Webb largely relate to dealings between
> Byron Prior and the St. John’s Newfoundland and Labrador office of
> Patterson Palmer, which is not in the same province where Justice Webb
> practiced law. The only document that indicates any dealing between
> Mr. Amos and Patterson Palmer is a copy of an affidavit of Stephen May
> who was a partner in the St. John’s NL office of Patterson Palmer. The
> affidavit is dated January 24, 2005 and refers to a number of e-mails
> that were sent by Mr. Amos to Stephen May. Mr. Amos also included a
> letter that is addressed to four individuals, one of whom is John
> Crosbie who was counsel to the St. John’s NL office of Patterson
> Palmer. The letter is dated September 2, 2004 and is addressed to
> “John Crosbie, c/o Greg G. Byrne, Suite 502, 570 Queen Street,
> Fredericton, NB E3B 5E3”. In this letter Mr. Amos alludes to a
> possible lawsuit against Patterson Palmer.
> [16] Mr. Amos’ position is that simply because Justice Webb
> was a lawyer with Patterson Palmer, he now has a conflict. In Wewaykum
> Indian Band v. Her Majesty the Queen, 2003 SCC 45, [2003] 2 S.C.R.
> 259, the Supreme Court of Canada noted that disqualification of a
> judge is to be determined based on whether there is a reasonable
> apprehension of bias:
> 60 In Canadian law, one standard has now emerged as the
> criterion for disqualification. The criterion, as expressed by de
> Grandpré J. in Committee for Justice and Liberty v. National Energy
> Board, …[[1978] 1 S.C.R. 369, 68 D.L.R. (3d) 716], at p. 394, is the
> reasonable apprehension of bias:
> … the apprehension of bias must be a reasonable one, held by
> reasonable and right minded persons, applying themselves to the
> question and obtaining thereon the required information. In the words
> of the Court of Appeal, that test is "what would an informed person,
> viewing the matter realistically and practically -- and having thought
> the matter through -- conclude. Would he think that it is more likely
> than not that [the decision-maker], whether consciously or
> unconsciously, would not decide fairly."
>
> [17] The issue to be determined is whether an informed
> person, viewing the matter realistically and practically, and having
> thought the matter through, would conclude that Mr. Amos’ allegations
> give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias. As this Court has
> previously remarked, “there is a strong presumption that judges will
> administer justice impartially” and this presumption will not be
> rebutted in the absence of “convincing evidence” of bias (Collins v.
> Canada, 2011 FCA 140 at para. 7, [2011] 4 C.T.C. 157 [Collins]. See
> also R. v. S. (R.D.), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 484 at para. 32, 151 D.L.R.
> (4th) 193).
>
> [18] The Ontario Court of Appeal in Rando Drugs Ltd. v.
> Scott, 2007 ONCA 553, 86 O.R. (3d) 653 (leave to appeal to the Supreme
> Court of Canada refused, 32285 (August 1, 2007)), addressed the
> particular issue of whether a judge is disqualified from hearing a
> case simply because he had been a member of a law firm that was
> involved in the litigation that was now before that judge. The Ontario
> Court of Appeal determined that the judge was not disqualified if the
> judge had no involvement with the person or the matter when he was a
> lawyer. The Ontario Court of Appeal also explained that the rules for
> determining whether a judge is disqualified are different from the
> rules to determine whether a lawyer has a conflict:
> 27 Thus, disqualification is not the natural corollary to a
> finding that a trial judge has had some involvement in a case over
> which he or she is now presiding. Where the judge had no involvement,
> as here, it cannot be said that the judge is disqualified.
>
>
> 28 The point can rightly be made that had Mr. Patterson been
> asked to represent the appellant as counsel before his appointment to
> the bench, the conflict rules would likely have prevented him from
> taking the case because his firm had formerly represented one of the
> defendants in the case. Thus, it is argued how is it that as a trial
> judge Patterson J. can hear the case? This issue was considered by the
> Court of Appeal (Civil Division) in Locabail (U.K.) Ltd. v. Bayfield
> Properties Ltd., [2000] Q.B. 451. The court held, at para. 58, that
> there is no inflexible rule governing the disqualification of a judge
> and that, "[e]verything depends on the circumstances."
>
>
> 29 It seems to me that what appears at first sight to be an
> inconsistency in application of rules can be explained by the
> different contexts and in particular, the strong presumption of
> judicial impartiality that applies in the context of disqualification
> of a judge. There is no such presumption in cases of allegations of
> conflict of interest against a lawyer because of a firm's previous
> involvement in the case. To the contrary, as explained by Sopinka J.
> in MacDonald Estate v. Martin (1990), 77 D.L.R. (4th) 249 (S.C.C.),
> for sound policy reasons there is a presumption of a disqualifying
> interest that can rarely be overcome. In particular, a conclusory
> statement from the lawyer that he or she had no confidential
> information about the case will never be sufficient. The case is the
> opposite where the allegation of bias is made against a trial judge.
> His or her statement that he or she knew nothing about the case and
> had no involvement in it will ordinarily be accepted at face value
> unless there is good reason to doubt it: see Locabail, at para. 19.
>
>
> 30 That brings me then to consider the particular circumstances
> of this case and whether there are serious grounds to find a
> disqualifying conflict of interest in this case. In my view, there are
> two significant factors that justify the trial judge's decision not to
> recuse himself. The first is his statement, which all parties accept,
> that he knew nothing of the case when it was in his former firm and
> that he had nothing to do with it. The second is the long passage of
> time. As was said in Wewaykum, at para. 85:
> To us, one significant factor stands out, and must inform
> the perspective of the reasonable person assessing the impact of this
> involvement on Binnie J.'s impartiality in the appeals. That factor is
> the passage of time. Most arguments for disqualification rest on
> circumstances that are either contemporaneous to the decision-making,
> or that occurred within a short time prior to the decision-making.
> 31 There are other factors that inform the issue. The Wilson
> Walker firm no longer acted for any of the parties by the time of
> trial. More importantly, at the time of the motion, Patterson J. had
> been a judge for six years and thus had not had a relationship with
> his former firm for a considerable period of time.
>
>
> 32 In my view, a reasonable person, viewing the matter
> realistically would conclude that the trial judge could deal fairly
> and impartially with this case. I take this view principally because
> of the long passage of time and the trial judge's lack of involvement
> in or knowledge of the case when the Wilson Walker firm had carriage.
> In these circumstances it cannot be reasonably contended that the
> trial judge could not remain impartial in the case. The mere fact that
> his name appears on the letterhead of some correspondence from over a
> decade ago would not lead a reasonable person to believe that he would
> either consciously or unconsciously favour his former firm's former
> client. It is simply not realistic to think that a judge would throw
> off his mantle of impartiality, ignore his oath of office and favour a
> client - about whom he knew nothing - of a firm that he left six years
> earlier and that no longer acts for the client, in a case involving
> events from over a decade ago.
> (emphasis added)
>
> [19] Justice Webb had no involvement with any matter
> involving Mr. Amos while he was a member of Patterson Palmer or
> Patterson Law, nor does Mr. Amos suggest that he did. Mr. Amos made it
> clear during the hearing of this matter that the only reason for the
> alleged conflict for Justice Webb was that he was a member of
> Patterson Law and Patterson Palmer. This is simply not enough for
> Justice Webb to be disqualified. Any involvement of Mr. Amos with
> Patterson Law while Justice Webb was a member of that firm would have
> had to occur over 10 years ago and even longer for the time when he
> was a member of Patterson Palmer. In addition to the lack of any
> involvement on his part with any matter or dispute that Mr. Amos had
> with Patterson Law or Patterson Palmer (which in and of itself is
> sufficient to dispose of this matter), the length of time since
> Justice Webb was a member of Patterson Law or Patterson Palmer would
> also result in the same finding – that there is no conflict in Justice
> Webb hearing this appeal.
>
> [20] Similarly in R. v. Bagot, 2000 MBCA 30, 145 Man. R.
> (2d) 260, the Manitoba Court of Appeal found that there was no
> reasonable apprehension of bias when a judge, who had been a member of
> the law firm that had been retained by the accused, had no involvement
> with the accused while he was a lawyer with that firm.
>
> [21] In Del Zotto v. Minister of National Revenue, [2000] 4
> F.C. 321, 257 N.R. 96, this court did find that there would be a
> reasonable apprehension of bias where a judge, who while he was a
> lawyer, had recorded time on a matter involving the same person who
> was before that judge. However, this case can be distinguished as
> Justice Webb did not have any time recorded on any files involving Mr.
> Amos while he was a lawyer with Patterson Palmer or Patterson Law.
>
> [22] Mr. Amos also included with his submissions a CD. He
> stated in his affidavit dated June 26, 2017 that there is a “true copy
> of an American police surveillance wiretap entitled 139” on this CD.
> He has also indicated that he has “provided a true copy of the CD
> entitled 139 to many American and Canadian law enforcement authorities
> and not one of the police forces or officers of the court are willing
> to investigate it”. Since he has indicated that this is an “American
> police surveillance wiretap”, this is a matter for the American law
> enforcement authorities and cannot create, as Mr. Amos suggests, a
> conflict of interest for any judge to whom he provides a copy.
>
> [23] As a result, there is no conflict or reasonable
> apprehension of bias for Justice Webb and therefore, no reason for him
> to recuse himself.
>
> [24] Mr. Amos alleged that Justice Near’s past professional
> experience with the government created a “quasi-conflict” in deciding
> the cross-appeal. Mr. Amos provided no details and Justice Near
> confirmed that he had no prior knowledge of the matters alleged in the
> Claim. Justice Near sees no reason to recuse himself.
>
> [25] Insofar as it is possible to glean the basis for Mr.
> Amos’ allegations against Justice Gleason, it appears that he alleges
> that she is incapable of hearing this appeal because he says he wrote
> a letter to Brian Mulroney and Jean Chrétien in 2004. At that time,
> both Justice Gleason and Mr. Mulroney were partners in the law firm
> Ogilvy Renault, LLP. The letter in question, which is rude and angry,
> begins with “Hey you two Evil Old Smiling Bastards” and “Re: me suing
> you and your little dogs too”. There is no indication that the letter
> was ever responded to or that a law suit was ever commenced by Mr.
> Amos against Mr. Mulroney. In the circumstances, there is no reason
> for Justice Gleason to recuse herself as the letter in question does
> not give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias.
>
>
> III. Issue
>
> [26] The issue on the cross-appeal is as follows: Did the
> Judge err in setting aside the Prothonotary’s Order striking the Claim
> in its entirety without leave to amend and in determining that Mr.
> Amos’ allegation that the RCMP barred him from the New Brunswick
> legislature in 2004 was capable of supporting a cause of action?
>
> IV. Analysis
>
> A. Standard of Review
>
> [27] Following the Judge’s decision to set aside the
> Prothonotary’s Order, this Court revisited the standard of review to
> be applied to discretionary decisions of prothonotaries and decisions
> made by judges on appeals of prothonotaries’ decisions in Hospira
> Healthcare Corp. v. Kennedy Institute of Rheumatology, 2016 FCA 215,
> 402 D.L.R. (4th) 497 [Hospira]. In Hospira, a five-member panel of
> this Court replaced the Aqua-Gem standard of review with that
> articulated in Housen v. Nikolaisen, 2002 SCC 33, [2002] 2 S.C.R. 235
> [Housen]. As a result, it is no longer appropriate for the Federal
> Court to conduct a de novo review of a discretionary order made by a
> prothonotary in regard to questions vital to the final issue of the
> case. Rather, a Federal Court judge can only intervene on appeal if
> the prothonotary made an error of law or a palpable and overriding
> error in determining a question of fact or question of mixed fact and
> law (Hospira at para. 79). Further, this Court can only interfere with
> a Federal Court judge’s review of a prothonotary’s discretionary order
> if the judge made an error of law or palpable and overriding error in
> determining a question of fact or question of mixed fact and law
> (Hospira at paras. 82-83).
>
> [28] In the case at bar, the Judge substituted his own
> assessment of Mr. Amos’ Claim for that of the Prothonotary. This Court
> must look to the Prothonotary’s Order to determine whether the Judge
> erred in law or made a palpable and overriding error in choosing to
> interfere.
>
>
> B. Did the Judge err in interfering with the
> Prothonotary’s Order?
>
> [29] The Prothontoary’s Order accepted the following
> paragraphs from the Crown’s submissions as the basis for striking the
> Claim in its entirety without leave to amend:
>
> 17. Within the 96 paragraph Statement of Claim, the Plaintiff
> addresses his complaint in paragraphs 14-24, inclusive. All but four
> of those paragraphs are dedicated to an incident that occurred in 2006
> in and around the legislature in New Brunswick. The jurisdiction of
> the Federal Court does not extend to Her Majesty the Queen in right of
> the Provinces. In any event, the Plaintiff hasn’t named the Province
> or provincial actors as parties to this action. The incident alleged
> does not give rise to a justiciable cause of action in this Court.
> (…)
>
>
> 21. The few paragraphs that directly address the Defendant
> provide no details as to the individuals involved or the location of
> the alleged incidents or other details sufficient to allow the
> Defendant to respond. As a result, it is difficult or impossible to
> determine the causes of action the Plaintiff is attempting to advance.
> A generous reading of the Statement of Claim allows the Defendant to
> only speculate as to the true and/or intended cause of action. At
> best, the Plaintiff’s action may possibly be summarized as: he
> suspects he is barred from the House of Commons.
> [footnotes omitted].
>
>
> [30] The Judge determined that he could not strike the Claim
> on the same jurisdictional basis as the Prothonotary. The Judge noted
> that the Federal Court has jurisdiction over claims based on the
> liability of Federal Crown servants like the RCMP and that the actors
> who barred Mr. Amos from the New Brunswick legislature in 2004
> included the RCMP (Federal Court Judgment at para. 23). In considering
> the viability of these allegations de novo, the Judge identified
> paragraph 14 of the Claim as containing “some precision” as it
> identifies the date of the event and a RCMP officer acting as
> Aide-de-Camp to the Lieutenant Governor (Federal Court Judgment at
> para. 27).
>
>
> [31] The Judge noted that the 2004 event could support a
> cause of action in the tort of misfeasance in public office and
> identified the elements of the tort as excerpted from Meigs v. Canada,
> 2013 FC 389, 431 F.T.R. 111:
>
>
> [13] As in both the cases of Odhavji Estate v Woodhouse, 2003 SCC
> 69 [Odhavji] and Lewis v Canada, 2012 FC 1514 [Lewis], I must
> determine whether the plaintiffs’ statement of claim pleads each
> element of the alleged tort of misfeasance in public office:
>
> a) The public officer must have engaged in deliberate and unlawful
> conduct in his or her capacity as public officer;
>
> b) The public officer must have been aware both that his or her
> conduct was unlawful and that it was likely to harm the plaintiff; and
>
> c) There must be an element of bad faith or dishonesty by the public
> officer and knowledge of harm alone is insufficient to conclude that a
> public officer acted in bad faith or dishonestly.
> Odhavji, above, at paras 23, 24 and 28
> (Federal Court Judgment at para. 28).
>
> [32] The Judge determined that Mr. Amos disclosed sufficient
> material facts to meet the elements of the tort of misfeasance in
> public office because the actors, who barred him from the New
> Brunswick legislature in 2004, including the RCMP, did so for
> “political reasons” (Federal Court Judgment at para. 29).
>
> [33] This Court’s discussion of the sufficiency of pleadings
> in Merchant Law Group v. Canada (Revenue Agency), 2010 FCA 184, 321
> D.L.R (4th) 301 is particularly apt:
>
> …When pleading bad faith or abuse of power, it is not enough to
> assert, baldly, conclusory phrases such as “deliberately or
> negligently,” “callous disregard,” or “by fraud and theft did steal”.
> “The bare assertion of a conclusion upon which the court is called
> upon to pronounce is not an allegation of material fact”. Making bald,
> conclusory allegations without any evidentiary foundation is an abuse
> of process…
>
> To this, I would add that the tort of misfeasance in public office
> requires a particular state of mind of a public officer in carrying
> out the impunged action, i.e., deliberate conduct which the public
> officer knows to be inconsistent with the obligations of his or her
> office. For this tort, particularization of the allegations is
> mandatory. Rule 181 specifically requires particularization of
> allegations of “breach of trust,” “wilful default,” “state of mind of
> a person,” “malice” or “fraudulent intention.”
> (at paras. 34-35, citations omitted).
>
> [34] Applying the Housen standard of review to the
> Prothonotary’s Order, we are of the view that the Judge interfered
> absent a legal or palpable and overriding error.
>
> [35] The Prothonotary determined that Mr. Amos’ Claim
> disclosed no reasonable claim and was fundamentally vexatious on the
> basis of jurisdictional concerns and the absence of material facts to
> ground a cause of action. Paragraph 14 of the Claim, which addresses
> the 2004 event, pleads no material facts as to how the RCMP officer
> engaged in deliberate and unlawful conduct, knew that his or her
> conduct was unlawful and likely to harm Mr. Amos, and acted in bad
> faith. While the Claim alleges elsewhere that Mr. Amos was barred from
> the New Brunswick legislature for political and/or malicious reasons,
> these allegations are not particularized and are directed against
> non-federal actors, such as the Sergeant-at-Arms of the Legislative
> Assembly of New Brunswick and the Fredericton Police Force. As such,
> the Judge erred in determining that Mr. Amos’ allegation that the RCMP
> barred him from the New Brunswick legislature in 2004 was capable of
> supporting a cause of action.
>
> [36] In our view, the Claim is made up entirely of bare
> allegations, devoid of any detail, such that it discloses no
> reasonable cause of action within the jurisdiction of the Federal
> Courts. Therefore, the Judge erred in interfering to set aside the
> Prothonotary’s Order striking the claim in its entirety. Further, we
> find that the Prothonotary made no error in denying leave to amend.
> The deficiencies in Mr. Amos’ pleadings are so extensive such that
> amendment could not cure them (see Collins at para. 26).
>
> V. Conclusion
> [37] For the foregoing reasons, we would allow the Crown’s
> cross-appeal, with costs, setting aside the Federal Court Judgment,
> dated January 25, 2016 and restoring the Prothonotary’s Order, dated
> November 12, 2015, which struck Mr. Amos’ Claim in its entirety
> without leave to amend.
> "Wyman W. Webb"
> J.A.
> "David G. Near"
> J.A.
> "Mary J.L. Gleason"
> J.A.
>
>
>
> FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
> NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
>
> A CROSS-APPEAL FROM AN ORDER OF THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE SOUTHCOTT DATED
> JANUARY 25, 2016; DOCKET NUMBER T-1557-15.
> DOCKET:
>
> A-48-16
>
>
>
> STYLE OF CAUSE:
>
> DAVID RAYMOND AMOS v. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
>
>
>
> PLACE OF HEARING:
>
> Fredericton,
> New Brunswick
>
> DATE OF HEARING:
>
> May 24, 2017
>
> REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY:
>
> WEBB J.A.
> NEAR J.A.
> GLEASON J.A.
>
> DATED:
>
> October 30, 2017
>
> APPEARANCES:
> David Raymond Amos
>
>
> For The Appellant / respondent on cross-appeal
> (on his own behalf)
>
> Jan Jensen
>
>
> For The Respondent / appELLANT ON CROSS-APPEAL
>
> SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
> Nathalie G. Drouin
> Deputy Attorney General of Canada
>
> For The Respondent / APPELLANT ON CROSS-APPEAL
>
No comments:
Post a Comment