From: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Sep 4, 2025 at 11:52 PM
Subject: Re: Fw: Attn Dr Biil Deagle we should talk about Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) on your show ASAP
To: <MLGutscher@protonmail.com>, paulpalango <paulpalango@protonmail.com>, paul <paul@paulfromm.com>, <jordan.marks@justice.gc.ca>, <michael@clevelanddoan.com>, <alyona@clevelanddoan.com>, lturner@doakshirreff.com <lturner@doakshirreff.com>, <thefirm@doakshirreff.com>, <Sophie.Baton@justice.gc.ca>, <Banafsheh.Sokhansanj@justice.gc.ca>
Cc: drea.humphrey <drea.humphrey@rebelnews.com>, <ezra@forcanada.ca>, mcu <mcu@justice.gc.ca>, <ps.ministerofpublicsafety-ministredelasecuritepublique.sp@ps-sp.gc.ca>, pm <pm@pm.gc.ca>, premier <premier@gov.bc.ca>, djtjr <djtjr@trumporg.com>
RFK Jr. grilled by both Republicans and Democrats during raucous hearing
The U.S. health secretary was called a charlatan and ignorant as he was questioned on COVID, vaccines and more
Democrats and Republicans pushed U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy's Jr. on his recent vaccine policies and their stark contrast to President Donald Trump's successful first-term pandemic initiative to speed vaccine development during a combative three-hour Senate hearing on Thursday.
Half a dozen heated exchanges focused on the details of his decision to fire Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Susan Monarez, who had started the job with Kennedy's support only a month earlier. Kennedy said she lied about the reason she was dismissed.
Republican U.S. Senator Bill Cassidy praised Trump for having accelerated the development, manufacturing, and distribution of COVID-19 vaccines in 2020.
His line of questioning — mirrored by two other members of his and Trump's party — underscored the tightrope Republicans critical of Kennedy needed to walk in order to push back against his vaccine policies without criticizing the president.
Cassidy, a former physician, asked Kennedy during the Senate Finance Committee hearing if he agreed with him that Trump deserved a Nobel Peace Prize for the COVID vaccine initiative. Kennedy said he did.
That led Cassidy to ask why, then, has Kennedy said the vaccines had killed more people than COVID?
Kennedy denied making the statement and initially would not agree that the vaccines saved lives, but in a later exchange acknowledged the shots prevented deaths but that he could not quantify that.
'Deeply concerned'
The hearing grew heated on several occasions as Kennedy was criticized
for several of his positions on vaccines and the CDC. (Evelyn
Hockstein/Reuters)
In the first year of their use, COVID vaccines saved some 14.4 million lives globally, according to a study published in The Lancet Infectious Diseases journal.
Republican John Barrasso, who like Cassidy is a physician, adopted the same tactic of questioning Kennedy without criticizing Trump.
"Secretary Kennedy, in your confirmation hearings you promised to uphold the highest standards for vaccines. Since then, I've grown deeply concerned," said Barrasso.
"The public has seen measles outbreaks, leadership in the National Institutes of Health questioning the use of mRNA vaccines, the recently confirmed Director of Centers for Disease Control and Prevention fired," the senator added.
Senator Maria Cantwell brought out a chart to demonstrate to Kennedy how effective vaccines have been. "The history on vaccines is very clear," the Democrat said, referring to drops in some diseases of 99 or 100 per cent, due to vaccines.
"This is what was delivered with vaccines, and you don't want to support that."
'You're a charlatan!' Democrat slams RFK Jr. in Senate hearingCDC firings criticized
Kennedy, under fiery questioning from Democratic Senator Ron Wyden and others, also defended his ousting of CDC Director Susan Monarez, adding that he might need to fire even more people at the agency.
Trump fired Monarez after she resisted changes to vaccine policy advanced by Kennedy that she believed contradicted scientific evidence, further destabilizing the already embattled agency.
In an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal on Thursday, Monarez said she had been directed to pre-approve vaccine recommendations, and that her ouster was part of a broader push to weaken U.S. vaccine standards.
Kennedy said that he had never told Monarez she needed to pre-approve decisions.
Kennedy said the CDC during the COVID pandemic had lied to Americans, pointing to recommendations on mask wearing, vaccine boosters and social distancing and statements that the vaccine would prevent transmission.
"I need to fire some of those people and make sure this doesn't happen again," Kennedy said.
At one point, Democratic Sen. Mark Warner asked Kennedy if he accepted the fact that one million Americans died from COVID. Kennedy declined, saying, "I don't think anybody knows," prompting Warner to ask how someone who's been health secretary for eight months could be that ignorant.
RFK Jr. can't say how many Americans died of COVIDDuring the COVID pandemic, the CDC came under fire as Americans became frustrated, particularly with school closures, although its changing recommendations were based on past experience with virus transmission and what was known about the novel coronavirus at the time.
By late 2021, as the Omicron variant spread quickly and more real-world data on the vaccines accumulated, the CDC acknowledged the shots could not stop COVID infection and transmission, but were highly effective in preventing severe cases, hospitalizations and death.
Calls for Kennedy to resign
Since taking the job, Kennedy has made a series of controversial changes to U.S. vaccine policy, including narrowing who is eligible for COVID shots and firing all 17 expert members of a CDC vaccine advisory panel, choosing some anti-vaccine activists to replace them.
Kennedy has faced criticism from some Republicans and calls to resign by some Democrats since Monarez's firing, which triggered the resignations of four senior agency officials who cited anti-vaccine policies and misinformation pushed by Kennedy and his team.
Wyden called for Kenndy's resignation on Thursday at the beginning of the hearing, as have other senators and over 1,000 current and former health employees.
Cassidy, who chairs the Senate Health, Education, Labour, and Pensions Committee, has said the CDC upheaval warrants oversight. He was the deciding vote during Kennedy's confirmation process after receiving assurances the long-time anti-vaccine crusader would not interfere with vaccine policy.
On Thursday he pressed Kennedy on his decision to cancel $500 million US in funding for research on the mRNA technology used in making the most widely used COVID vaccines.
With files from CBC News
From: Robert F. Kennedy Jr. <info@teamkennedy.com>
Date: Thu, Oct 3, 2024 at 7:11 PM
Subject: I have Trump's solid backing
To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com>
|
317 Comments
How the fate of a herd of ostriches on a small B.C. farm caught the attention of the Trump administration
From cull order to convoy to Kennedy Jr., Universal Ostrich farm refuses to give up its birds
Edgewood, B.C. isn't usually the sort of place that would be on the radar of high-ranking White House officials.
On the west shore of Lower Arrow Lake and surrounded by the Monashee Mountains, it's a roughly 200-kilometre drive from Kelowna, B.C., on a winding road. An unincorporated community, the latest census put it at a population of 235 people working in farming, forestry and tourism.
But
since December 2024, it's been making international headlines over the
fate of a group of ostriches living on one particular farm near the end
of a rural road: Universal Ostrich, owned by Karen Espersen and Dave
Bilinski and whose spokesperson is Katie Pasitney, Espersen's daughter.
In December, Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) officials were
tipped off that some of the large birds on the farm had died, with tests
confirming the presence of avian flu. That resulted in a cull order,
which the farm has fought, picking up high-profile allies along the way
and a court ruling allowing the cull to move forward.
Among the farm's supporters are U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., former TV host and current administrator for the U.S. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Dr. Mehmet Oz, and U.S. billionaire John Catsimatidis, all of whom who have now publicly urged Canadian officials to allow the ostriches to live.
Dr. Oz, U.S. billionaire offer to take B.C. ostriches ordered killedMeanwhile, the CFIA argues that as difficult as the decision is, the cull must move forward to protect public health and Canada's agriculture industry.
On May 30, the agency said the farm has been fined $20,000 for its failure to report the initial infection and deaths of birds, and for its later failure to adhere to quarantine and cull orders.
And at the centre of it is a farm full of ostriches in a tucked-away part of the province.
"We've
taken years to be able to pet these guys, walk among these guys,"
Espersen said in a Facebook video, surrounded by her birds, in early
May.
"If we don't stand for this … then what kind of world have we become?"
Here's what you need to know about this story, so far:
The avian flu context
The government of Canada, as well as other governments worldwide, are currently monitoring an outbreak of a strain of highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) known as H5N1. Though it mainly infects birds, it can spread to other animals and humans, which typically happens through direct contact with infected birds or contaminated environments, the government says.
While human infection is rare, the fatality rate is "approximately 52 per cent", the government says, though it cautions that number may be an overestimate "given that mild infections can go undetected and under-reported."
The first human case of H5N1 contracted in Canada was reported in B.C. in November 2024.
Avian
flu's primary impact has been seen among domestic birds, particularly
chickens. Because poultry live together in close quarters, the virus can
spread quickly among the flock, leading to high mortality rates and
potential mutations. The disease has been blamed as a primary factor for
high egg prices in the United States as laying hens were killed.
In response to the virus, the CFIA has a "stamping out" policy which
requires all domestic birds in a flock to be killed even if the virus is
detected in just one bird. Thousands of birds have been culled under
this policy.
What you should know about the H5N1 strain of avian flu"Allowing a domestic poultry flock known to be exposed to HPAI to remain alive allows a potential source of the virus to persist," the CFIA said in a statement.
"A human case of H5N1 in B.C. earlier this year required critical care, and an extended hospital stay for the patient, and there have been a number of human cases in the United States, including a fatality."
Disease detected at Universal Ostrich
According to court documents, in early December 2024 the farm was home to about 450 ostriches, some more than three decades old. Partway through the month, several ostriches on the farm developed "flu-like" symptoms, which started about a week after 300-500 ducks landed on the premises.
The farm says that from Dec. 14, 2024 to Jan. 14, 2025, "69 young male and female breeders died, most of them under four years old."
On Dec. 28, the CFIA investigated following an "anonymous report of multiple ostrich deaths" at the farm, the court document says, and a quarantine was ordered the same day four more ostriches died.
Samples were collected from two of the dead ostriches and by Dec. 31 they had tested positive for avian flu at the Canadian Animal Health Surveillance Network laboratory in Abbotsford, B.C.. On Jan. 3 the National Centre for Foreign Animal Disease in Winnipeg confirmed H5N1.
The order to cull the flock was given on Dec. 31.
Quarantine orders not followed
Inspectors also noted the ostriches were in open pens, allowing for free access by wild birds and animals, and that staff at the farm shared equipment and "moved freely among open pens", posing a biosecurity hazard when the disease was present.
Even in January, after quarantine orders were in place, inspectors noted wild animals were still freely interacting with the ostriches and other safety measures weren't being followed.
"The record also shows that the Applicant's farm also exhibited sick ostriches being moved to treatment pens in contravention of quarantine requirements, dead ostriches dragged through pens populated with living ones without robust separation measures, and unauthorized individuals walking inside the infected zone," the judge wrote.
In its May 30 statement, the CFIA wrote that the farm's failure to quarantine its birds increased the chance of transmission and "reflect a disregard for regulatory compliance and animal health standards."
Claims of herd immunity
When the cull order was given on Dec. 31, 2024, the farm was given a compliance deadline of Feb. 1, 2025.
They used that time to try and build a case for the ostriches to be spared.
According to the court case, the farm's operators began raising the ostriches in the mid-1990s, and Espersen and Bilinski say they incorporated Universal Ostrich Farms, Inc. in 2001 with a focus on "ethical breeding and care."
In court, the farm's lawyer says that the farm's operations include selling breeding stock, raising birds for slaughter and meat and agri-tourism.
Dave
Bilinski and Karen Espersen of Universal Ostrich pose with a portion of
their flock of birds after learning a deadline to have them killed over
avian flu concerns has been put off by a federal judge on Jan. 31,
2025. (Brady Strachan/CBC)
However, the farm also says it pivoted during the COVID-19 pandemic
to focus instead on research, specifically on trying to use ostrich
eggs to produce antibodies for COVID-19 or other viruses. "Meat
processing ceased in the summer of 2019," it said in a statement.
The farm says it partnered with Yasuhiro Tsukamoto of Kyoto Prefectural University in Japan for this work.
Neither Tsukamoto nor the university have responded to CBC News in relation to the story but the researcher, known in some circles as "Dr. Ostrich," has previously made headlines for his work with ostrich eggs and COVID-19.
CBC News also heard from a researcher who has confirmed his work with Universal Ostrich.
"Dr. Yasuhiro Tsukamoto and I are Co-CEOs of Ostrich Pharma USA (OPUSA)," said Stuart Greenberg in an email.
"OPUSA
has been tasked with commercializing the specialized ostrich antibodies
produced by Dr. Tsukamoto and his research team in Japan. We have been
working with Universal Ostrich in B.C. to develop the techniques for
large-scale production of ostrich antibodies derived from the yolks of
their eggs," the email continues.
"Our focus has been on the
production of antibodies against human digestive enzymes to produce a
dietary supplement for weight loss."
Tsukamoto has not confirmed his work in this area.
Additionally, Universal Ostrich maintains that all of the birds that died due to avian flu were acquired "after 2020."
This is important to them because they say that in March 2020, a flu-like disease infected their herd which they believe gave the survivors "natural and eventual herd immunity," and say that since January the remainder of the ostriches are "happy and healthy" showing no sign of sickness.
Exemption denied
According to the court case, the farm first raised the possibility that its ostriches had developed immunity to avian flu during a Jan. 2 phone call with a CFIA case officer, who explained the process for receiving an exemption to the cull order.
In followup emails, the officer provided the forms and
documentation that would be needed to make the case that the birds
should not be killed, and the farm made its application.
However, by Jan. 10 the exemption was rejected.
According to the courts, the CFIA concluded the farm "failed to
demonstrate the existence of any distinct epidemiological unit," that
was not likely to be exposed to avian flu, nor had it submitted
"sufficient evidence to support its claims of genetic rarity and value
qualifying the flock for an exemption," the latter of which could be
proven through breeding books, recognition from breed associations, or
genomic testing.
About 450 ostriches lived at the farm in December 2024, with 69 dying by mid-January. (Submitted by Katie Pasitney)
The May 30 statement from the CFIA also said the farm failed to provide "research documentation" and that the farm lacks facilities "suitable for controlled research activity or trials."
The court case also noted that there has only been one exemption to the "stamping out" policy granted in Canada during the current H5N1 outbreak, in the case of a turkey farm infected in 2022 that was able to demonstrate the complete separation, including biosecurity measures, of turkey flocks where some birds had been infected.
Not only were the spared birds kept in separate barns from the infected animals with distinct ventilation and a "shower in/shower out" procedure, but the facility was also able to demonstrate the birds had "rare and valuable genetics" used for "high value pedigree birds."
The CFIA also refused the ostrich farm's request that it do follow-up testing on its surviving birds.
Legal courts and court of public opinion
The farm went public with its plight early, with Pasitney first speaking to CBC News on Jan. 9.
The story was also covered by local outlets and was later picked up as a
campaign by the Ezra Levant-owned website the Rebel, which in a Jan. 24
post encouraged readers to begin emailing the CFIA and other officials,
claiming the cull was in part because of the influence of major
pharmaceutical companies.
Also involved is B.C. Rising, a group with a website that includes a section arguing that COVID-19 was part of a United Nations-led plot to take control of vast swaths of land and that 15-minute cities, an urban planning tool aimed at creating walkable neighbourhoods, is actually a plot to trap people in individual sectors of their city.
The site now has a section titled "Save Our Ostriches" and helped organize a "convoy" of people to visit the farm and show their opposition to the kill order.
A poster advertises a convoy to Universal Ostrich to protest the ordered cull. (Facebook/B.C. Rising)
The farm welcomed supporters, while also posting a disclaimer stating it did not necessarily agree with all of the material being circulated by those who had taken up the cause of saving the ostriches.
"We're just trying to do what's right," Pasitney said.
In
the meantime, the farm contracted a lawyer to apply for the cull to be
stayed until the case could be heard by the courts, arguing Universal
Ostrich would suffer "irreparable harm" should it move ahead.
That stay was granted, and the case went to federal court for two days of hearings on April 14 and 15.
Legal and scientific debate
During the hearings, Universal Ostrich pleaded its case for an exemption, reiterating many of its previous claims about herd immunity and the scientific value of its birds.
It also called on three individuals who argued that the stamping-out policy used by the CFIA was not required, at least in the case of the ostriches.
Those individuals were Steven Pelech, a UBC professor and biochemist with training in immunology and virology, Bryan Brindle, an immunologist at the University of Guelph and Jeff Wilson, a former senior epidemiologist and manager at the Public Heath Agency of Canada.
Collectively, the trio made the case that ostriches should be treated as different from hens or other poultry due to a combination of their long lifespan (three to five decades) and the fact that they don't live in as densely populated conditions as hens.
They also argued that the
CFIA should have been open to further testing of the surviving birds
after the initial deaths occurred.
But the CFIA pushed back.
Supporters
camp out at Universal Ostrich on Jan. 31, 2025. Some came from cities
as much as 400 kilometers away to show their support. (Brady Strachan/CBC)
"Whether or not the birds recover and appear healthy is not the concern when implementing a cull policy," said Paul Saunders, the agency's lawyer.
"That concern also includes the potential for the mutation of the virus among healthy birds.... an infection in birds could be a precursor to a human flu pandemic. Regardless of how likely that is, once it happens, it's happened, so that is a concern motivating the CFIA's response."
The CFIA also relied on a report from Shannon French, a veterinary epidemiologist trained in epidemiology, virology and poultry health management, outlining the international scientific standards that inform its decision-making.
A sign stating Save Our Ostriches at the Universal Ostrich farm in Edgewood, B.C. in May, 2025. (Camille Vernet/Radio-Canada)
The agency's legal team also attacked the trio of scientists put forward by the farm, stating none have ever worked with ostriches, and that much of their testimony was "speculative" and "well outside mainstream peer-reviewed literature."
Likewise, the farm's lawyers attacked French for not being impartial given her professional association with the CFIA.
"Unsurprisingly, each side seeks to narrow the evidentiary footprint of
the other, and asks this Court to rely on the opinion of their experts
should opinions diverge," Justice Russel Zinn wrote, ultimately
declaring it would be inappropriate for him or any other judge to do so.
Instead, he focused on the fact that the CFIA was the agency in Canada tasked with managing the complex scientific and technical decisions in relation to avian flu.
"When Parliament leaves technical or scientific assessments to specialized administrative bodies, it signals that those bodies, not the courts, are best positioned to make judgments on complex, expertise-driven matters," he wrote, allowing the cull to proceed.
A difficult decision
Both Zinn and the CFIA noted the emotional and economic toll any cull takes on farmers.
They also noted that the cull is not punishment but instead based on the public good, which is also why farms receive financial compensation when they take place — up to $3,000 per animal in the case of the ostriches.
"While
compensation may not offset the emotional toll of depopulation, it can
provide resources to recover and reestablish operations," CFIA said.
But that's not feasible for Universal Ostrich, Pasitney said. Her
mother is in her 60s, her business partner in his 70s, and they don't
feel they can start over with a new set of birds, especially ones as
finicky as ostriches.
"They're in the pecking order," Pasitney said. "They know them."
Universal
Ostrich co-owner Karen Espersen posted a plea on Facebook for
supporters to come 'surround' her farm in an effort to stop her birds
from being culled. (Facebook/Karen Espersen)
Scientists not involved in the court case say the CFIA and Universal Ostrich are trying to navigate a difficult position.
Jean-Pierre Vaillancourt, a professor at the University of Montreal's veterinary school, says Canada has signed a treaty with the World Organisation for Animal Health, which means it has agreed on certain specific measures, like culls, when it comes to controlling avian flu.
"We try to extinguish the fire — so essentially the virus can't feed and replicate if it has other birds around," he said.
J. Scott Weese, a professor at the Ontario Veterinary College, told CBC News in an email that a decision to cull animals at a farm is a cost-benefit decision, where the costs and benefits can't be quantified easily.
"In general, culling makes more sense when there's widespread infection, risk to people around the animals, limited other exposure risk, where disease is more severe and where there's less value — economic, conservation, human-animal bond — of the animals," he said.
But Weese added that H5N1 is now well established in Canada, and there may be less justification for culling from the standpoint of controlling disease.
"An individual group of birds is a drop in the bucket now," he said. "Culling probably has little population benefit."
He added, though, that from a "risk aversion standpoint," a cull is the "easiest thing" to do.
Signs and a prop put up by supporters of Universal Ostrich. (Camille Vernet/Radio-Canada)
And Fiona Brinkman, a professor at Simon Fraser University's department of molecular biology and biochemistry called the spread of avian flu "a tragedy," saying that she had hoped the CFIA would conduct new tests of the ostriches while she also recognized the worry that they could be reinfected or asymptomatic, passing the flu back and forth with wild birds.
"There's a real problem with the birds not being able to be
sheltered," she said. "Poultry, for example, you can put them in a
barn. That's not appropriate for ostriches."
And rights group
Animal Justice has become involved, arguing that rather than mass culls,
Canada should focus on improving conditions at large-scale poultry
farms where birds are kept in more confined conditions.
Political pushback
Despite the ruling, B.C.'s premier has expressed frustration with the CFIA for not showing more "flexibility" in its decision making.
"We understand the importance of containing the bird flu and the important role that agency plays," he said following the court ruling. "What's hard to watch is a lack of discretion and ability to evaluate case-by-case scenarios."
He said putting the specifics of the ostrich case aside, it's a "consistent experience the province has had with federal agencies."
Conservative MP Scott Anderson has visited the farm, which is in his riding, and says he has asked the CFIA to "hold off" on the cull and be open to other solutions.
Another politician to visit is independent MLA Jordan Kealey of Peace River North, who is a farmer himself.
He told CBC News the case had struck fear into many independent farmers
who worry that with avian flu so prevalent among wild birds, it will be
nearly impossible to avoid exposure and, ultimately, will lead to the
loss of animals.
Meanwhile, the Regional District of Central Kootenay voted to not accept the carcasses of any killed ostriches at local landfills unless followup testing of the birds was done, and the results made public. That meeting was attended by nearly 300 supporters of the farm via Zoom.
Threats, deaths and RCMP involvement
Since the ruling, a few dozen supporters have camped out at the farm, at the encouragement of its owners, with Espersen encouraging them to "come surround the farm" and "don't let them do this to these beautiful animals."
Supporters back ostrich farm fighting cull despite past cases of avian fluThe farm has urged its supporters to be peaceful and spoken out against threats of violence that have been made by some opposed to the cull.
The union representing CFIA workers says it has fears over some of the rhetoric being posted online, including death threats against members.
"Nobody
likes to see their flocks culled, and we certainly don't take any
pleasure in doing it, but ... it is our jobs, it's our mandate for the
safety of Canadians to ensure that we carry out our job," said Milton
Dyck, the president of the Agriculture Union, in an interview with CBC
News.
In its May 30 statement, the CFIA said the farm owners
and supporters had gathered in "an apparent attempt to prevent the CFIA
from carrying out its operations at the infected premises.
"This has delayed a timely and appropriate response to the HPAI infected premises, resulting in ongoing health risks to animals and humans," the statement read.
On the other side, Universal Ostrich says two of its birds have been shot, one on the night of March 21 and the other on the night of May 23.
RCMP has not confirmed the cause of the deaths but says it is investigating both instances.
RCMP liason officers have also been paying regular visits to the farm in what they describe as an effort to maintain safety for everyone involved.
Universal Ostrich says it supports the RCMP's presence.
RFK Jr. and Dr. Oz weigh in
In the meantime, word of the ostriches' fate has continued to grow through dedicated coverage from independent streamers and websites dedicated to pushing back against what they view as government overreach.
One of the most high-profile supporters to jump on the cause has been U.S. billionaire John Catsimatidis, who told CBC News he had been following the story through a website called Broken Truth.
U.S.
Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., left, and U.S. Centers for
Medicare and Medicaid Services administrator Dr. Mehmet Oz, right, have
both called on Canadian officials to reverse a Canadian Food Inspection
Agency order to have a group of ostriches on a B.C. bird farm killed
after two dead birds tested positive for avian flu. (Julia Demaree
Nikhinson/The Associated Press, Camille Vernet/Radio-Canada, Lauren
Victoria Burke/Associated Press)
That website, published through the Substack platform, describes itself as a network aimed at "exposing fraud and corruption, particularly in medicine and beyond," and says it has its roots in pushing back against public health policies stemming from the COVID-19 pandemic.
Catsimatidis then used his platform, which includes a radio show on a New York-based station he owns, to bring the topic up to other leaders, including Kennedy. During an April episode of his program with the health secretary, Catsimatidis claimed the ostriches were being killed because of corruption and pharmaceutical companies, with Kennedy responding that it was a "huge mistake."
Kennedy then followed up with a letter posted X on May 23, stating that he had met with the president of the CFIA and was requesting that Canada consider not culling the herd but rather work with the United States to research them.
The U.S. health secretary has previously suggested in interviews that farmers should allow avian flu to "run through" their flocks in order to "preserve the birds that are immune to it" — a significant departure from Canadian, U.S. and international health guidelines that has received widespread criticism from those tasked with controlling the disease.
Additionally, former TV host Dr. Mehmet Oz, who is now the administrator for the U.S. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, has offered to take the ostriches in at his ranch.
The farm has rejected the offer but said it appreciates the support.
"They see the science, they see the potential," Pasitney said in an interview with CBC News.
The exact fate of the ostriches remains unknown. (Katie Pasitney/Canadian Press)
Fate unknown
Through all this, the CFIA has remained steadfast in its policy to have the flock culled, saying stamping out is a necessary policy needed to protect public health and Canada's argriculture industry.
It says the cull will be done humanely, and under veterinary supervision, but that it will not be sharing details of the operation — including when it might take place — in advance.
But on May 28, Canada's minister of agriculture indicated the birds will "not necessarily" be killed.
"We're in a process," Heath MacDonald, the minister of agriculture and agri-food, said. "We're taking all facts into consideration. And we'll move forward on the best possible solution for everybody involved."
Asked directly if the birds would be killed, he said, "The process is in place. And not necessarily."
And Universal Ostrich is hoping to go back to court, having filed an appeal of the earlier court ruling on May 26.
According to the Canadian Press, the farm's appeal claims the court made "multiple reversible errors" in its earlier ruling upholding the cull order, and that its own lawyers provided "ineffective assistance" that "amounted to incompetence, and resulted in a miscarriage of justice."
The farm's appeal says "prior counsel had a financial stake in the destruction of the appellant's ostriches, resulting in a blatant conflict of interest."
Lee Turner, one of the farm's former lawyers, told The Canadian Press he "certainly did not" have a conflict of interest, and his co-counsel Michael Carter did a "a remarkable job with the short window of time that he had."
The appeal has not yet been accepted.
With files from Brady Strachan, Akshay Kulkarni, Chris Walker, Sarah Penton and the Canadian Press
ICYMI: Trump Leadership: If You Want Welfare and Can Work, You Must
As Originally Published in the New York Times Opinion by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Mehmet Oz, Brooke Rollins, & Scott Turner
America’s welfare programs were created with a noble purpose: to help those who needed them most — our seniors, individuals with disabilities, pregnant women and low-income families with children.
In recent years, though, these welfare programs have deviated from their original mission both by drift and by design. Millions of able-bodied adults have been added to the rolls in the past decade, primarily as a result of Medicaid expansion. Many of these recipients are working-age individuals without children who might remain on welfare for years. Some of them do not work at all or they work inconsistently throughout the year.
The increased share of welfare spending dedicated to able-bodied working-age adults distracts from what should be the focus of these programs: the truly needy.
This should not be the American way of welfare. That’s why we are joining efforts to require able-bodied adults (defined as adults who have not been certified as physically or mentally unfit to work), with some exceptions, to get jobs and calling on Congress to enact common-sense reforms into law. Congressional Republicans have already put forward new or revised work requirements for Medicaid and food stamps in the reconciliation package and much-needed tax relief for Americans in The One, Big, Beautiful Bill.
As leaders of the agencies that oversee the largest welfare programs in the nation — the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, Medicaid and federal housing assistance, among others — we see the data, hear the stories and understand that these programs are failing to deliver results. For able-bodied adults, welfare should be a short-term hand-up, not a lifetime handout.
But too many able-bodied adults on welfare are not working at all. And too often we don’t even ask them to. For many, welfare is no longer a lifeline to self-sufficiency but a lifelong trap of dependency.
A recent analysis from an economist at the American Enterprise Institute examined survey data from December 2022 (the most recent month available) and found that just 44 percent of able-bodied, working-age Medicaid beneficiaries without dependents worked at least 80 hours in that month.
Establishing universal work requirements for able-bodied adults across the welfare programs we manage will prioritize the vulnerable, empower able-bodied individuals, help rebuild thriving communities and protect the taxpayers. That’s why a majority of Americans support work requirements — polling shows that 60 to 80 percent of all Americans support work requirements in Medicaid, for instance. Even Joe Biden as a senator supported work requirements for welfare.
The good news is that history shows us that work requirements work.
In 1996, President Bill Clinton and the speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich, joined forces to enact bipartisan welfare reform with a work requirement at the heart of it. The results were astounding. As early as 1997, economists attributed a measurable increase in the national labor force participation rate and a decrease in dependency to welfare reform. That reform — combined with a strong economy and expanded tax credits for low-income workers — led to a steady decrease in rates of child poverty in the late 1990s. Today, the share of kids living in poverty is a quarter lower than it was in 1996. The 1996 welfare reform was so successful that Barack Obama, when he ran for president in 2008, admitted that he had been wrong about it.
Our agencies are united in a very straightforward policy approach: able-bodied adults receiving benefits must work, participate in job training or volunteer in their communities at least 20 hours a week. Limited exceptions will be made for good cause, like caring for young children and health issues, but the principle is clear — those who can work, should.
Some will argue that work requirements create barriers to resources. We disagree. We believe that welfare dependency, not work, is the barrier. There are millions of open jobs around the country, with more on the way as President Trump’s job-creation policies are fully implemented. And if someone can’t find one of those millions of open jobs, he or she can meet the work requirement through job training or volunteering part time.
This is about opportunity. We believe that work is transformative for the individual who moves from welfare to employment.
Yes, it is true that a work requirement protects taxpayer dollars as it provides income to the worker and lessens dependence on government funding. But it is not just about money. Work also provides purpose and dignity. It strengthens families and communities as it gives new life to start-ups and growing businesses. It provides an example to our next generation. And studies have shown that work can improve physical and mental health.
Work requirements will also give new life to America’s welfare programs, which are breaking under the weight of misplaced priorities. Our policy is reasonable and will protect welfare for the truly needy while improving the trajectory of millions of families — and of our federal government.
At the Departments of Agriculture, Health and Human Services and Housing and Urban Development, we are ready to implement work requirements. As we do so, we will work hand in hand with Congress, states, communities and individuals to make this vision a permanent reality. The benefits are clear: stronger economies and a renewed sense of purpose for millions of Americans.
B.C. ostrich farm facing $20,000 fine over failure to quarantine, cull birds: CFIA
Canadian Food Inspection Agency says bird cull will go ahead
The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) says that an ostrich farm is facing a $20,000 fine over failure to quarantine and cull its birds.
In a statement released May 30, the agency said Universal Ostrich Farm has failed to follow federal regulations, including not reporting the initial cases of illness and death at their farm, and failing to adhere to quarantine orders.
"Universal Ostrich Farm was issued two notices of violations with penalty, totaling $20,000," the statement says, though it does not say when the fines were issued.
The in-depth statement provides more details about the CFIA's inspection of the farm dating back to December 2024 and comes as U.S. officials, including health secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Dr. Mehmet Oz, have weighed in on the case, urging Canadian officials not to kill the birds.
People gather at B.C. ostrich farm to protest order to cull flock of birdsKatie Pasitney, whose parents own the farm, said in a brief interview with the The Canadian Press that she was unsure whether the fines were a new move by the CFIA but "nothing surprises me at this point."
Pasitney told CBC News that the farm will issue a response to the CFIA statement on Monday.
Many of the details in the statement, however, were already shared during a two-day court case undertaken after Universal Ostrich received an injunction staving off the order.
This includes the fact that the CFIA learned that ostriches were dying through an anonymous tip, and that the farm did not quarantine its birds during the avian flu outbreak, which killed 69 of the approximately 450 birds on the farm, allowing wild animals and people to freely mingle with infected animals.
"The farm also failed to undertake appropriate biosecurity risk mitigation measures such as limiting wild bird access to the ostriches, controlling water flow from the quarantine zone to other parts of the farm, or improving fencing," the CFIA's statement reads.
"These actions significantly increase the risk of disease transmission and reflect a disregard for regulatory compliance and animal health standards."
Supporters back ostrich farm fighting cull despite past cases of avian fluThe statement also says the farm has failed to substantiate its claims that the ostriches are being used for scientific research, stating that the "CFIA has not received any evidence of scientific research being done at the infected premises."
The farm has repeatedly claimed that its birds are unique and can be used to develop antibodies to avian flu and COVID-19 but the CFIA says the farm was unable to back up those claims and that "further, the current physical facilities at their location are not suitable for controlled research activities or trials."
In addition, the statement adds that the ostriches have a new variant of avian influenza not seen elsewhere in Canada — something previously reported by CBC News in April.
"This [variant] includes the D1.3 genotype, which has been associated with a human infection in a poultry worker in Ohio," the statement reads.
Universal Ostrich has filed an appeal of the earlier court ruling allowing the cull to move ahead, though that appeal has not yet been accepted.
The CFIA says the cull will move ahead, as is necessary to protect public health and Canada's economic agreements with other countries.
With files from The Canadian Press
B.C. ostriches won't 'necessarily' be killed, says Canada's agriculture minister
U.S. health officials RFK Jr. and Dr. Oz have asked Canada to reconsider cull ordered over avian flu concerns
Canada's minister of agriculture says a group of B.C. ostriches will "not necessarily" be killed, despite an order from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) that they be culled due to concerns about the avian flu.
On Wednesday, reporters in Ottawa asked Heath MacDonald, the minister of agriculture and agri-food, about the fate of the ostriches, after high-ranking U.S. officials, including Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., publicly called for the herd to be spared.
"We're in a process," MacDonald said. "We're taking all facts into consideration. And we'll move forward on the best possible solution for everybody involved."
Asked directly if the birds would be killed, he said, "The process is in place. And not necessarily."
Dr. Oz, U.S. billionaire offer to take B.C. ostriches ordered killedThe fate of the birds on Universal Ostrich farm, in Edgewood, B.C., has attracted international attention since December 2024, when they were told by the CFIA that their entire herd of roughly 400 ostriches would have to be killed after two dead ostriches tested positive for avian flu.
The order follows the CFIA's blanket policy of "stamping out" all domestic flocks where the disease is detected, in an effort to stem its spread and possible mutation.
The disease has been responsible for the deaths of thousands of birds in Canada and the United States and can also infect mammals, and in rare cases, humans. Its spread was a primary driver of skyrocketing egg prices in the United States earlier this year as commercial flocks were infected.
But Universal Ostrich farm has tried to appeal the order, arguing that while 69 birds died during the initial infection, the last death occurred in January, and since then, it says the remaining birds have shown no symptoms of the disease. They also say they don't sell their birds for food but have pivoted instead to using them for scientific research.
However, the CFIA points out that the ostriches continue to be in open pens where they are exposed to wild birds and animals, which would allow avian flu to be reintroduced or, if the ostriches are still carrying the disease without showing symptoms, for it to be passed back into wild animal populations.
They also said the farm did not present evidence that the ostriches were genetically unique enough to warrant an exemption on scientific grounds.
And they say they have a responsibility to follow international guidelines on how to handle infections in order to preserve Canada's agricultural industry and public health.
MacDonald said while he sympathizes with the farmers, it's also important to take a look at the broader context of combating avian flu.
"I certainly, you know, obviously feel sorry for the farmers... but we also have the economic side to this," he said.
"We have to protect other industries and sectors, as well."
The farm is entitled to up to $3,000 per ostrich killed.
Signs and a prop put up by supporters of Universal Ostrich. (Camille Vernet/Radio-Canada)
In the meantime, Universal Ostrich has filed for an appeal, which still has to be accepted, of an earlier court ruling allowing the cull to move forward. And a group of dedicated supporters have set themselves up on the farm, publishing daily live streams and lobbying for help.
It was through this network that the ostriches came to the attention of U.S. billionaire John Catsimatidis, who told CBC News he had been following the story through a website called Broken Truth, which describes itself as a network aimed at "exposing fraud and corruption, particularly in medicine and beyond," and says it has its roots in pushing against public health policies stemming from the COVID-19 pandemic.
Catsimatidis then used his platform, which includes a radio show on a New York-based station he owns, to bring the topic up to other leaders, including Kennedy. During an April episode of his program with the health secretary, Catsimatidis claimed the ostriches were being killed because of corruption and pharmaceutical companies, with Kennedy responding that it was a "huge mistake."
Kennedy then followed up with a letter posted last week to X, stating that he had met with the president of the CFIA and was requesting that Canada consider not culling the herd but rather work with the United States to research them. Additionally, former TV host Dr. Mehmet Oz, who is now the administrator for the U.S. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, has offered to take the ostriches in at his ranch.
MacDonald said he has not yet had a conversation with his U.S. counterparts about the topic, but it would be better to have a conversation rather than communicating online via social media.
"If we follow Twitter or that sort of thing with any major decisions that we're making here in Canada, I'm not sure that's the appropriate course of action," he said.
With files from Chris Rands and Brady Strachan
Dr. Oz, billionaire John Catsimatidis offer to take B.C. ostriches ordered killed due to avian flu
Farm says while it appreciates support, it will not seek to relocate birds
High-profile officials in the U.S. federal government, along with a prominent billionaire, are now weighing in on the fate of a flock of ostriches ordered killed on a farm in a remote part of the B.C. Interior.
Former TV host Dr. Mehmet Oz, who is now the administrator for the U.S. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, has offered to relocate the birds to his ranch in Florida, as first reported by the New York Post.
CBC News has confirmed the offer with Katie Pasitney, who is acting as a spokesperson for Universal Ostrich in Edgewood, B.C., which is co-owned by her mother. She said Oz had called the farm Monday morning to discuss the offer, and they were considering it, but in a later interview said while they welcomed the support, they would not be pursuing the offer.
"We want to keep this in Canada," she said.
Meanwhile, American billionaire John Catsimatidis said in a statement that he, along with Oz and U.S. health secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., are seeking a "diplomatic meeting with Canadian officials" about the fate of the ostriches before irreversible harm is done."
Catsimatidis, who is CEO of Red Apple Group, which includes grocery chains and New York radio station 77 WABC, said in the statement that he wants health officials from the United States to be able to evaluate the health of the birds.
Catsimatidis has been following the story closely for several weeks and brought it up with the U.S. health secretary when he appeared for an interview on WABC in a program hosted by the billionaire.
And last week, Kennedy revealed he'd had a meeting with the president of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, in which he urged Canadian officials to reconsider their order that the ostriches be killed.
In an interview with CBC News, Castimadis took credit for Kennedy and Oz's involvement, and said he would be throwing his full weight behind the calls for the ostriches to be retested, studied and potentially saved.
"I love animals," he said. "Why the rush to kill them?"
The order to kill the birds came after CFIA inspectors received an anonymous tip in December 2024 about birds on the ranch dying. They collected samples from two dead birds and confirmed through repeated tests that they had been infected with the H5N1 strain of avian flu.
At that point, the entire flock of nearly 400 ostriches was ordered killed, following a "stamping out" policy aimed at controlling the disease.
But the farm argues that after the initial infection period, during which 69 birds died, the remainder have either recovered or never showed symptoms of being infected, with the last death occurring in January.
On those grounds, they have argued the remainder should be allowed to live, and even suggested there may be information to be gained about immunity to the disease.
Court documents show that the CFIA did walk the farm through the process of applying for an exemption, and that during this process, Universal Ostrich pointed to its partnership with researchers looking at ostrich antibodies.
However, the CFIA said the farm failed to provide satisfactory evidence that the ostriches are genetically unique enough to warrant an exemption and decided that the cull should proceed.
The CFIA says the policy of "stamping out" infected flocks is based on World Organization for Animal Health recommendations, and is required on both economic and public health grounds.
"We have a duty to protect Canadians from the serious potential risks of HPAI (highly pathogenic avian flu)," it said in a statement on the decision.
"Our response aims to protect human and animal health and minimize impacts on the $6.8 billion domestic poultry industry and Canada's economy. This supports Canadian families and poultry farmers whose livelihoods depend on maintaining international market access."
Supporters back ostrich farm fighting cull despite past cases of avian fluOnly one exemption to a cull order has been granted in Canada, in the case of a turkey farm where the infected flock of birds had been kept in a completely separate barn from other birds, and staff followed health and safety measures to ensure no spread of disease between the animals — conditions not present at Universal Ostrich, where the birds are in open pens and can interact with wild birds and animals.
Milton Dyck, president of the Agriculture Union, which represents CFIA workers, said the success of Canada's approach to the avian flu versus that of the United States could be seen in the recent spike in egg prices south of the border which resulted, in part, from commercial flocks being infected with the disease.
A sign stating Save Our Ostriches at the Universal Ostrich farm in Edgewood, B.C. (Camille Vernet/Radio-Canada)
"In Canada, because of the work we've done, we've managed to not have huge egg price increases because we've managed to protect our flocks, and that is partly by the culling that we do," he said.
Dyck acknowledged the toll losing animals can have on any farmer, saying it wasn't a decision made lightly, but at the same time urged supporters of the farm to understand that the CFIA and the employees tasked with carrying out the cull do not make decisions lightly and should be allowed to work safely.
The farm has attracted attention online from a number of groups, including some who view the cull order as an example of government overreach.
Though the farm itself has consistently asked for supporters to remain calm and peaceful, Dyck said some of the online rhetoric from other groups has boiled over to violent threats, and said his members are feeling increasingly unsafe when on the job.
"Nobody likes to see their flocks culled, and we certainly don't take any pleasure in doing it, but ... it is our jobs, it's our mandate for the safety of Canadians to ensure that we carry out our job," he said.
A request to Canada's federal agricultural ministry in response to the involvement of U.S. officials in the matter was redirected to the CFIA which reiterated its mandate to preserve public health.
Catsimatidis said he wasn't trying to undermine Canadian sovereignty, but he wanted to be sure all avenues were being explored to save the ostriches if they didn't need to be killed.
"I'm pro Canada. I'm pro United States. I'm pro North America," he said.
With files from Brady Strachan and the Canadian Press
David Amos
Welcome to the circus
Adam Smith
This is a domestic affair. Stop foreign interference.
David Amos
Reply to Adam Smith
So you say
Arthur Worthsky
Oh no! Some people want to save half a thousand animals!
Mike Hayley
Reply to Arthur Worthsky
Oh no, some people want regulations enforced equally.
Arthur Worthsky
Reply to Mike Hayley
Are you here to regulate/officiate the net? Because you seem to following me around.
Mike Hayley
Reply to Arthur Worthsky
By responding? No one is regulating you.
Arthur Worthsky
Reply to Mike Hayley
Why do you respond to every post?
David Amos
Reply to Arthur Worthsky
Go Figure
David Amos
Somebody should ask the CFIA boss if he understood my email
David Amos
Reply to David Amos
"And last week, Kennedy revealed he'd had a meeting with the president of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, in which he urged Canadian officials to reconsider their order that the ostriches be killed."
Hmmm
David Amos
Reply to David Amos
Perhaps I should introduce the Yankee lawyer to the Deputy Executive Director and General Counsel of the CFIA and his boss the Attorney General
David Amos
Reply to David Amos
The lawyer cannot deny the fact that we talked on Tuesday, May 20, 2025 at High Noon before I sent him some old documents that apply on both sides of the Medicine Line
David Amos
445 (1) Every one commits an offence who, wilfully and without lawful excuse,
(a) kills, maims, wounds, poisons or injures dogs, birds or animals that are kept for a lawful purpose; or
(b) places poison in such a position that it may easily be consumed by dogs, birds or animals that are kept for a lawful purpose.
Marginal note:Punishment
(2) Every one who commits an offence under subsection (1) is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to a fine of not more than $10,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than two years less a day, or to both
Pete Needham
coo-coo.
David Amos
Content Disabled
Reply to Pete Needham
Your comment stands yet I cannot quote the law???
Douglas Keith III
The ostriches got over the flu, now the CFIA wants to kill them all, in hopes that it will stop avian flu.
LOL
That logic says that the CFIA will feel even better if they kill every single bird in Canada, in hopes of stopping avian flu.
Mike Hayley
Reply to Douglas Keith III
The ostriches were ordered to be culled to stop potential spread. The farmers ignored the law, but it turned out ok. However it could have also been a disaster. One does not get away with breaking the law if it turns out ok. It isn't ok to drive inebriated as long as you don't run anyone over.
Walter Samson
Reply to Mike Hayley
that's not even close to being a reasonable comparison
Mike Hayley
Reply to Walter Samson
Sure it is. The claim is that we can ignore rules if there isn't a negative future outcome.
Walter Samson
Reply to Mike Hayley
Then why aren't the rules being enforced to dispel that claim ?
Mike Hayley
Reply to Walter Samson
Because there are protestors in the way. The court ruled that the cull should proceed.
Walter Samson
Reply to Mike Hayley
In the way? well then the authorities are supporting the claim that if you move someone , "in the way" you don;t have to follow rules
Mike Hayley
Reply to Walter Samson
What are you talking about?
Walter Samson
Reply to Mike Hayley
I'm talking about your speech regarding following laws
Mike Hayley
Reply to Walter Samson
The laws should be followed.
David Amos
Reply to Walter Samson
"well then the authorities are supporting the claim that if you move someone , "in the way" you don;t have to follow rules"
55 In special circumstances, in a proceeding, the Court may vary a rule or dispense with compliance with a rule. SOR/2004-283, s. 11
Sam Smithmoose
Personally I don’t trust USA with public health issues. Dr. Oz wants the ostriches for his ranch for some reason. What kind of research they are doing with these ostriches in BC? It is a farm or for research?
Jean Ansley
Reply to Sam Smithmoose
It has been a farm for 30 years. They have never done any 'research', don't have a grant to do so, and no 'real' researcher has shown any interest in doing so with funding and a research proposal.
Sam Smithmoose
Reply to Jean Ansley
Thank you.
David Amos
Reply to Jean Ansley
Are you sure about that?
Trevor Campbell
There is literally zero chance that the USDA would allow asymptomatic bird flu carriers like these ostriches into the USA. This farm lost hundreds of ostriches to the disease already and the US agriculture system cannot risk further loss to poultry producers. You'd think RFK would have a minimum understanding of how agriculture quarantine adminstration works between countries.
Douglas Keith III
Reply to Trevor Campbell
Did you test the birds for carriers of any viruses?
I bet you have not.
One would think that most people have a modicum of understanding of the cycle of a flu.
But, there are many people who don't. I'd say 80%+ by the comments here.
David Amos
Reply to Douglas Keith III
Ditto
Ray Hope
About 20 years ago we had a mad cow scare here in Canada and I remember a beef farmer saying to me, "it's called shoot and shovel, if we get a positive". Same applies here, as far as I'm concerned.
BD Morgan
Reply to Ray Hope
It was Premier Klein who was recommending that the disease should not be reported to health authorities. The last part of the quote left out is a colloquialism for keep quiet.
Mike Hayley
Reply to Ray Hope
I remember that. Horrible disease. The kindest treatment available for the cows.
Ray Hope
Reply to BD Morgan
It wasn't an Alberta farmer who said it to me, the point being is to cull immediately.
Douglas Keith III
Reply to Ray Hope
Mad cow disease is not a flu, it is a prion disease.
Animals and people can overcome different flu strains, and then they get natural immunity.
Trying to equate the 2 is scare mongering.
Do you work for the mainstream media?
Mike Hayley
Reply to Douglas Keith III
But every time an animal is infected with flu, there is a chance the flu can mutate into a more virulent strain.
David Amos
Reply to Douglas Keith III
Good question
Canada Food Inspection Agency Authorized to Kill 400 Healthy Ostriches at BC Universal Ostrich Farm!
Viva Frei 713 Comments
Catsimatidis, who is CEO of Red Apple Group, which includes grocery chains and New York radio station 77 WABC, said in the statement that he wants health officials from the United States to be able to evaluate the health of the birds.
Catsimatidis has been following the story closely for several weeks and brought it up with the U.S. health secretary when he appeared for an interview on WABC in a program hosted by the billionaire.
https://wabcradio.com/2025/05/26/listen-cats-kennedy-team-up-for-ostriches/
LISTEN: Cats & Kennedy Team Up for Ostriches
77 WABC owner-operator John Catsimatidis has partnered up with HHS Secretary RFK Jr. to try and protect ostriches set for culling in Canada. May 26, 2025.
© Becca Mahon/Battle Creek Enquirer / USA TODAY NETWORK via Imagn Images + © Jack Gruber / USA TODAY NETWORK via Imagn Images
(New York, NY) – The push is on to save the ostriches. 77 WABC owner-operator John Catsimatidis, a noted animal lover, has teamed up with Health and Humans Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. in a bid to save ostriches slated for culling in Canada.
Catsimatidis appeared on Sid and Friends in the Morning to discuss this latest effort:
Catsimatidis has been raising the alarm on his show “Cats and Cosby,” as there are upward of 400 ostriches that may be killed by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, due to the risk of bird flu. This is at the Universal Ostrich Farm in British Columbia. A report in the New York Post has detailed how Catsimatidis and Kennedy Jr. are now in partnership. “Let’s save the ostriches! They have a right to live if they are healthy,” Catsimatidis told the paper. He added, “we’re dealing with a bunch of bureaucrats in Canada. They’re mean-spirited. Test the ostriches. They are not sick!” The grocery store operator and programmer/radio host added that the ostriches may have “herd immunity” a this point.
“I love animals. Let’s save the whales, too,” Catsimatidis said. He also intends to help protect whales from the risks associated with off-shore wind projects, turbines, and the vibrations that may impact their navigation patterns.
Meanwhile, RFK Jr. made his feelings clear in a published letter co-signed by NIH Director Jay Bhattachary and FDA Commissioner Martin Makary. It reads: “Ostriches can live up to 50 years, providing the opportunity for future insights into immune longevity associated with the H5N1 virus. The indiscriminate destruction of entire flocks without up-to-date testing and evaluation can have significant consequences, including the loss of valuable genetic stock that may help explain risk factors for H5N1 mortality. This may be important for future agricultural resilience.”
The letter also broadly criticizes the ongoing culling of animals as tied to the bird flu, calling the policies “fruitless unless we are willing to exterminate every wild bird in North America.”
New York State Fundraising Disclosure Statement
WABC Radio Foundation, Inc. (Federal Tax ID Number: 86-3988037) is a qualified 501(c)(3) tax-exempt not-for-profit organization. Donations are tax-deductible to the full extent of the law.
A copy of our most recently filed financial report is available from the Charities Registry on the New York State Attorney General’s website (www.charitiesnys.com) or, upon request, by contacting the New York State Attorney General, Charities Bureau, 28 Liberty Street, New York, NY 10005, by visiting www.charitiesnys.com or by calling (212) 416.8401.
Catsimatidis’s Red Apple Media Completes Acquisition of TALKRADIO 77 WABC
NEW YORK, NY, March 2, 2020 – John Catsimatidis’s Red Apple Media Inc., a subsidiary of Red Apple Group, Inc. has completed the acquisition of TALKRADIO 77 WABC, Mr. Catsimatidis announced today during an interview on the pioneering talk radio station.
“We look forward to working with this legendary New York staple radio station with all of its employees and talent,” said Catsimatidis. “It is exciting for our company to be stepping into the broadcasting industry with WABC as the anchor for our growing media assets as we expand into the future.”
“We’re thrilled that John Catsimatidis, a true New Yorker has acquired, and taken control of, WABC,” said Chad Lopez, Vice President/Market Manager. "John’s passion for radio, along with his appreciation of the rich history of the station, makes this partnership ideal as we work together to give New York City what it deserves; the best News-Talk station in the city.” Red Apple Group is a diverse company that includes holdings in the energy, real estate, finance, insurance, and supermarket industries. With this new acquisition of 77 WABC, Red Apple hopes to expand its business to the broadcasting/media industry as well. Catsimatidis also hosts his own weekly show for Salem Media Conservative Talk “970 The Answer” on WNYM in Hackensack, NJ.
"John Catsimatidis shares the same vision and passion for rebuilding WABC, and having him join us is going to be such a great asset to this station," said Dave LaBrozzi, Program Director. "We know that this new step for WABC will help the station to achieve its highest potential." 77 WABC is ready to be a part of this group officially and is eager to see what is to come for the station. For more information, please visit www.wabcradio.com.
TALKRADIO 77 WABC is a commercial talk radio station licensed to New York City, New York, serving the greater metropolitan area. The station currently serves as a flagship station for syndicated hosts Mark Levin and John Batchelor; is the radio home for Bernard McGuirk, Sid Rosenberg, Curtis Sliwa and Juliet Huddy, Brian Kilmeade, The Ben Shapiro Show, and Red Eye Radio. One of the country’s oldest radio stations, WABC began broadcasting in 1921, originally as WJZ in Newark, New Jersey.
CONTACT: Mia Raftery, Promotions and Marketing Manager
TALKRADIO 77 WABC
Email: redapplemedia@ragny.com
Phone: (212) 613-8923
Red Apple Media, 77 WABC Names Emily Pankow General Counsel
Red Apple Media, 77 WABC Names Emily Pankow General Counsel
NEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)--John Catsimatidis, CEO of Red Apple Group, the parent company of Red Apple Media and 77 WABC Radio has announced that Emily Pankow, Esq. has been appointed Red Apple Media’s General Counsel. Pankow began at the new position on January 4, 2021.
Pankow is a respected attorney who began her legal career at Red Apple Group as an associate. Red Apple Group is a conglomerate that owns and operates assets in the energy, real estate, finance, insurance, supermarket, and media industries. After fifteen years with the organization working across the company's diverse portfolio of business interests, she has risen to the position of General Counsel of Red Apple Media.
The following statement was released by John Catsimatidis, CEO of Red Apple Group:
“Red Apple Media and WABC Radio will be well served by Emily's legal insight. She has proven herself time-and-time again as an asset to our company over the past fifteen years. Since the acquisition of WABC Emily has been instrumental in the day-to-day legal work and has earned this title. I have every confidence that Emily will succeed in the new position and is destined for great things in the future.”
The following statement has been released by Chad Lopez, President, Red Apple Media:
“We are thrilled to welcome Emily as General Counsel of Red Apple Media and to the iconic, legendary, WABC brand. Emily brings with her, her diverse and extensive legal experience. She will be an invaluable asset to Red Apple Media's ever growing portfolio.”
The following statement has been released by Emily Pankow:
“I'm honored and delighted to join the Red Apple Media team at this exciting phase of the company's growth under John Catsimatidis's leadership. I look forward to helping build upon Red Apple Media's success. Red Apple Group is continuously expanding its horizons and it has been a pleasure and honor to learn and grow with the company.”
Contacts
Mia Raftery
212-613-8923
People on the Move
Media & Entertainment
Emily Pankow, Red Apple Media, 77 WABC
John Catsimatidis, CEO of Red Apple Group, the parent company of Red Apple Media and 77 WABC Radio has announced that Emily Pankow, Esq. has been appointed Red Apple Media’s General Counsel. After fifteen years with the organization working across the company's diverse portfolio of business interests, she has risen to the position of General Counsel of Red Apple Media.
Emily Pankow: General Counsel of Red Apple Media | 03-08-23
The General Counsel of Red Apple Media Emily Pankow joins Sid and Friends with Sid, Andrew Giuliani, and Red Apple’s president Chad Lopez to celebrate International Women’s Day and talk about the empowerment of women and her new position as the General Counsel of Red Apple Group.
Mailing Address
77 WABC
P.O. BOX 1777
New York, NY 10163
Main Business Number: 212-613-3800
800 Third Ave. New York, NY 10022
John Catsimatidis
Our Founder
John A. Catsimatidis is a Greek-American billionaire businessman and radio talk show host. He is the owner, president, chairman, and CEO of Red Apple Group, a conglomerate that owns and operates assets in the energy, real estate, finance, insurance, and supermarket industries.
About
John Catsimatidis came from humble beginnings . . .
John was born on the Greek Island of Nisyros in 1948 and 6 months later his parents emigrated to New York City in search of a better life. They settled on 135th Street in Harlem and his father found work as a busboy and his mother was a stay-at-home mom.
John is a true son of New York; he was educated in both the parochial and public school systems earning his high school diploma from Brooklyn Tech. John enrolled in New York University to study electrical engineering; going to school during the day and working in a small grocery store on nights and weekends to help his parents pay the bills. During his senior year, with just 8 credits remaining, John dropped out of NYU to work in the grocery business full-time. By his 25th birthday he was already a success with 10 Red Apple Supermarkets scattered along Broadway on Manhattan’s Upper Westside.
. . . and has lived the American Dream
Now, four decades later the Red Apple Group has evolved into a diversified corporation that has holdings in the energy, aviation, retail and real estate sectors and over 8,000 employees, with approximately 2,000 located in New York City. John and his wife Margo Catsimatidis live on Manhattan’s Upper East side and are parents to 2 grown children; Andrea and John Jr.
John is a firm believer in giving back to the community and has been a
strong supporter of the Police Athletic League for nearly 30 years.
He serves on the Board of Columbia Presbyterian Hospital, the Hellenic
Times Scholarship Fund, and over the years served in a variety of
volunteer positions in the Greek Orthodox Church.
Our address
Red Apple Group Inc.
800 3rd Ave
New York, NY 10022
United States
What billionaires say about the Wall Street crisis
"The situation is going to get better when you feel good about buying Citigroup stock," he says. "Right now, nobody feels good about buying it."
With all the turmoil on Wall Street these days, it's easy to get spooked. Miles of newsprint, endless talking heads, pandering candidates and economists quoted up the wazoo — all with opinions, most of them differing.
One group you haven't heard a lot from, though, are America's richest people — some of the savviest entrepreneurs and financiers on the planet. To get some insight into one of the most unpredictable periods in the history of Wall Street, we asked a handful of these billionaires to tell us about the economic indicators they're watching and what they think will happen next.
Eyes on the assets
Don Marron, former chief executive of PaineWebber and founder of investment firm Lightyear Capital, has his eye on asset sales from troubled banks. In the coming months, Marron, a billionaire who is not on The Forbes 400 list, says they'll be an important gauge of how the economy is faring and how Wall Street is recovering.
Will investment banks ever post those eye-popping profits again?
"I think it will be a long time getting back there," says Sam Wyly, who knows something about finance from his hedge fund Maverick Capital.
"One thing that I noticed about two years ago was that financial sector of the American economy had grown to percentages that were greatly disproportionate to history," he said. "The financing part of the economy grew much more than the part that was making and selling something. It will be shrinking at least for a while."
Stabilizing home prices will be a crucial part of the healing process since it will bolster the value of troubled mortgage securities. When does the housing market bottom? Catsimatidis, who has extensive real estate holdings in the New York area, says, "Home prices stabilize when they equal the cost of actually building of home plus the cost of the land plus a premium for location."
Billionaire entrepreneur George Lindemann, the 262nd wealthiest person in America with a fortune of $1.8 billion (US), says we'll see values stabilize much more quickly in some areas than others. "I think that's a regional issue and not a national issue. Houston, for instance, is strong as hell. No vacant jobs, prices are going up and building is continuing."
'If I had the time, I would be researching every company that needs renewable and expandable debt to survive and would short the sh*t out of it.' — Billionaire Mark Cuban
A year ago, Lehman Brothers shares traded for over $60 each. Now they're virtually worthless. Do the problems that totaled the once-mighty Lehman spread to other companies and industries?
"Any company that is built around the need to add debt is in trouble," says Mark Cuban, owner of the Dallas Mavericks and founder of HDNet. He ranks 161st on The Forbes 400 this year with a net worth of $2.6 billion. "The process of deleveraging is industry agnostic. If I had the time, I would be researching every company that needs renewable and expandable debt to survive and would short the sh*t out of it."
One thing that's clear is that despite the turmoil of the times, successful businesspeople have no shortage of ideas where to invest. On Monday, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported that one of Warren Buffett's subsidiary companies bought a corporate furnishings division from Aaron Rents.
Drawn to energy
Wyly, a billionaire who is not on The Forbes 400, advises to invest in areas you know are "rock solid." The author of 1,000 Dollars and An Idea likes companies like energy giant BP. He points to its investments in renewable energy, low price-earning multiple and management team.
'You can’t just blame the banks, you also can blame the people that took out mortgages.' — New York mayor Mike Bloomberg
As they say, buy when there's blood on the streets. But that raises another question: Who's to blame for the recent torrent?
Mike Bloomberg casts a wide net. The mayor of New York, former Wall Streeter, and founder of financial services company Bloomberg (which made him the 8th richest person in America with a net worth of $20 billion) told reporters Tuesday that, "You can’t just blame the banks, you also can blame the people that took out mortgages ... We were brought up that you first had to put some savings together and then enjoy. But this whole society has gotten to the fact that we’re a ‘now, give it to me today’ kind of society. I think regulation has not been adequate.
"There’s no one person to blame other than all of us," he added.
Union president raises safety concerns for its CFIA members tasked with B.C. ostrich cull
Avian flu means 400 ostriches are set to be culled after court ruled against farm in Edgewood, B.C.
The union representing Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) workers tasked with carrying out a cull at a B.C. ostrich farm says there are fears over the workers' safety as emotions run high.
Over 400 birds at Universal Ostrich farm in Edgewood, B.C., face the prospect of a cull due to an avian flu detection in December.
The CFIA, which is handling Canada's response to an ongoing avian flu outbreak, won a court case earlier this month and says the cull will go ahead due to concerns over the spread and mutation of the virus.
But a vocal contingent of supporters — including U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. — has spoken out against the cull, arguing the flightless birds, many decades old, pose little threat of spreading avian flu and the herd should be preserved for scientific study.
Supporters back ostrich farm fighting cull despite past cases of avian fluSupporters have camped out at the Edgewood farm for weeks, saying they won't allow the cull to go ahead, even as farm spokesperson Katie Pasitney has repeatedly urged supporters to be peaceful, respectful and to follow the law.
Now, the union representing CFIA workers says it's fearful for their safety, over online death threats it says were made against CFIA members.
"Nobody likes to see their flocks culled, and we certainly don't take any pleasure in doing it, but ... it is our jobs, it's our mandate for the safety of Canadians to ensure that we carry out our job," said Milton Dyck, the president of the Agriculture Union, in an interview with CBC News.
Signs
and a prop put up by supporters of Universal Ostrich. The farm's
spokesperson has urged supporters to be respectful and follow the law. (Camille Vernet/Radio-Canada)
Dyck said that a CFIA vehicle in the area of the farm was also pelted with a rock, but he does not know if that was directly related to the planned ostrich cull.
He said that the average worker was not responsible for the cull decision, which the CFIA says is due to wider concerns over virus mutation and the impact it could have on Canada's food supply.
"Some people will be passionate about what their motives are for keeping the ostriches — whether they love ostriches, whether it's something that they feel personally about disease," he said.
"But we have to look at it as we are doing a service to Canadians because we're protecting the health and safety of Canadians. We're protecting the value of the food chain going forward."
People gather at B.C. ostrich farm to protest order to cull flock of birdsIn a statement, the union said it supported every individual's right to peaceful protest, so long as it does not obstruct the work of its members.
While the CFIA has said the cull would be proceeding, it has not provided an exact date when it would occur.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
With files from Brady Strachan and Andrew Kurjata
RFK Jr. urges Canadian health officials to spare B.C. ostrich flock from cull
Roughly 400 birds ordered killed after avian flu detected in 2 carcasses in December
U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. says he has talked to Canadian health officials about sparing a flock of ostriches in British Columbia that have been ordered killed due to avian flu fears.
In a statement posted to X, Kennedy says that he spoke with Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) president Paul MacKinnon on Thursday to discuss the fate of the roughly 400 ostriches at Universal Ostrich in Edgewood, B.C. where avian flu was detected in two dead birds in December 2024.
In a letter to MacKinnon and posted to X, Kennedy reiterates that he is "respectfully requesting" the CFIA "consider not culling the entire flock of ostriches," arguing "we believe there is significant value in studying this population."
Protesters join B.C. ostrich farmers to fight order to cull flockAmong the reasons cited is the long-lived nature of the ostriches, and the possibility that they may hold information about antibodies to avian flu.
He goes on to write that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the Food and Drug Administration Agency (FDA) would provide their "full support and assistance" in conducting the testing and research proposed.
The letter, signed by Kennedy as well as NIH director Jay Bhattacharya and FDA Commissioner Martin A. Makary states that while the U.S. officials understand the importance of stopping the spread of avian flu, they believe there is limited value in killing the surviving birds at Universal Ostrich nearly six months after the last bird believed to be infected with avian flu died.
It also warns against a policy of killing all birds in every flock infected, given the widespread nature of avian flu in wild bird populations.
It's not the first time Kennedy has weighed in on the case, having previously been asked about it during an interview on a New York radio show and telling the host he was "horrified by the idea that they are going to kill these animals."
CFIA has said cull will move forward
In a statement, a CFIA spokesperson confirmed that MacKinnon had a call with Makary and Kennedy on Thursday, and that the U.S. officials sent the agency's president their letter — but the spokesperson provided few other details.
Earlier in the day, the agency provided CBC News with a
statement indicating the cull would be moving forward and it would not
be retesting the birds. Nor would it consider an exemption for its
"stamping out" policy, which is applied to all "domestic poultry" flocks
where avian flu is detected, which includes ostriches and emus along
with ducks, chickens, and turkeys.
"Under Canada's stamping out
policy, all domestic birds at an infected premises are depopulated to
control the risk of further spread," the spokesperson wrote.
Court documents have shown that the CFIA had provided Universal Ostrich with the procedure for applying for an exemption but that it failed to meet the standards required, which would involve proof that the birds were considered rare or unique enough to be spared. Methods of proving this include breeding books, recognition from a certified breed association or the poultry industry, or specific genomic testing, which the farm could not provide.
Katie Pasitney watches the ostriches on her mother's farm, Universal Ostrich, on May 21, 2025. (Camille Vernet/Radio-Canada)
Only one exemption to a cull order has been granted in Canada, in a 2022 case of a turkey farm where avian flu had been detected in two barns but not others on the premises, because those animals had been kept separate and safety measures had been taken to prevent the possible spread of disease between the different structures.
Those conditions do not exist at Universal Ostrich where inspectors observed wild birds, weasels and "unauthorized individuals" walking among infected animals, in violation of quarantine policy.
In that earlier statement, the CFIA says the policy is built on the standards of the World Organisation for Animal Health and states that a "single laboratory confirmed case of H5 avian influenza is sufficient to declare a premises infected, given how easily the disease can spread to other birds."
It says in the case of Universal Ostrich farm, the disease was confirmed through the collection of duplicate samples of two recently deceased birds.
Supporters gather
The farm has
attracted many supporters from Canada and internationally, a few dozen
of whom have stationed themselves at the property following a May 13 federal court ruling stating that the cull could move forward.
The judge in that ruling did not weigh in on the scientific arguments
of the case, ruling that the CFIA has a mandate from the federal
government to handle cases like culls, and it would be inappropriate for
the judiciary to get involved.
Signs and a prop put up by supporters of Universal Ostrich. (Camille Vernet/Radio-Canada)
Instead, the ruling said the CFIA had followed the proper channels and policies in making its decision.
The CFIA argued that its policies are based on scientific research, as well as Canada's international obligations to try to prevent avian flu from mutating and spreading further, potentially making it more dangerous to both humans and animals.
Several politicians, including B.C. Premier David Eby, have expressed frustration that the CFIA has not conducted more flexibility on the individual case.
Jordan Kealy, an independent MLA and farmer who visited Universal Ostrich, told CBC News many people who raise livestock are concerned about the stamping out policy, arguing that given avian flu has spread so widely into wild birds it is nearly impossible to prevent possible infection while still allowing animals to interact with the outside world.
However, the CFIA says it recognizes both the economic and emotional impact of culls, which is why it offers compensation for any animals killed — up to $3,000 per animal in the case of ostriches.
Difficult decision: professor
Fiona Brinkman, a professor at Simon Fraser University's department of molecular biology and biochemistry, told CBC News after the court decision that the CFIA is in a difficult position in the face of a highly infectious disease which impacts not just birds but also mammals, including humans.
"It's a really tough one," she said in an interview with CBC Daybreak South host Chris Walker. "This is ultimately a tragedy of a pathogen that is now a threat to multiple industries and many animals."
The greatest fear, she said, is that a new variant of avian flu could mutate that is even more dangerous to animals and humans.
But, she said, she had hoped the CFIA would conduct new tests on the ostriches now that so much time has passed since the initial cull order was given.
"I do hope they're going to do a little bit more investigation," she said.
Brinkman noted that for most domestic flocks of birds, the mortality rate once avian flu is detected is upwards of 90 per cent but that was not the case for ostriches, with the majority still alive. However, that also meant the virus could "linger" in the birds for a longer period of time, potentially spreading to wild flocks.
"There's a real problem with the birds not being able to be sheltered," she said. "Poultry, for example, you can put them in a barn. That's not appropriate for ostriches."
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Protesters join B.C. ostrich farmers to fight order to cull flock
Mounties investigating after 2nd ostrich dies on B.C. farm facing cull order
2nd investigation into an ostrich death on B.C. farm
RCMP say they are investigating after a second ostrich was found dead in suspicious circumstances on a B.C. farm where roughly 400 of the birds have been ordered killed by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA).
Though a kill order for the ostriches is in place, the CFIA has said the cull will be "humane", with "veterinary oversight." In the meantime, the RCMP are monitoring the farm to ensure overall safety.
This is the second investigation into an ostrich death at the farm this year, with RCMP already investigating after one of the birds was shot on March 21.
The latest investigation was first confirmed by the Canadian Press.
RCMP did not provide an update on that earlier investigation, nor did they confirm the circumstances of the most recent death, which farm spokesperson Katie Pasitney, whose mother is co-owner of Universal Ostrich, said occurred sometime last night.
Signs and a prop put up by supporters of Universal Ostrich. (Camille Vernet/Radio-Canada)
In a series of videos posted to Facebook Live, Pastiney said the farm had lost a "big, beautiful, handsome" male bird and that there was a "clear entry wound and a clear exit wound."
She also said the farm had issues with drones in the area but did not want any "misinterpretations" and asked supporters to stick to the facts.
"We are not speculating," she said.
Pasitney said the farm is working with the RCMP and understands the investigation will take time.
"We're doing all the appropriate things," she said. "Just send prayers and love to the farm right now."
People gather at B.C. ostrich farm to protest order to cull flock of birdsA few dozen supporters have been staying at the farm since a court ruling was issued May 13 stating that the cull, first ordered by the CFIA in December 2024, would be allowed to proceed.
The judge did not weigh in on the scientific arguments of the case, ruling that the CFIA has a mandate from the federal government to handle cases like culls, and it would be inappropriate for the judiciary to get involved.
Instead, the ruling said the CFIA had followed the proper channels and policies in making its decision.
The CFIA has consistently said that after testing was done on two dead ostriches found on the farm in December, it was confirmed avian flu had entered the flock. At that point, their policy is to "stamp out" the entire population of birds who may have been exposed to the disease, a policy that has resulted in the killing of thousands of hens, turkeys and other domestic birds across the country.
Only one exemption has been granted, in the case of a turkey farm in 2022 where avian flu had been detected in two barns but not others on the premises, because those animals had been kept separate and safety measures had been taken to prevent the possible spread of disease between the different structures — conditions that do not exist at Universal Ostrich where inspectors observed wild birds, weasels and "unauthorized individuals" walking among infected animals, in violation of quarantine policy, according to the court ruling.
The CFIA says this policy is necessary in order to live up to Canada's international obligations for disease control through economic treaties, as well as to take every step possible to try to prevent avian flu from mutating and spreading further, potentially making it more dangerous to both animals and humans.
Ostriches that have been ordered killed by the Canadian Food Inspection
Agency at Universal Ostrich on May 21, 2025. (Camille
Vernet/Radio-Canada)
But the farm and its supporters argue that while 69 birds died during the initial outbreak, the last death occurred in January, and since then, all the surviving ostriches are "happy and healthy" and should be allowed to live. They've called on the CFIA to conduct follow-up testing.
The local regional district has also voted not to receive the carcasses of any of the killed birds at local landfills unless follow-up testing is conducted and released publicly.
A sign stating Save Our Ostriches at Universal Ostrich farm in Edgewood, B.C. (Camille Vernet/Radio-Canada)
However, the CFIA said in a statement released to CBC News on Friday that "for poultry operations," which includes ostriches, "a single laboratory confirmed case of H5 avian influenza is sufficient to declare a premises infected, given how easily the disease can spread to other birds."
It says duplicate samples were collected from two dead ostriches at the farm on Dec. 30, 2024 and confirmed the presence of avian flu.
"Operational plans and dates for the humane depopulation will not be shared with the public in advance," the agency said.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
With files from Brady Strachan, Camille Vernet and the Canadian Press
RCMP speak to protesters at B.C. ostrich farm, warn of possible arrests as bird cull looms
Canadian Food Inspection Agency has not indicated when cull of 400 birds will take place
RCMP visited a B.C. ostrich farm on Wednesday, where dozens of people have gathered to protest the ordered culling of 400 birds, which a federal judge ruled last week could go ahead.
The farm's owners have been fighting the order from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) since December, when some of their birds first tested positive for avian flu.
On Wednesday, four officers, some wearing uniforms identifying them as liaison officers, visited Universal Ostrich in Edgewood, B.C., while reporters from CBC/Radio-Canada were on site.
The farm's owners, Karen Espersen and Dave Bilinski, listened to the officers from behind a fence, surrounded by a few dozen of their ostriches, while police spoke to Espersen's daughter Katie Pasitney, who has been acting as a spokesperson for the farm.
About 20 protesters of the few dozen on site also gathered to speak to the police and livestream the conversation.
People gather at B.C. ostrich farm to protest order to cull flock of birdsThe police told the farm's owners that officers had not been given instructions to make arrests and simply wanted to speak to those gathered.
However, they added that police would have a role to play should the cull order be enforced while protesters are on the scene.
"We're just here to make sure you guys understand what's happening," one officer was recorded saying in a livestream. "If there is enforcement that takes place, we want to make sure that it happens in a very peaceful manner. If you guys want to be arrested, if there's an injunction that's issued, we just don't want anyone to get hurt."
He added they want people's right to protest respected.
Pasitney, whose parents own the farm, told the officers in the meeting that lasted less than an hour that "people are on edge," as she asked police not to bring weapons onto the property.
An unidentified officer was asked when the cull might happen but said he had "no idea."
The CFIA has said it will be moving froward with the cull despite the local regional district passing a motion saying it will not accept the birds' carcasses at local landfills until the CFIA conducts more tests on the birds and makes those results public.
RCMP
liaison officers told protesters and the farm's owners Wednesday that
if arrests happen, they want them to occur peacefully. (Mike Zimmer/CBC)
Universal Ostrich says 69 of its birds died during an avian flu outbreak earlier this year, but argues the remainder are healthy and do not pose a risk.
The CFIA, though, says it must kill all birds in infected flocks due to the risk of avian flu mutating and passing back and forth between domestic and wild bird populations, potentially impacting human health.
"The CFIA will begin the humane depopulation and disposal of birds at the infected premises with veterinary oversight. Operational plans and dates will not be shared with the public in advance," the CFIA said in a statement.
"We have a duty to protect Canadians from the serious potential risks that avian influenza presents to our people and our economy."
That position was upheld by a federal court judge last week who ruled the CFIA has the authority to make complex decisions based on scientific and economic priorities.
The agency said Saturday that under the Health of Animals Act, if an owner refuses to meet the depopulation requirements the CFIA could move forward itself or use a third-party contractor and potentially withhold part or all compensation normally due to owners.
The court decision says the farm could be compensated up to $3,000 per ostrich, potentially representing a payout of about $1.2 million if all of the roughly 400 birds are culled.
With files from The Canadian Press
CFIA says B.C. ostrich cull will go ahead despite regional district refusing to accept the carcasses
Federal agency says dates for cull will not be shared with public in advance
The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) says it is going ahead with a cull of nearly 400 ostriches living in southeastern B.C. over fears of avian flu.
It doubled down on its decision on Saturday, despite the local regional district passing a motion earlier this week saying it will not accept the birds' carcasses at local landfills after they are killed until the CFIA conducts more tests on the birds and makes those results public.
The federal agency told CBC News it's aware of the motion.
"The CFIA will begin the humane depopulation and disposal of birds at the infected premises with veterinary oversight. Operational plans and dates will not be shared with the public in advance," the CFIA said in a statement.
"We have a duty to protect Canadians from the serious potential risks that avian influenza presents to our people and our economy."
Community rallies for birds
The owners of Universal Ostrich Farm had been fighting the cull order in court but a federal judge recently ruled that the CFIA can proceed.
Katie Pasitney, spokesperson for the farm owned by her parents, said she's disappointed with the CFIA's decision and wants the agency to retest the birds.
"We can prove to you we pose no public health and safety risk," she said in an interview Sunday.
"There's a family sitting here trying to do the right thing. We put our feet on the ground every morning. We pray, we open our hearts that there's hope that the Canadian Food Inspection Agency would revisit their [decision]."
Universal
Ostrich co-owner Karen Espersen posted a plea on Facebook for
supporters to come 'surround' her farm in an effort to stop her birds
from being culled. (Facebook/Karen Espersen)
The order to have the birds killed has attracted the attention of hundreds of supporters, who have made monetary donations to the farm's legal fund and held rallies in favour of saving the ostriches.
The owners of Universal Ostrich, in Edgewood in southeastern B.C., argue the birds that have survived the outbreak are happy and healthy and could provide valuable insight into fighting the disease.
The farm said a total of 69 ostriches are reported to have been killed by avian flu but it said the last death came in January and in the time since none of the remaining birds have been exhibiting symptoms of disease.
A number of supporters have gathered at the farm in anticipation of a standoff with the CFIA. Videos and photos posted on social media show dozens of people, tents, caravans and vehicles on the property, with flags and banners draped on fences.
A poster advertises a convoy to Universal Ostrich to protest the ordered cull. (Facebook/B.C. Rising)
Premier 'frustrated' with CFIA
B.C. Premier David Eby also weighed in on the matter on Wednesday, saying he was "frustrated" that the CFIA won't make decisions on a case-by-case basis.
More than 8.7 million birds have been culled in B.C. at hundreds of farms, most of them commercial, since the first outbreak of a highly contagious form of the avian flu in the spring of 2022.
The cull at Universal Ostrich was first ordered on Dec. 31, 2024, after avian flu was detected in several birds at the farm.
But the farm managed to stave off that cull through a court injunction that allowed both sides to make their case before a federal judge in April.
Though Federal Court Justice Russel Zinn wrote that he has "considerable sympathy" for the farmers, he also found that the CFIA ordered the cull after following proper procedure and its mandate to attempt to stop the spread of the deadly bird virus.
With files from Brady Strachan and Andrew Kurjata
Pressure mounting to save flock of ostriches in B.C.'s Interior
49 Comments
“Let them live”: BC ostrich farm facing court-ordered bird flu cull gains unlikely allies
Global News 
DEVASTATING NEWS After Federal Judge Rules CULL Of NEARLY 400 OSTRICHES CAN PROCEED!!!
Press For Truth DanDicksPFT The Truth About The OSTRICH FARM CULL: ANTIBODIES IN THE EGGS Can Cure Humans And FEND OFF EPIDEMICS
Press For Truth DanDicksPFT If you would like to support Dan’s efforts to cover this important story please make a contribution here: DONATE ➜ https://pressfortruth.ca/donate/
31 Comments
“Culling healthy animals has no moral value whatsoever,” says South African-Canadian Protester
Media Bezirgan “I don’t think the gov has our best interests in mind,” says First Nations man opposing ostrich cull
Media Bezirgan Inside the Ostrich Resistance: How Peaceful Protesters Are Being Portrayed Like Criminals
Media Bezirgan 
DONATION NOTICE:
| Thu, May 29, 9:29 PM (3 hours ago) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Donation options to SAVE OUR
Terminate Paul MacKinnon for the culling of Universal Ostriches' beautiful birds. Recent signers Doreen Campbell and 19 others have signed recently. 29,124Thanks
to your support this petition has a chance at winning! We only need
5,876 more signatures to reach the next goal - can you help? The IssueImagine
a farm filled with healthy, vibrant ostriches, unconsciously suffering a
fate sealed not by sickness, but by bureaucracy. This is the
unfortunate story of the Universal Ostrich Farm in Edgewood, BC. Despite
no evidence tying Avian influenza to food safety concerns, and in
flagrant disregard of Canada.ca's own guidelines, the Canadian Food
Inspection Agency (CFIA) mandated the culling of these magnificent
birds. DONATION NOTICE: Donations are not required nor requested with this petition for you to sign and share. Any donations made here are received by Change.org only. Donation options to SAVE OUR https://saveourostriches.com/cause/donate/ Thank you, Save Our OstrichesPlease help us save our ostriches from being culled by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) 1168 Donors $129,627.76 Donated
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIP6jT2uYYE
EXCLUSIVE: Canada's first H5N1 survivor stands up for B.C. ostrich farm
BREAKING: Avian flu poster child joins fight to save B.C. ostriches from cull
BREAKING: Second ostrich executed at B.C. farm as slaughter of flock looms
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gjNabxt1hwg
B.C. MLAs speak out about Canada's kill mission for healthy ostriches
638 Comments
Science or slaughter? Ostrich farmers expose more hypocrisy in CFIA's plans to cull healthy flock
Rebel News Ostrich flock set to be slaughtered without URGENT intervention
B.C. ostrich farmers lose court battle to save healthy flock and issue mass call to action
Rebel News 'This is a kill mission': B.C. ostrich farmer gives update on CFIA's pursuit against flock
Rebel News UPDATE: Ostrich executed as B.C. farm awaits ruling on order to slaughter flock
From: Drea Humphrey, Rebel News <info@rebelnews.com>
Date: Sat, May 17, 2025 at 1:36 PM
Subject: UPDATE: Watch the emotional scene as miraculous decision halts ostrich kill order
To: David Amos <David.Raymond.Amos333@gmail.com>
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
This email was sent to David.Raymond.Amos333@gmail. To stop receiving emails, click here. |
An Act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals)
S.C. 2008, c. 12
Assented to 2008-04-17
An Act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals)
SUMMARY
This enactment amends the Criminal Code to increase the maximum penalties for animal cruelty offences.
Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:
1. Sections 444 to 447 of the Criminal Code are replaced by the following:
Marginal note:Injuring or endangering cattle
444. (1) Every one commits an offence who wilfully
(a) kills, maims, wounds, poisons or injures cattle; or
(b) places poison in such a position that it may easily be consumed by cattle.
Marginal note:Punishment
(2) Every one who commits an offence under subsection (1) is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars or to imprisonment for a term of not more than eighteen months or to both.
Marginal note:Injuring or endangering other animals
445. (1) Every one commits an offence who, wilfully and without lawful excuse,
(a) kills, maims, wounds, poisons or injures dogs, birds or animals that are not cattle and are kept for a lawful purpose; or
(b) places poison in such a position that it may easily be consumed by dogs, birds or animals that are not cattle and are kept for a lawful purpose.
Marginal note:Punishment
(2) Every one who commits an offence under subsection (1) is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars or to imprisonment for a term of not more than eighteen months or to both.
Cruelty to Animals
Marginal note:Causing unnecessary suffering
445.1 (1) Every one commits an offence who
(a) wilfully causes or, being the owner, wilfully permits to be caused unnecessary pain, suffering or injury to an animal or a bird;
(b) in any manner encourages, aids or assists at the fighting or baiting of animals or birds;
(c) wilfully, without reasonable excuse, administers a poisonous or an injurious drug or substance to a domestic animal or bird or an animal or a bird wild by nature that is kept in captivity or, being the owner of such an animal or a bird, wilfully permits a poisonous or an injurious drug or substance to be administered to it;
(d) promotes, arranges, conducts, assists in, receives money for or takes part in any meeting, competition, exhibition, pastime, practice, display or event at or in the course of which captive birds are liberated by hand, trap, contrivance or any other means for the purpose of being shot when they are liberated; or
(e) being the owner, occupier or person in charge of any premises, permits the premises or any part thereof to be used for a purpose mentioned in paragraph (d).
Marginal note:Punishment
(2) Every one who commits an offence under subsection (1) is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars or to imprisonment for a term of not more than eighteen months or to both.
Marginal note:Failure to exercise reasonable care as evidence
(3) For the purposes of proceedings under paragraph (1)(a), evidence that a person failed to exercise reasonable care or supervision of an animal or a bird thereby causing it pain, suffering or injury is, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, proof that the pain, suffering or injury was caused or was permitted to be caused wilfully, as the case may be.
Marginal note:Presence at baiting as evidence
(4) For the purpose of proceedings under paragraph (1)(b), evidence that an accused was present at the fighting or baiting of animals or birds is, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, proof that he or she encouraged, aided or assisted at the fighting or baiting.
Marginal note:Causing damage or injury
446. (1) Every one commits an offence who
(a) by wilful neglect causes damage or injury to animals or birds while they are being driven or conveyed; or
(b) being the owner or the person having the custody or control of a domestic animal or a bird or an animal or a bird wild by nature that is in captivity, abandons it in distress or wilfully neglects or fails to provide suitable and adequate food, water, shelter and care for it.
Marginal note:Punishment
(2) Every one who commits an offence under subsection (1) is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than two years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to a fine not exceeding five thousand dollars or to imprisonment for a term of not more than six months or to both.
Marginal note:Failure to exercise reasonable care as evidence
(3) For the purposes of proceedings under paragraph (1)(a), evidence that a person failed to exercise reasonable care or supervision of an animal or a bird thereby causing it damage or injury is, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, proof that the damage or injury was caused by wilful neglect.
Marginal note:Keeping cockpit
447. (1) Every one commits an offence who builds, makes, maintains or keeps a cockpit on premises that he or she owns or occupies, or allows a cockpit to be built, made, maintained or kept on such premises.
Marginal note:Punishment
(2) Every one who commits an offence under subsection (1) is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars or to imprisonment for a term of not more than eighteen months or to both.
Marginal note:Confiscation
(3) A peace officer who finds cocks in a cockpit or on premises where a cockpit is located shall seize them and take them before a justice who shall order them to be destroyed.
Marginal note:Order of prohibition or restitution
447.1 (1) The court may, in addition to any other sentence that it may impose under subsection 444(2), 445(2), 445.1(2), 446(2) or 447(2),
(a) make an order prohibiting the accused from owning, having the custody or control of or residing in the same premises as an animal or a bird during any period that the court considers appropriate but, in the case of a second or subsequent offence, for a minimum of five years; and
(b) on application of the Attorney General or on its own motion, order that the accused pay to a person or an organization that has taken care of an animal or a bird as a result of the commission of the offence the reasonable costs that the person or organization incurred in respect of the animal or bird, if the costs are readily ascertainable.
Marginal note:Breach of order
(2) Every one who contravenes an order made under paragraph (1)(a) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
Marginal note:Application
(3) Sections 740 to 741.2 apply, with any modifications that the circumstances require, to orders made under paragraph (1)(b).
Support the Farmers
Help Fund Legal Costs & Operational Expenses
Universal Ostrich Farms, a small remote farm in the beautiful Kootenays of British Columbia, has been ordered by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) to cull their entire herd of 400 healthy ostriches—animals they have raised for over 30 years. The farm is in urgent need of support to help cover legal and operational expenses following the court’s devastating decision to destroy their herd.http://maritimediseases.50megs.com/
Maritime Troubles
No problem can be solved until it is understood.
This is the website of Mr. Werner Bock, a farmer from Germany and New Brunswick. Mr. Bock has been a farmer his entire life, and attended the technical colleges of Agriculture and Business in Northeim, Germany, for four years of appropriate science and business training. His family still resides on the family farm in Germany.
Mr.
Bock now primarily cares for beef cattle, although his pets and even
he, has acquired strange injuries. These injuries defy a logical
explanation. 200 head of cattle have
died mysteriously over the past 10 years, which is a significant loss
of income, not to mention heartache. Mr. Bock has sought redress and
investigation from every level of Canadian Government and has been met
with incompetence, neglect, buck-passing, and outright abuse in
response. On this website we research and document the injuries.
The incompetence of the various governments, complaint boards, ombudsmen, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and failed policies of government interference/shortsightenedness are nothing new to the area farmers. Mr. Bock has made numerous trips and written appeals to Fredericton, Ottawa, Montreal and Toronto to request a proper investigation, but apparently the health of the regional agriculture and the obvious questions of how these occurances of illness and injury may be affecting the local human population are of no concern to the various bureaucracies.
In attempts to contact the media, on radio, Mr. Bock has been met with the more common derogatory and cruel rejections that reek of the usual corruption and neglect from government that is seen in the United States
Canada has the resources to do better than this.
Approximate 20 cattle died per year over the last 10 years of clearly unnatural causes.
See the Photos page for more documentation
The normal means of research is, of course, formal documentation and laboratory examination, but the best Mr. Bock could get from the local veterinarians and the RCMP was bungled sample handling, such as scraping off of surface tissue and washing excised damaged tissues in a puddle of water on the ground, and allowing soil samples to sit un-refridgerated for weeks at a time.
Within the YouTube website, YouTube has associated a video of some of the damage to Mr. Bock's cattle to "UFOs are doing it" videos produced by others. Mr. Bock makes no assertions that "aliens" are at work, here. Rather, this web brings forth what is scientific and validated. Thus the link to the aforementioned video within a website published in the USA has been removed.
What the law enforcement authorities and the media in Canada wish to ignore is the simple fact that the killing of cattle is a crime and that the speaking out against the public corruption and the associated malice and or incompetence of public servants who chose to ignore such a crime is not. The Canadian Charter of Rights is very clear about the right to Free Speech and the more than justifiable Political Actions of a very hardworking, taxpaying immigrant farmer. The RCMP and the various Ministers and their underlings within the various federal and provincial mandates of Canadian government over the course of over thirty years have refused to act within the scope of their employment, uphold the law, the public trust and protect the interests of at least one farmer. The plight of one immigrant whose sad complaints have been ignored for way past too long should be the concern to all Proud Canadians if not for the obvious ongoing crime, at the very least fot an environmental concern to all. Whatever killed these cattle so suddenly over the years can no doubt kill humans too.
One thing no one can ever deny is that the Canadian Criminal Code does state as follows and nobody cannot deny that there are photos of many dead cattle attached to this website. One must ask why the RCMP have refused to do their job and merely claim that they lack the resources to investigate. The RCMP have refused to return the farm since October of 2006 and seldom even return a phone call. Three more animals have died since then and the Royal Candian Mounted Police quite simply don't care to investigate crimes they don't wish to despite their federal mandate and their contract with the people of the Province of New Brunswick.
444. Every one who wilfully (a) kills, maims, wounds, poisons or injures cattle, or (b) places poison in such a position that it may easily be consumed by cattle, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years. R.S., c. C-34, s. 400. |
People should investigate on their own and become familiar with the National Libraries of Medicine and other science databases
To find the US National Library of Medicine, Google National Library of Medicine and click on the PubMed page. This is a very user-friendly search engine, because don't forget, common MDs have to use it, and most of them perform no real laboratory research and learn everything they know from BigPharma and BigInsurance.
Use also the various patent databases, such as USPTO.gov, or Espacenet (the European and World patent databases) to compare what the public is told vs what the government funded researchers really claim about pathophysiologies and their causes. In the US the biggest abuse of scientific research funds occurs under the Dole-Bayh Act, in which researchers can patent what DNA they discover. Sometimes these discoveries are not put to the best benefit of the public, as is the case with the Yale Borrelia burgdorferi-specific flagellin method to detect "Lyme Disease." Yale's best test is patented under US patent 5,618,533, but this earliest and most accurate test is not available to the public or veterinarians, nor was it used to assess vaccines outcomes.
Farmer blames heat rays for cows' deaths
RCMP officer assured Werner Bock that aliens are not flying over his farm
Corrections
- This story has been updated to add more context to Werner Bock's concerns about how he feels RCMP officers have not taken his concerns seriously.Sep 12, 2013 10:47 PM ADT
Intro
For the full story, visit SaveOurOstriches.com
Posts
Featured
Recorded Entry Information : T-294-25
Type : Federal Court
Nature of Proceeding : S. 18.1 Application for Judicial Review
Office : Ottawa Language : English
Type of Action : Federal Court
Filing Date : 2025-01-30
Information about the court file
In
the columns below, you can see a list of all the documents that are
part of the file. Each document has a number, a date and a summary (name
of document). Some documents may be confidential or classified.
To obtain copies of public documents, contact the Registry by email at fc-copies-cf@cas-satj.gc.ca. To obtain documents in person or by fax, contact the Registry office closest to you.
In your email, you must provide the following information:
- Subject line: Court File Number
- Body of the email: Document number (Doc column) and Name of document (Recorded Entry Summary column).
| Doc | Date Filed | Office | Recorded Entry Summary | Download |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| # | YYYY-MM-DD | City | Name of document | |
*You can download any document with an icon in the last column (Download), thanks to the Federal Court’s Online Access to Court Records Pilot Project.
Obtaining documents from the Registry, in person, by fax or through online access, does not grant you a copyright licence or permission. You must use the materials in accordance with the Copyright Act, RSC 1985, c C-42.
https://www.fct-cf.ca/en/court-files-and-decisions/court-files#cont
| Court Number | Style of Cause | Nature of Proceeding | Parties | More |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| T-294-25 | UNIVERSAL OSTRICH FARMS INC. v. CANADIAN FOOD INSPECTION AGENCY | S. 18.1 Application for Judicial Review |
Additional information on : T-294-25
Type : Federal Court
Nature of Cause : S. 18.1 Application for Judicial Review
Office : Ottawa Language : English
Type of Action : Non-Action
Filing Date : 2025-01-30
Party Information:
| Party Name | Solicitor | Lawyer(s) / file no |
|---|---|---|
| CANADIAN FOOD INSPECTION AGENCY | - | - |
| UNIVERSAL OSTRICH FARMS INC | MICHAEL D CARTER | CARTER, MICHAEL D |
Related Cases:
| Court Number | Style of Cause | Nature of Proceeding |
|---|---|---|
| null | CANADIAN FOOD INSPECTION AGENCY v. UNIVERSAL OSTRICH FARMS INC. | Appeal (S.27 - Interloc.) - Application for Judicial Review |
| Doc | Date Filed | Office | Recorded Entry Summary | Download |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| null | 2025-05-14 | Ottawa | Acknowledgment of Receipt received from Applicant and Respndent with respect to Judgment and Reasons doc 64 placed on file on 14-MAY-2025 | |
| 64 | 2025-05-13 | Ottawa | Reasons for Judgment and Judgment dated 13-MAY-2025 rendered by The Honourable Mr. Justice Zinn Matter considered with personal appearance The Court's decision is with regard to Judicial Review (s.18) Result: THIS COURT¿S JUDGMENT is that these applications are dismissed, the injunction dated January 31, 2025 is vacated, and the Respondent is awarded costs of $15,000, all in. Filed on 13-MAY-2025 Final Decision Certificate of Judgment entered in J. & O. Book, volume 1723 page(s) 206 - 206 | |
| null | 2025-04-15 | Vancouver | Vancouver 15-APR-2025 BEFORE The Honourable Mr. Justice Zinn Language: E Before the Court: Judicial Review Result of Hearing: Matter reserved held in Court Duration per day: 15-APR-2025 from 09:30 to 16:07 Courtroom : Courtroom - 8th Floor (701) - Vancouver Court Registrar: Frank Fedorak 16-APR-2025 from 09:30 to 17:36 Courtroom : Courtroom - 8th Floor (701) - Vancouver Court Registrar: Frank Fedorak Total Duration: 2d Appearances: Michael Carter - Cleveland Doan LLP (604) 536-5002 representing Applicant Lee Turner - Doak Shirreff LLP (250) 763-4323 representing Applicant Aileen Jones, Paul Saunders, Banafsheh Sokhansanj, Sophie Baton - DoJ (604) 666-2061 representing Respondent Comments: DARS, TASCAM and Zoom Cloud used to record hearing Minutes of Hearing entered in Vol. 1128 page(s) 42 - 54 Abstract of Hearing placed on file | |
| null | 2025-04-24 | Vancouver | Communication to the Court from the Registry dated 24-APR-2025 re: ID 105 | |
| null | 2025-04-23 | Vancouver | Letter from Respondent dated 23-APR-2025 re costs the parties have agreed to received on 23-APR-2025 | |
| 63 | 2025-04-09 | Vancouver | Solicitor's certificate of service on behalf of Aileen Jones confirming service of Doc. 62 upon Applicant by email on 09-APR-2025 filed on 09-APR-2025 | |
| 62 | 2025-04-09 | Vancouver | Respondent's Record Number of copies received/prepared: 1 on behalf of Respondent filed on 09-APR-2025 | |
| 61 | 2025-04-04 | Vancouver | Solicitor's certificate of service on behalf of Michael D. Carter confirming service of Doc. 60 upon Respondent by email on 03-APR-2025 filed on 04-APR-2025 | |
| 60 | 2025-04-04 | Vancouver | Application Record Number of copies received/prepared: 1 on behalf of Applicant filed on 04-APR-2025 | |
| null | 2025-04-04 | Vancouver | Confirmation of email delivery received from all parties with respect to Doc. 59 placed on file on 04-APR-2025 | |
| 59 | 2025-04-04 | Vancouver | Order dated 04-APR-2025 rendered by Associate Judge Kathleen M. Ring Matter considered with personal appearance The Court's decision is with regard to Case Management Conference Result: THIS COURT ORDERS that: 1. The Court Registry is instructed to remove the expert report of Dr. Steven Pelech dated April 1, 2025 from the Court file, pursuant to Rule 26(2)(a) of the Federal Courts Rules, and return it to counsel for the Applicant. The 5-page letter dated April 2, 2025 from counsel for the Applicant may remain on the Court file. 2. The Applicant is granted an extension of time to April 4, 2025 to file the Applicant's Record, along with proof of service. Filed on 04-APR-2025 copies sent to parties Transmittal Letters placed on file. entered in J. & O. Book, volume 1715 page(s) 275 - 277 Interlocutory Decision | |
| null | 2025-04-04 | Vancouver | Vancouver 04-APR-2025 BEFORE The Honourable Mr. Justice Zinn Language: E Before the Court: Case Management Conference Result of Hearing: CMC heard. Order to follow. held by way of video conference Duration per day: 07-APR-2025 from 11:00 to 11:31 Courtroom : Vancouver (Zoom) Court Registrar: Priscilla Lam Total Duration: 31min Appearances: Michael Carter (Cleveland Doan LLP) 604-536-5002 representing Applicant Lee C. Turner (Doak Shirreff Lawyers LLP) 250-979-2531 representing Applicant Aileen Jones, Banafsheh Sokhansanj (DOJ) 604-376-0995 / 604-315-5271 representing Respondent Comments: Associate Judge Ring also presiding. Recorded using Zoom Cloud and TASCAM. Heard with T-432-25. Minutes of Hearing entered in Vol. 1127 page(s) 247 - 249 Abstract of Hearing placed on file | |
| 58 | 2025-04-03 | Vancouver | Solicitor's certificate of service on behalf of Aileen Jones confirming service of Doc. 57 upon Applicant by email on 03-APR-2025 filed on 03-APR-2025 | |
| 57 | 2025-04-03 | Vancouver | Letter from Respondent dated 03-APR-2025 in response to Applicant's requests as explained in the letter from Applicant's counsel dated April 2, 2025. filed on 03-APR-2025 | |
| 56 | 2025-04-02 | Vancouver | Affidavit of service of Jamie Peterson sworn on 02-APR-2025 on behalf of Applicant confirming service of Doc. 55 upon Respondent by email on 02-APR-2025 with Exhibits "A" filed on 02-APR-2025 | |
| 55 | 2025-04-02 | Vancouver | Letter from Applicant dated 02-APR-2025 further to Court's Directions dated 1-APR-2025, explaining the interim relief being sought and the basis for it, and attaching a copy of an expert report by Dr. Steven Pelech. filed on 02-APR-2025 | |
| null | 2025-04-02 | Vancouver | Letter from Applicant dated 02-APR-2025 advising Applicant has retained Lee Turner of Doak Shirreff Lawyers LLP as co-counsel and asking that Ms. Alyona Kokanova be removed as solicitor of record. received on 02-APR-2025 | |
| null | 2025-04-01 | Vancouver | Oral directions received from the Court: Associate Judge Kathleen M. Ring dated 01-APR-2025 directing that "During the case management conference on March 31, 2025, the Applicant's counsel informed the Court that the Rule 125 motion is not going forward. Accordingly, the hearing of that motion scheduled for April 4, 2025 at 2:00 p.m. PT is hereby cancelled." placed on file on 01-APR-2025 Confirmed in writing to the party(ies) | |
| null | 2025-04-01 | Vancouver | Oral directions received from the Court: Associate Judge Kathleen M. Ring dated 01-APR-2025 directing that "Further to the case management conference held on March 31, 2025, the Court directs that: 1. A further case management conference shall be held with counsel for the parties by Zoom videoconference on April 4, 2025 at 11:00 a.m. Pacific Time/2:00 p.m. Eastern Time. 2. By no later than close of business on April 2, 2025, the Applicant shall serve and file a letter explaining the interim relief being sought and the basis for it. 3. By no later than close of business of April 3, 2025, the Respondent shall serve and file a letter setting out their position on the Applicant's request(s)." placed on file on 01-APR-2025 Confirmed in writing to the party(ies) | |
| null | 2025-03-31 | Vancouver | Vancouver 31-MAR-2025 BEFORE Associate Judge Kathleen M. Ring Language: E Before the Court: Case Management Conference Result of Hearing: CMC heard. Direction to follow. held by way of video conference Duration per day: 31-MAR-2025 from 15:01 to 15:43 Courtroom : Vancouver (Zoom) Court Registrar: Priscilla Lam Total Duration: 42min Appearances: Michael Carter (Cleveland Doan LLP) 604-536-5002 representing Applicant Lee Turner (Doak Shirreff Lawyers LLP) 250-979-2531 representing Applicant Aileen Jones, Paul Saunders (DOJ) 604-376-0995 / 604 362 5137 representing Respondent Comments: Recorded using Zoom Cloud and TASCAM. Minutes of Hearing entered in Vol. 1127 page(s) 176 - 178 Abstract of Hearing placed on file | |
| 54 | 2025-03-28 | Vancouver | Order dated 28-MAR-2025 rendered by Associate Judge Kathleen M. Ring Matter considered with personal appearance The Court's decision is with regard to Case Management Conference Result: 1. paras 11 & 12 of Order dated 25 Feb 2025 are hereby varied. The remaining provisions of the Order remain in full force and effect; 2. Applicant is granted extension of time to 3 Apr 2025 to serve and file A's Record along with proof of service; 3. Respondent is granted extension of time to 9 Apr 2025 to serve and file R's Record along with proof of service; 4. counsel for the applicant is granted leave to serve the owners of Applicant with motion record by email; 5. counsel for the applicant shall serve and file motion record by 31 Mar 2025; 6. Respondent shall serve and file responding motion record by 3 April 2025; 7. hearing of the motion shall be by Zoom on 4 Apr 2025 at 2pm; 8. CMC shall be held on 31 Mar 2025 at 3pm by Zoom; 9. Registry is to include courtesy copy of this Order along with Order dated 25 Feb 2025 to Mr Turner for his information. Filed on 28-MAR-2025 copies sent to parties entered in J. & O. Book, volume 1713 page(s) 415 - 419 Interlocutory Decision | |
| null | 2025-03-28 | Vancouver | Vancouver 28-MAR-2025 BEFORE Associate Judge Kathleen M. Ring Language: E Before the Court: Case Management Conference Result of Hearing: Matter heard held by way of video conference Duration per day: 28-MAR-2025 from 11:00 to 11:54 Courtroom : Vancouver (Zoom) Court Registrar: Frank Fedorak Total Duration: 1hr Appearances: Michael Carter - Cleveland Doan LLP (250) representing Applicant Michael Turner - Doak Shirreff (250) representing Applicant Karen Esperson, David Bilinski, Katie Pasitney - Universal Ostrich Farms (250) representing Applicant Aileen Jones - DoJ (604) representing Respondent Paul Saunders - CFIA (343) representing Respondent Comments: Zoom Cloud and TASCAM used to record hearing Order to be issued - CMC set for 31 Mar 2025 at 3pm, A's Record due 3 Apr 2025, hearing for motion to be removed as solicitor heard 4 Apr 2025, R's Record due 9 Apr 2025 Minutes of Hearing entered in Vol. 1127 page(s) 93 - 96 Abstract of Hearing placed on file | |
| null | 2025-03-26 | Vancouver | Oral directions received from the Court: Associate Judge Kathleen M. Ring dated 26-MAR-2025 directing that "A case management conference in Court File Nos. T-294-25 and T-432-25 shall be held by Zoom videoconference on Friday, March 28, 2025 at 11:00 am to address the matter raised in correspondence dated March 26, 2025 from counsel for the Respondent." placed on file on 26-MAR-2025 Confirmed in writing to the party(ies) | |
| null | 2025-03-26 | Vancouver | Communication to the Court from the Registry dated 26-MAR-2025 re: ID 85 | |
| null | 2025-03-26 | Vancouver | Letter from Respondent dated 26-MAR-2025 requesting an urgent case management conference on March 28, 2025 and advising the parties are available anytime on March 28 or 31, 2025 for CMC. received on 26-MAR-2025 | |
| null | 2025-03-25 | Vancouver | Oral directions received from the Court: Associate Judge Kathleen M. Ring dated 25-MAR-2025 directing that "On reading correspondence dated March 21, 2025 from counsel for the Respondent, and on consent of the parties, the Court directs that: 1. Paragraph 9 of the Order dated February 25, 2025 is hereby varied. 2. The parties are granted an extension of time, nunc pro tunc, to March 19, 2025 to notify one another in writing if they intend to raise any preliminary issues in their respective memoranda of fact and law regarding the admissibility of any of the opposing party's affidavit evidence." placed on file on 25-MAR-2025 Confirmed in writing to the party(ies) | |
| null | 2025-03-24 | Vancouver | Communication to the Court from the Registry dated 24-MAR-2025 re: ID 82 | |
| null | 2025-03-21 | Vancouver | Letter from Respondent dated 21-MAR-2025 joint request from the parties that the March 18, 2025 deadline to notify one another in writing if they intend to raise any preliminary issues in their memoranda of fact and law regarding the admissibility of any of the opposing party's affidavit evidence be extended, nunc pro tunc, to March 19, 2025. For files T-294-25 & T-432-25. received on 21-MAR-2025 | |
| 53 | 2025-03-13 | Vancouver | Solicitor's certificate of service on behalf of Alyona Kokanova confirming service of Doc 52 upon Respondent by e-mail on 28-FEB-2025 filed on 13-MAR-2025 | |
| 52 | 2025-03-13 | Vancouver | Amended Notice of application with regard to Judicial Review (s.18) returnable (but no hearing date indicated at this time) filed on 13-MAR-2025 Tariff fee of $50.00 received: no | |
| 51 | 2025-03-07 | Vancouver | Solicitor's certificate of service on behalf of Aileen Jones confirming service of Affidavit 2 of Dr. Cathy Furness,Affidavit 1 of Dr. Suminder Sawhney, Affidavit 1 of Dr. Abed Harchaoui, and the Expert Report of Dr. S. French upon Applicant by e-mail on 07-MAR-2025 filed on 07-MAR-2025 | |
| null | 2025-03-07 | Vancouver | Confirmation of email delivery received from all parties with respect to Doc. 50 placed on file on 07-MAR-2025 | |
| 50 | 2025-03-07 | Vancouver | Order dated 07-MAR-2025 rendered by Associate Judge Kathleen M. Ring Matter considered without personal appearance The Court's decision is with regard to Letter from Applicant dated 28-FEB-2025 re: informal request to amend Notice of Application on consent (ID 74) Result: THIS COURT ORDERS that: 1. The Applicant is dispensed from the requirement to bring a formal motion. 2. The Applicant is granted leave to amend the Notice of Application filed in this proceeding on January 30, 2025, in the form attached as Schedule "A" to the Applicant's informal request. 3. The Applicant shall serve and file the Amended Notice of Application, along with proof of service, by March 12, 2025. Filed on 07-MAR-2025 copies sent to parties Transmittal Letters placed on file. entered in J. & O. Book, volume 1709 page(s) 152 - 153 Interlocutory Decision | |
| 49 | 2025-03-03 | Vancouver | Solicitor's certificate of service on behalf of Michael D. Carter confirming service of 1) Expert report of Dr. Jeff Wilson; 2) Expert report of Dr. Byram W. Bridle; 3) Affidavit #3 of Katrina Jones; 4) Affidavit #3 of David Bilinski upon Respondent by email on 03-MAR-2025 filed on 03-MAR-2025 | |
| 48 | 2025-02-28 | Vancouver | Solicitor's certificate of service on behalf of Alyona Kokanova confirming service of Letter dated 28-FEB-2025 (ID 74) upon Respondent by email on 28-FEB-2025 filed on 28-FEB-2025 | |
| null | 2025-02-28 | Vancouver | Letter from Applicant dated 28-FEB-2025 informal request for leave to amend Notice of Application on consent, pursuant to Order dated 25-FEB-2025. Enclosed: Draft Order with Schedule 'A' Amended Notice of Application received on 28-FEB-2025 | |
| null | 2025-02-25 | Vancouver | Confirmation email sent received from all parties with respect to Doc 47 placed on file on 25-FEB-2025 | |
| 47 | 2025-02-25 | Vancouver | Order dated 25-FEB-2025 rendered by Associate Judge Kathleen M. Ring Matter considered with personal appearance The Court's decision is with regard to Case Management Conference Result: 1.The application bearing Court File No. T-432-25 shall continue as specially managed proceeding. 2.The Registry is instructed to immediately refer Court File NO. T-432-25 to the office of the Chief Justice for the appointment of a Case Management Judge, which shall be the same Case Management Judge appointed for Court File No. T-294-25 (Associate Judge Kathleen Ring). 3.The timetable set out in this Order shall apply to the proceedings in Court FIle Nos T-294-25 and T-432-25. 4.By 28-FEB-2025, the Applicant shall serve and file an informal request for leave to amend the Notice of Application on Court File No. T-294-25, if on consent or not opposed, in accordance with paragraph 41 of the Court's Amended Consolidated Genral Practice Guidelines. If the amendments are opposed, the Appliacnt shall serve and file a formal motion under Part 10 of the Rules. 5.The parties are granted leave to each serve one version of their respective supporting affidavits, which can be used in both proceedings. 6.By 03-MAR-2025, the Applicant shall serve their supporting affidavits and file proof of service (Rule 306). 7. By 07-MAR-2025, the Respondent shall serve their respective supporting affidavits and file proof of service (Rule 307). 8.By 18-MAR-2025, the parties shall complete any cross-examination on affidavits (Rule 308). 9.Also by 18-MAR-2025, the parties shall notify one another in writing if they intend to raise any preliminary issues in their respective memoranda of fact and law regarding the admissibility of any of the opposing party's affidavit evidence. [...] 10.The parties are granted leave to each serve and file one joint record, which can be used in both proceedings. [...] the maximum page limit for the memorandum of fact and law shall be 50 pages. 11.By 01-APR-2025, the Applicant shall serve and file their Applicant's Record, along with proof of service (Rule 309). 12.By 08-APR-2025, the Respondent shall serve and file their Respondent's Record, along with proof of service (Rule 310). 13.The applications in Court File Nos. T-294-25 and T-432-25 shall be heard together, or heard one immediately after the other, as the Hearings JUdge may direct. 14.The hearing of the two juidicial review applications shall take place in person at [Federal Court - Vancouver] on Tuesday, 15-APR-2025 and Wednesday 16-APR-2025 at 9:30AM. [see the attached for full terms of the Scheduling Order] Filed on 25-FEB-2025 copies sent to parties entered in J. & O. Book, volume 1707 page(s) 44 - 49 Interlocutory Decision | |
| null | 2025-02-24 | Vancouver | Vancouver 24-FEB-2025 BEFORE Associate Judge Kathleen M. Ring Language: E Before the Court: Case Management Conference Result of Hearing: SCHEDULING ORDER TO BE ISSUED held by way of video conference Duration per day: 24-FEB-2025 from 10:00 to 11:08 Courtroom : Vancouver (Zoom) Court Registrar: Eva Kan Total Duration: 1h8min Appearances: Michael D. Carter and Alyona Kokanova; Cleveland Doan LLP 604-536-5002 representing Applicant Aileen Jones and Banafsheh Sokhansanj; DoJ Vancouver 604-376-0995 and 604-666-1296 representing Respondent Comments: recorded using ZOOM and TASCAM Minutes of Hearing entered in Vol. 1125 page(s) 419 - 420 Abstract of Hearing placed on file | |
| null | 2025-02-24 | Vancouver | Communication to the Court from the Registry dated 24-FEB-2025 re: ID69 | |
| null | 2025-02-24 | Vancouver | Letter from Respondent dated 24-FEB-2025 agenda for CMC received on 24-FEB-2025 | |
| null | 2025-02-24 | Ottawa | Acknowledgment of Receipt received from Applicant/Respondent with respect to Order dated 21-FEB-2025 Doc 46 placed on file on 24-FEB-2025 | |
| null | 2025-02-19 | Vancouver | Letter from Respondent dated 19-FEB-2025 requests the tribunal submit a CTR to the Court received on 19-FEB-2025 | |
| null | 2025-02-21 | Vancouver | Oral directions received from the Court: Associate Judge Kathleen M. Ring dated 21-FEB-2025 directing that A case management conference [CMC] shall be held by Zoom videoconference with cousnel for the parties on Monday, February 24, 2025 at 10:00am PST If time permits, it would be helpful to the Court to receive either a jointly proposed agenda for the CMC, or separately proposed agendas by each party that identify the matters to be addressed placed on file on 21-FEB-2025 Confirmed in writing to the party(ies) | |
| null | 2025-02-20 | Vancouver | Certified copy of original material received from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency on 20-FEB-2025 placed on file on this file | |
| 46 | 2025-02-21 | Ottawa | Order dated 21-FEB-2025 rendered by Chief Justice Crampton Matter considered without personal appearance The Court's decision is with regard to Order dated 17-FEB-2025 Result: CMJ: Ring, AJ. Filed on 21-FEB-2025 copies sent to parties entered in J. & O. Book, volume 1706 page(s) 327 - 327 Interlocutory Decision | |
| null | 2025-02-18 | Vancouver | Memorandum to file from Vancouver Local Office dated 18-FEB-2025 advising that letter from Respondent dated 17-FEB-2025 (ID 62) sent to Trial JA placed on file. | |
| null | 2025-02-17 | Vancouver | Letter from Respondent dated 17-FEB-2025 requesting an urgent case management conference be scheduled before a Case Management Judge or Associate Judge as soon as possible this week... (See Letter) received on 17-FEB-2025 | |
| 45 | 2025-01-31 | Vancouver | Affidavit of Michael Carter sworn on 30-JAN-2025 on behalf of Plaintiff for Certificate Concerning Code of Conduct for Expert Witnesses filed on 31-JAN-2025 | |
| 44 | 2025-02-17 | Ottawa | Order dated 17-FEB-2025 rendered by The Honourable Mr. Justice Battista Matter considered without personal appearance The Court's decision is with regard to Motion in writing Doc. No. 16 Result: dismissed Pursuant to Rule 384, file T-294-25 shall continue as a specially managed proceeding and is referred to the office of the Chief Justice for the appointment of a Case Management Judge or Associate Judge. Filed on 17-FEB-2025 copies sent to parties entered in J. & O. Book, volume 1705 page(s) 117 - 121 Interlocutory Decision | |
| 43 | 2025-02-13 | Vancouver | Solicitor's certificate of service on behalf of Banafsheh Sokhansanj confirming service of Document 42 upon Applicant by email on 13-FEB-2025 filed on 13-FEB-2025 | |
| 42 | 2025-02-13 | Vancouver | Reply Submissions on behalf of Respondent in response to Applicant's Responding Material Filed on 13-FEB-2025 | |
| null | 2025-02-13 | Vancouver | Oral directions received from the Court: The Honourable Mr. Justice Battista dated 13-FEB-2025 directing that "The Respondent's (Canadian Food Inspection Agency's) motion pursuant to Rule 397 will be disposed of in writing." placed on file on 13-FEB-2025 Confirmed in writing to the party(ies) | |
| 41 | 2025-02-12 | Vancouver | Solicitor's certificate of service on behalf of Michael D. Carter confirming service of Document 40 upon Respondent by email on 12-FEB-2025 filed on 12-FEB-2025 | |
| 40 | 2025-02-12 | Vancouver | Motion Record in response to Motion Doc. No. 16 containing the following original document(s): 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 Number of copies received: 1 on behalf of Applicant filed on 12-FEB-2025 | |
| 39 | 2025-02-12 | Vancouver | Written Representations contained within a Motion Record on behalf of Applicant concerning Motion Doc. No. 16 filed on 12-FEB-2025 | |
| 38 | 2025-02-12 | Vancouver | Affidavit of Michael Carter sworn on 30-JAN-2025 contained within a Motion Record on behalf of Applicant in opposition to Motion Doc. No. 16 with Exhibits A and B filed on 12-FEB-2025 | |
| 37 | 2025-02-12 | Vancouver | Affidavit of Dr. Steven Pelech #2 sworn on 12-FEB-2025 contained within a Motion Record on behalf of Applicant in opposition to Motion Doc. No. 16 with Exhibits A and B filed on 12-FEB-2025 | |
| 36 | 2025-02-12 | Vancouver | Affidavit of Dr. Steven Pelech sworn on 30-JAN-2025 contained within a Motion Record on behalf of Applicant in opposition to Motion Doc. No. 16 with Exhibits A filed on 12-FEB-2025 | |
| 35 | 2025-02-12 | Vancouver | Affidavit of Katrina Jones #2 sworn on 12-FEB-2025 contained within a Motion Record on behalf of Applicant in opposition to Motion Doc. No. 16 with Exhibits A to E filed on 12-FEB-2025 | |
| 34 | 2025-02-12 | Vancouver | Affidavit of Katrina Jones sworn on 30-JAN-2025 contained within a Motion Record on behalf of Applicant in opposition to Motion Doc. No. 16 with Exhibits A to M filed on 12-FEB-2025 | |
| 33 | 2025-02-12 | Vancouver | Affidavit of Karen Espersen sworn on 29-JAN-2025 contained within a Motion Record on behalf of Applicant in support of Motion Doc. No. 16 with Exhibits A filed on 12-FEB-2025 | |
| 32 | 2025-02-12 | Vancouver | Affidavit of David Bilinski #2 sworn on 11-FEB-2025 contained within a Motion Record on behalf of Applicant in opposition to Motion Doc. No. 16 with Exhibits A filed on 12-FEB-2025 | |
| 31 | 2025-02-12 | Vancouver | Affidavit of David Bilinski sworn on 29-JAN-2025 contained within a Motion Record on behalf of Applicant in opposition to Motion Doc. No. 16 with Exhibits A to L filed on 12-FEB-2025 | |
| null | 2025-02-12 | Vancouver | Oral directions received from the Court: The Honourable Mr. Justice Battista dated 12-FEB-2025 directing that "In response to the Respondent's (Canadian Food Inspection Agency¿s) motion pursuant to Rule 397, the Applicant (Universal Ostrich Farms Inc.) will file its materials by the end of the day on February 12, 2025. The Respondent's reply, if any, will be filed by the end of the day on February 13, 2025." placed on file on 12-FEB-2025 Confirmed in writing to the party(ies) | |
| null | 2025-02-11 | Vancouver | Communication to the Court from the Registry dated 11-FEB-2025 re: ID42, ID41, ID29, ID28 | |
| 30 | 2025-02-11 | Vancouver | Solicitor's certificate of service on behalf of Michael Carter confirming service of doc 29 upon Respondent by email on 11-FEB-2025 filed on 11-FEB-2025 | |
| null | 2025-02-11 | Vancouver | Letter from Applicant dated 11-FEB-2025 explaining urgency and importance of motion doc 21 received on 11-FEB-2025 | |
| 29 | 2025-02-11 | Vancouver | Motion Record containing the following original document(s): 21 22 23 24 25 25 26 27 28 Number of copies received: 1 on behalf of Applicant filed on 11-FEB-2025 | |
| 28 | 2025-02-11 | Vancouver | Written Representations contained within a Motion Record on behalf of Applicant concerning Motion Doc. No. 21 filed on 11-FEB-2025 | |
| 27 | 2025-02-11 | Vancouver | Affidavit of David Bilinski #2 sworn on 11-FEB-2025 contained within a Motion Record on behalf of Applicant in support of Motion Doc. No. 21 with Exhibits "A" filed on 11-FEB-2025 | |
| 26 | 2025-02-11 | Vancouver | Affidavit of Michael Carter sworn on 30-JAN-2025 contained within a Motion Record on behalf of Applicant in support of Motion Doc. No. 21 with Exhibits "A" to "B" filed on 11-FEB-2025 | |
| 25 | 2025-02-11 | Vancouver | Affidavit of Katrina Jones sworn on 30-JAN-2025 contained within a Motion Record on behalf of Applicant in support of Motion Doc. No. 21 with Exhibits "A" to "M" filed on 11-FEB-2025 | |
| 24 | 2025-02-11 | Vancouver | Affidavit of Steven Pelech sworn on 30-JAN-2025 contained within a Motion Record on behalf of Applicant in support of Motion Doc. No. 21 with Exhibits "A" filed on 11-FEB-2025 | |
| 23 | 2025-02-11 | Vancouver | Affidavit of Karen Espersen sworn on 29-JAN-2025 contained within a Motion Record on behalf of Applicant in support of Motion Doc. No. 21 filed on 11-FEB-2025 | |
| 22 | 2025-02-11 | Vancouver | Affidavit of David Bilinski sworn on 29-JAN-2025 contained within a Motion Record on behalf of Applicant in support of Motion Doc. No. 21 with Exhibits "A" to "L" filed on 11-FEB-2025 | |
| 21 | 2025-02-11 | Vancouver | Notice of Motion made ex parte contained within a Motion Record on behalf of Applicant returnable (but no hearing date indicated at this time) for an Order an interlocutory injunction enjoining the Minister from disposing of animals filed on 11-FEB-2025 | |
| null | 2025-02-11 | Vancouver | ****** CANCELLED ****** Letter from Applicant dated 10-FEB-2025 advising the Court of their positon on the Respondent's Motion Record received on 11-FEB-2025 | |
| null | 2025-02-11 | Ottawa | Copy of Notice of Appeal (Appeal Court File No. A-51-25 ) appealing Order rendered by Justice Battista dated 31-JAN-2025 filed in the Court of Appeal on 10-FEB-2025 on behalf of Appellant placed on file on 11-FEB-2025 | |
| 20 | 2025-02-07 | Vancouver | Solicitor's certificate of service on behalf of Aileen Jones confirming service of Document 19 upon Applicant by email on 07-FEB-2025 filed on 07-FEB-2025 | |
| null | 2025-02-07 | Vancouver | Letter from Respondent dated 07-FEB-2025 requesting a special sitting before Justice Battista pursuant to R35 received on 07-FEB-2025 | |
| 19 | 2025-02-07 | Vancouver | Motion Record containing the following original document(s): 16 17 18 Number of copies received: 1 on behalf of Respondent filed on 07-FEB-2025 | |
| 18 | 2025-02-07 | Vancouver | Written Representations contained within a Motion Record on behalf of Respondent concerning Motion Doc. No. 16 filed on 07-FEB-2025 | |
| 17 | 2025-02-07 | Vancouver | Affidavit of Kelly Quan sworn on 07-FEB-2025 contained within a Motion Record on behalf of Respondent in support of Motion Doc. No. 16 with Exhibits A to F filed on 07-FEB-2025 | |
| 16 | 2025-02-07 | Vancouver | Notice of Motion contained within a Motion Record on behalf of Respondent returnable (but no hearing date indicated at this time) for an Order clarifying the Court's Order dated January 31, 2025 and an Order abridging the timelines for the remaining steps filed on 07-FEB-2025 | |
| 15 | 2025-02-04 | Vancouver | Solicitor's certificate of service on behalf of Paul Saunders confirming service of doc 14 upon Applicant by email on 04-FEB-2025 filed on 04-FEB-2025 | |
| 14 | 2025-02-04 | Vancouver | Notice of appearance on behalf of Respondent filed on 04-FEB-2025 | |
| null | 2025-02-04 | Ottawa | Oral directions received from the Court: The Honourable Mr. Justice Battista dated 04-FEB-2025 directing that "The parties are advised that it has been brought to the Court's attention that the hearing may have been recorded in part or in whole despite teh Court Registrar's instruction that the recording of the proceeding was not permitted. The Court is displeased that this instruction was ignored and informs the parties in the event hat this recording comes to their attention." placed on file on 04-FEB-2025 Confirmed in writing to the party(ies) | |
| null | 2025-02-03 | Ottawa | Acknowledgment of Receipt received from Respondent with respect to the Court's Order issued on 31-JAN-2025 placed on file on 03-FEB-2025 | |
| null | 2025-01-31 | Ottawa | Acknowledgment of Receipt received from Applicant with respect to the Court's Order issued on 31-JAN-2025 placed on file on 31-JAN-2025 | |
| 13 | 2025-01-31 | Ottawa | Order dated 31-JAN-2025 rendered by The Honourable Mr. Justice Battista Matter considered without personal appearance The Court's decision is with regard to Motion in writing Doc. No. 2 Result: 1. The Notice dated December 31, 2024 requiring the Applicant to dispose of the ostriches pursuant to subsection 48(1) of the HAA, is stayed until a decision is rendered in the underlying application for judicial review; 2. The request to amend the Requirement to Quarantine notice is denied; 3. There is no order regarding costs. Filed on 31-JAN-2025 copies sent to parties entered in J. & O. Book, volume 1702 page(s) 414 - 416 Interlocutory Decision | |
| null | 2025-01-31 | Ottawa | Ottawa 31-JAN-2025 BEFORE The Honourable Mr. Justice Battista Language: E Before the Court: Motion Doc. No. 2 on behalf of Applicant Result of Hearing: Matter reserved held by way of video conference Duration per day: 31-JAN-2025 from 12:02 to 02:27 Courtroom : Ottawa (Zoom) Court Registrar: Jasmine Normand Total Duration: 2h 25min Appearances: Michael Carter michael@clevelanddoan.com representing Applicant Alyona Kokanova alyona@clevelanddoan.com representing Applicant Paul Saunders paul.saunders@justice.gc.ca representing Respondent Jordan Marks jordan.marks@justice.gc.ca representing Respondent Comments: high media interest // Minutes of Hearing entered in Vol. 1124 page(s) 497 - 499 Abstract of Hearing placed on file | |
| 12 | 2025-01-31 | Ottawa | Solicitor's certificate of service on behalf of Paul Saunders confirming service of the Respondent's Responding Motion Record upon Applicant by e-mail on 31-JAN-2025 filed on 31-JAN-2025 | |
| 11 | 2025-01-31 | Ottawa | Motion Record in response to Motion Doc. No. 2 containing the following original document(s): 9 10 Number of copies received: 1 on behalf of Respondent filed on 31-JAN-2025 | |
| 10 | 2025-01-31 | Ottawa | Memorandum of fact and law contained within a Motion Record on behalf of Respondent filed on 31-JAN-2025 | |
| 9 | 2025-01-31 | Ottawa | Affidavit of Cathy Furness sworn on 30-JAN-2025 contained within a Motion Record on behalf of Respondent in opposition to Motion Doc. No. 2 with Exhibits A-D filed on 31-JAN-2025 | |
| null | 2025-01-30 | Ottawa | Letter from Respondent dated 30-JAN-2025 letter concerning ex-parte motion on 31-jan-2025 received on 30-JAN-2025 | |
| null | 2025-01-31 | Ottawa | Acknowledgment of Receipt received from Applicant with respect to oral directions dated 31-JAN-2025. placed on file on 31-JAN-2025 | |
| null | 2025-01-31 | Ottawa | Acknowledgment of Receipt received from Attorney General of Canada with respect to Notice of Application Doc 1 placed on file on 31-JAN-2025 | |
| null | 2025-01-31 | Ottawa | Oral directions received from the presiding judge dated 31-JAN-2025 directing that "The Court has set down this urgent injunction hearing for today, January 31, 2025 at 12:00pm EST (9:00am Pacific time) by way of videoconference zoom for a duration of maximum 2h." placed on file on 31-JAN-2025 Confirmed in writing to the party(ies) | |
| null | 2025-01-30 | Ottawa | Letter from Applicant dated 30-JAN-2025 Rule 35 letter requesting special sitting on today's date (31-JAN-2025) for an injunction for a disposal order that must be satisfied by 1-FEB-2025. received on 30-JAN-2025 | |
| 8 | 2025-01-30 | Ottawa | Motion Record containing the following original document(s): 2 3 4 5 6 7 Number of copies received: 1 on behalf of Applicant filed on 30-JAN-2025 | |
| 7 | 2025-01-30 | Ottawa | Written Representations contained within a Motion Record on behalf of Applicant concerning Motion Doc. No. 2 filed on 30-JAN-2025 | |
| 6 | 2025-01-30 | Ottawa | Affidavit of Katrina Jones sworn on 30-JAN-2025 contained within a Motion Record on behalf of Applicant in support of Motion Doc. No. 2 with Exhibits A-M filed on 30-JAN-2025 | |
| 5 | 2025-01-30 | Ottawa | Affidavit of Dr. Steven Pelech sworn on 30-JAN-2025 contained within a Motion Record on behalf of Applicant in support of Motion Doc. No. 2 with Exhibits A filed on 30-JAN-2025 | |
| 4 | 2025-01-30 | Ottawa | Affidavit of Karen Espersen sworn on 29-JAN-2025 on behalf of Applicant in support of Motion Doc. No. 2 with Exhibits A filed on 30-JAN-2025 | |
| 3 | 2025-01-30 | Ottawa | Affidavit of David Bilinski sworn on 29-JAN-2025 contained within a Motion Record on behalf of Applicant in support of Motion Doc. No. 2 with Exhibits A-L filed on 30-JAN-2025 | |
| 2 | 2025-01-30 | Ottawa | Notice of Motion made ex parte contained within a Motion Record on behalf of Applicant returnable (but no hearing date indicated at this time) for An interlocutory injunction staying the Notice to Dispose of Animals or Things issued by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency ("CFIA") on December 31, 2024 (the "Cull Order"); and other remedies. filed on 30-JAN-2025 | |
| 1 | 2025-01-30 | Ottawa | Notice of application with regard to Judicial Review (s.18) filed on 30-JAN-2025 Certified copy(ies)/copy(ies) transmitted to Deputy Attorney General of Canada Tariff fee of $50.00 received: yes |
Recorded Entry Information : T-432-25
Type : Federal Court
Nature of Proceeding : S. 18.1 Application for Judicial Review
Office : Vancouver Language : English
Type of Action : Federal Court
Filing Date : 2025-02-07
Information about the court file
In
the columns below, you can see a list of all the documents that are
part of the file. Each document has a number, a date and a summary (name
of document). Some documents may be confidential or classified.
To obtain copies of public documents, contact the Registry by email at fc-copies-cf@cas-satj.gc.ca. To obtain documents in person or by fax, contact the Registry office closest to you.
In your email, you must provide the following information:
- Subject line: Court File Number
- Body of the email: Document number (Doc column) and Name of document (Recorded Entry Summary column).
| Doc | Date Filed | Office | Recorded Entry Summary | Download |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| # | YYYY-MM-DD | City | Name of document | |
*You can download any document with an icon in the last column (Download), thanks to the Federal Court’s Online Access to Court Records Pilot Project.
Obtaining documents from the Registry, in person, by fax or through online access, does not grant you a copyright licence or permission. You must use the materials in accordance with the Copyright Act, RSC 1985, c C-42.
| Doc | Date Filed | Office | Recorded Entry Summary | Download |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| null | 2025-05-14 | Ottawa | Acknowledgment of Service received from Applicant and Respondent with respect to Judgment and Reasons placed on file on 14-MAY-2025 | |
| 22 | 2025-05-13 | Ottawa | Reasons for Judgment and Judgment dated 13-MAY-2025 rendered by The Honourable Mr. Justice Zinn Matter considered with personal appearance The Court's decision is with regard to Judicial Review (s.18) Result: THIS COURT¿S JUDGMENT is that these applications are dismissed, the injunction dated January 31, 2025 is vacated, and the Respondent is awarded costs of $15,000, all in. Filed on 13-MAY-2025 Final Decision Certificate of Judgment entered in J. & O. Book, volume 1723 page(s) 207 - 207 | |
| null | 2025-04-15 | Vancouver | Vancouver 15-APR-2025 BEFORE The Honourable Mr. Justice Zinn Language: E Before the Court: Judicial Review Result of Hearing: Matter reserved held in Court Duration per day: 15-APR-2025 from 09:30 to 16:07 Courtroom : Courtroom - 8th Floor (701) - Vancouver Court Registrar: Frank Fedorak 16-APR-2025 from 09:30 to 17:36 Courtroom : Courtroom - 8th Floor (701) - Vancouver Court Registrar: Frank Fedorak Total Duration: 2d Appearances: Michael Carter - Cleveland Doan LLP (604) 536-5002 representing Applicant Lee Turner - Doak Shirreff LLP (250) 763-4323 representing Applicant Aileen Jones, Paul Saunders, Banafsheh Sokhansanj, Sophie Baton - D o J (604) 666-2061 representing Respondent Comments: for full minutes see T-293-25 vol 118 pages 42-54 Minutes of Hearing entered in Vol. 1128 page(s) 55 - 56 Abstract of Hearing placed on file | |
| null | 2025-04-24 | Vancouver | Communication to the Court from the Registry dated 24-APR-2025 re: id 41 | |
| null | 2025-04-23 | Vancouver | Letter from Respondent dated 23-APR-2025 re costs the parties have agreed to received on 23-APR-2025 | |
| 21 | 2025-04-09 | Vancouver | Solicitor's certificate of service on behalf of Aileen Jones confirming service of Doc. 20 upon Applicant by email on 09-APR-2025 filed on 09-APR-2025 | |
| 20 | 2025-04-09 | Vancouver | Respondent's Record Number of copies received/prepared: 1 on behalf of Respondent filed on 09-APR-2025 | |
| 19 | 2025-04-04 | Vancouver | Solicitor's certificate of service on behalf of Michael D. Carter confirming service of Doc. 18 upon Respondent by email on 04-APR-2025 filed on 04-APR-2025 | |
| 18 | 2025-04-04 | Vancouver | Application Record Number of copies received/prepared: 1 on behalf of Applicant filed on 04-APR-2025 | |
| null | 2025-04-04 | Vancouver | Copy of Order dated 04-APR-2025 rendered by Associate Judge Kathleen M. Ring concerning Case Management Conference dated 4-APR-2025 placed on file. Original filed on Court File No. T-294-25 | |
| null | 2025-04-04 | Vancouver | Vancouver 04-APR-2025 BEFORE The Honourable Mr. Justice Zinn Language: E Before the Court: Case Management Conference Result of Hearing: CMC heard. Order to follow. held by way of video conference Duration per day: 07-APR-2025 from 11:00 to 11:31 Courtroom : Vancouver (Zoom) Court Registrar: Priscilla Lam Total Duration: 31min Appearances: Michael Carter (Cleveland Doan LLP) 604-536-5002 representing Applicant Lee C. Turner (Doak Shirreff Lawyers LLP) 250-979-2531 representing Applicant Aileen Jones, Banafsheh Sokhansanj (DOJ) 604-376-0995 / 604-315-5271 representing Respondent Comments: Associate Judge Ring also presiding. Recorded using Zoom Cloud and TASCAM. Heard with T-294-25. Minutes of Hearing entered in Vol. 1127 page(s) 250 - 252 Abstract of Hearing placed on file | |
| 17 | 2025-04-03 | Vancouver | Solicitor's certificate of service on behalf of Aileen Jones confirming service of Doc. 16 upon Applicant by email on 03-APR-2025 filed on 03-APR-2025 | |
| 16 | 2025-04-03 | Vancouver | Letter from Respondent dated 03-APR-2025 in response to Applicant's requests as explained in the letter from Applicant's counsel dated April 2, 2025. filed on 03-APR-2025 | |
| 15 | 2025-04-02 | Vancouver | Affidavit of service of Jamie Peterson sworn on 02-APR-2025 on behalf of Applicant confirming service of Doc. 14 upon Respondent by email on 02-APR-2025 with Exhibits "A" filed on 02-APR-2025 | |
| 14 | 2025-04-02 | Vancouver | Letter from Applicant dated 02-APR-2025 further to Court's Direction dated 1-APR-2025, explaining the interim relief being sought and the basis for it, and attaching a copy of an expert report by Dr. Steven Pelech. filed on 02-APR-2025 | |
| null | 2025-04-02 | Vancouver | Copy of Letter on behalf of Applicant dated 02-APR-2025 advising Applicant has retained Lee Turner of Doak Shirreff Lawyers LLP as co-counsel and asking that Ms. Alyona Kokanova be removed as solicitor of record. placed on file on 02-APR-2025 Original placed on Court File No. T-294-25 | |
| null | 2025-04-01 | Vancouver | Oral directions received from the Court: Associate Judge Kathleen M. Ring dated 01-APR-2025 directing that "During the case management conference on March 31, 2025, the Applicant's counsel informed the Court that the Rule 125 motion is not going forward. Accordingly, the hearing of that motion scheduled for April 4, 2025 at 2:00 p.m. PT is hereby cancelled." placed on file on 01-APR-2025 Confirmed in writing to the party(ies) | |
| null | 2025-04-01 | Vancouver | Oral directions received from the Court: Associate Judge Kathleen M. Ring dated 01-APR-2025 directing that "Further to the case management conference held on March 31, 2025, the Court directs that: 1. A further case management conference shall be held with counsel for the parties by Zoom videoconference on April 4, 2025 at 11:00 a.m. Pacific Time/2:00 p.m. Eastern Time. 2. By no later than close of business on April 2, 2025, the Applicant shall serve and file a letter explaining the interim relief being sought and the basis for it. 3. By no later than close of business of April 3, 2025, the Respondent shall serve and file a letter setting out their position on the Applicant's request(s)." placed on file on 01-APR-2025 Confirmed in writing to the party(ies) | |
| null | 2025-03-31 | Vancouver | Vancouver 31-MAR-2025 BEFORE Associate Judge Kathleen M. Ring Language: E Before the Court: Case Management Conference Result of Hearing: CMC heard. Direction to follow. held by way of video conference Duration per day: 31-MAR-2025 from 15:01 to 15:43 Courtroom : Vancouver (Zoom) Court Registrar: Priscilla Lam Total Duration: 42min Appearances: Michael Carter (Cleaveland Doan LLP) 604-536-5002 representing Applicant Lee Turner (Doak Shirreff Lawyers LLP) 250-979-2531 representing Applicant Aileen Jones, Paul Saunders (DOJ) 604-376-0995 / 604 362 5137 representing Respondent Comments: Recorded using Zoom Cloud and TASCAM. Minutes of Hearing entered in Vol. 1127 page(s) 179 - 181 Abstract of Hearing placed on file | |
| 13 | 2025-03-28 | Vancouver | Order dated 28-MAR-2025 rendered by Associate Judge Kathleen M. Ring Matter considered with personal appearance The Court's decision is with regard to Case Management Conference Result: ... see attached for complete wording ... Filed on 28-MAR-2025 copies sent to parties entered in J. & O. Book, volume 1713 page(s) 420 - 424 Interlocutory Decision | |
| null | 2025-03-28 | Vancouver | Vancouver 28-MAR-2025 BEFORE Associate Judge Kathleen M. Ring Language: E Before the Court: Case Management Conference Result of Hearing: Matter heard with T-294-25 held by way of video conference Duration per day: 28-MAR-2025 from 11:00 to 11:54 Courtroom : Vancouver (Zoom) Court Registrar: Frank Fedorak Total Duration: 1h Appearances: Michael Carter - Cleveland Doan (250) representing Applicant Lee Turner - Doak Shirreff (250) representing Applicant Aileen Jones - Dept of Justice (604) representing Respondent Paul Saunder - CFIA (343) representing Respondent Comments: see T-294-25 for complete minutes Minutes of Hearing entered in Vol. 1127 page(s) 97 - 98 Abstract of Hearing placed on file | |
| null | 2025-03-25 | Ottawa | Acknowledgment of Service received from all parties with respect to Doc. 12 Order dated 25-MAR-2025 placed on file on 25-MAR-2025 | |
| null | 2025-03-26 | Vancouver | Oral directions received from the Court: Associate Judge Kathleen M. Ring dated 26-MAR-2025 directing that "A case management conference in Court File Nos. T-294-25 and T-432-25 shall be held by Zoom videoconference on Friday, March 28, 2025 at 11:00 am to address the matter raised in correspondence dated March 26, 2025 from counsel for the Respondent." placed on file on 26-MAR-2025 Confirmed in writing to the party(ies) | |
| null | 2025-03-26 | Vancouver | Copy of Letter on behalf of Respondent dated 26-MAR-2025 re: urgent CMC placed on file on 26-MAR-2025 Original placed on Court File No. T-294-25 | |
| null | 2025-03-25 | Vancouver | Oral directions received from the Court: Associate Judge Kathleen M. Ring dated 25-MAR-2025 directing that "On reading correspondence dated March 21, 2025 from counsel for the Respondent, and on consent of the parties, the Court directs that: 1. Paragraph 9 of the Order dated February 25, 2025 is hereby varied. 2. The parties are granted an extension of time, nunc pro tunc, to March 19, 2025 to notify one another in writing if they intend to raise any preliminary issues in their respective memoranda of fact and law regarding the admissibility of any of the opposing party's affidavit evidence." placed on file on 25-MAR-2025 Confirmed in writing to the party(ies) | |
| 12 | 2025-03-25 | Ottawa | Order dated 25-MAR-2025 rendered by Chief Justice Crampton Matter considered without personal appearance The Court's decision is with regard to Order dated 25-FEB-2025 Result: It is Ordered pursuant to Rule 383 that Associate Judge Kathleen M. Ring is assigned as Case Management Judge in this matter. (Order dated 25-FEB-2025 is Doc. 47 in T-294-25) Filed on 25-MAR-2025 copies sent to parties entered in J. & O. Book, volume 1712 page(s) 327 - 327 Interlocutory Decision | |
| null | 2025-03-24 | Vancouver | Communication to the Court from the Registry dated 24-MAR-2025 re: ID 18 | |
| null | 2025-03-21 | Vancouver | Letter from Respondent dated 21-MAR-2025 joint request from the parties that the March 18, 2025 deadline to notify one another in writing if they intend to raise any preliminary issues in their memoranda of fact and law regarding the admissibility of any of the opposing party's affidavit evidence be extended, nunc pro tunc, to March 19, 2025. For files T-294-25 & T-432-25. received on 21-MAR-2025 | |
| null | 2025-03-07 | Vancouver | Copy of Solicitor's Certificate of Service of Aileen Jones for service of Affidavit 2 of Dr. Cathy Furness, Affidavit 1 of Dr. Suminder Sawhney, Affidavit 1 of Dr. Abed Harchaoui, and the Expert Report of Dr. S. French dated 07-MAR-2025 placed on file on 07-MAR-2025 Original placed on Court File No. T-294-25 | |
| null | 2025-02-25 | Vancouver | Copy of Order dated 25-FEB-2025 rendered by Associate Judge Kathleen M. Ring concerning Scheduling of remaining steps and hearing placed on file. Original filed on Court File No. T-294-25 | |
| null | 2025-02-24 | Vancouver | Certified copy of original material received from Canadian Food Inspection Agency on 24-FEB-2025 placed on file on this file | |
| null | 2025-02-19 | Vancouver | Letter from Respondent dated 19-FEB-2025 Requesting the Tribunal transmit the CTR received on 19-FEB-2025 | |
| null | 2025-02-12 | Vancouver | Letter from Applicant dated 12-FEB-2025 regarding motion submitted (Doc 10) received on 12-FEB-2025 | |
| 11 | 2025-02-11 | Vancouver | Solicitor's certificate of service on behalf of Michael D Carter confirming service of 10 upon Respondent by email on 11-FEB-2025 filed on 11-FEB-2025 | |
| 10 | 2025-02-11 | Vancouver | Motion Record containing the following original document(s): 4 5 6 7 8 9 Number of copies received: 1 on behalf of Applicant filed on 11-FEB-2025 | |
| 9 | 2025-02-11 | Vancouver | Affidavit of Katrina Jones #4 sworn on 11-FEB-2025 contained within a Motion Record on behalf of Applicant in support of Motion Doc. No. 4 with Exhibits A and B filed on 11-FEB-2025 | |
| 8 | 2025-02-11 | Vancouver | Affidavit of Katrina Jones #3 sworn on 11-FEB-2025 contained within a Motion Record on behalf of Applicant in support of Motion Doc. No. 4 with Exhibits A filed on 11-FEB-2025 | |
| 7 | 2025-02-11 | Vancouver | Affidavit of Katrina Jones #2 sworn on 11-FEB-2025 contained within a Motion Record on behalf of Applicant in support of Motion Doc. No. 4 with Exhibits A and B filed on 11-FEB-2025 | |
| 6 | 2025-02-11 | Vancouver | Affidavit of Katrina Jones sworn on 11-FEB-2025 contained within a Motion Record on behalf of Applicant in support of Motion Doc. No. 4 with Exhibits A to M filed on 11-FEB-2025 | |
| 5 | 2025-02-11 | Vancouver | Written Representations contained within a Motion Record on behalf of Applicant concerning Motion Doc. No. 4 filed on 11-FEB-2025 | |
| 4 | 2025-02-11 | Vancouver | Notice of Motion contained within a Motion Record on behalf of Applicant returnable (but no hearing date indicated at this time) for an interlocutory injunction enjoining the Ministers from disposing of any animals filed on 11-FEB-2025 | |
| 3 | 2025-02-11 | Vancouver | Solicitor's certificate of service on behalf of Aileen Jones confirming service of Document 2 upon Applicant by email on 11-FEB-2025 filed on 11-FEB-2025 | |
| 2 | 2025-02-11 | Vancouver | Notice of appearance on behalf of Respondent filed on 11-FEB-2025 | |
| null | 2025-02-10 | Vancouver | Service copy of Document 1 with proof of service upon all parties on 10-FEB-2025 received on 10-FEB-2025 | |
| 1 | 2025-02-07 | Vancouver | Notice of application with regard to Judicial Review (s.18) filed on 07-FEB-2025 Tariff fee of $50.00 received: yes |
B.C. premier 'frustrated' CFIA isn't showing 'flexibility' on ostrich cull, landfill refuses to take carcasses
Conservative MP says he is working to stop cull as farm's supporters gather
B.C. Premier David Eby says he is frustrated that the federal Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) is refusing to revisit a decision to have a herd of nearly 400 ostriches living in southeastern B.C. killed over fears of avian flu.
At the same time, a Conservative MP is seeking to have the decision overturned and the local regional district says it will not accept the birds' carcasses at local landfills after they are killed.
The developments come as opposition to the order is gathering further steam, despite a court ruling this week finding it can go ahead.
Eby made his comments at an unrelated news conference in Victoria Wednesday, the day after a federal court judge found in favour of the agency being allowed to move forward with the cull which was first ordered in December 2024.
Eby said both he and the agriculture minister, as well as "British Columbians" are "a little bit frustrated by the actions of this federal agency."
"We understand the importance of containing the bird flu and the important role that agency plays," he said. "What's hard to watch is a lack of discretion and ability to evaluate case-by-case scenarios."
He said putting the specifics of the ostrich case aside, it's a "consistent experience the province has had with federal agencies."
Conservative MP seeks delay
The premier's comments come as the number of supporters who've gathered at the farm, Universal Ostrich, is growing in anticipation of a standoff with the CFIA which said Wednesday that it will be moving forward with the cull following this week's court ruling.
Videos and photos posted on social media show dozens of people, tents, caravans and vehicles on the property, with flags and banners draped on fences.
Universal
Ostrich co-owner Karen Espersen posted a plea on Facebook for
supporters to come 'surround' her farm in an effort to stop her birds
from being culled. (Facebook/Karen Espersen)
Conservative MP Scott Anderson visited the farm, which is in his riding, Wednesday and said the family that owns the birds is "quite devastated" and that the order has caused widespread fear in the animal husbandry industry over worries about the powers granted to the federal agency.
He said he was going to ask the agency to "hold off" on the cull because there's a possibility of setting up a research facility on the property with the backing of academics.
The owners have said the birds, some of whom they say are close to three decades old, have developed herd immunity to avian flu since the outbreak was detected late last year, and that the live ostriches are valuable for research.
"We'll see where that goes," Anderson said.
Claims of possible cures
CBC News has contacted two of the researchers the farm has said it is working with on ostrich research.
Universal Ostrich says its birds are being studied as part of a partnership with Japan's Kyoto Prefectural University, which has previously made headlines for its work with ostrich eggs and detecting COVID-19.
However, the university and lead researcher mentioned by the farm, Yasuhiro Tsukamoto, have not responded to CBC News' emails or phone calls and have not otherwise publicly weighed in on the case.
Supporters have also mentioned Stu Greenberg, a researcher in Massachusetts, who told CBC News via email that his work with Universal Ostrich was focused on dietary weight loss, not flu or other diseases.
Anderson said that the federal court judge "understandably" didn't want to weigh in on the science behind the decision to kill the flock because he's not a scientist.
But he said he would offer to act as an "interface" between scientists who have come out against the cull to explore alternatives.
"These people are constituents of mine and they deserve my help," he said.
Court case doesn't rule on science
In his court ruling, Justice Russell Zinn said it is important the CFIA be given the authority to fulfil its mandate of protecting public health and the agricultural industry.
Zinn wrote it would be inappropriate for the courts to make a scientific ruling on whether the cull is warranted but instead said it is important to note that the federal government provides agencies such as the CFIA the power to set policy and "make judgments on complex, expertise-driven matters."
Zinn said while it is clear the killing of the birds would be emotionally and economically devastating, that has to be balanced against the CFIA's mandate to prevent the spread of diseases such as avian flu that could impact human health, as well as its mandate to honour Canada's trade agreements with countries that require it to take proper steps to contain diseases.
He also said that the ruling was based on the knowledge the CFIA had when it gave the cull order in December, rather than any new information that may have emerged in the months since.
"Judicial review must never be conducted with the benefit of hindsight," Zinn wrote. "Although the infection had later abated with many ostriches surviving, that could not have been foreseen at the time."
Local landfill won't accept carcasses without further testing
It's that last point — the fact many of the ostriches have survived — which is driving the fight for the owners of Universal Ostrich, and their supporters.
While a total of 69 ostriches are reported to have been killed by avian flu, the farm says the last death came in January and in the time since none of the remaining birds have been exhibiting symptoms of disease.
A poster advertises a convoy to Universal Ostrich to protest the ordered cull in February 2025. (Facebook/B.C. Rising)
"Our animals are happy, they're healthy, they're laying eggs, they're beautiful," said Katie Pastiney, who has been acting as a spokesperson for the farm which is co-owned by her mother.
She was speaking at a Regional District of Central Kootenay meeting held Thursday which was attended by about 300 people online, many objecting to the cull.
The local government has confirmed it was contacted by the CFIA in January about accepting the carcasses of the ostriches at a landfill but that it hasn't received any information since.
Officials and staff were asked why the district wasn't trying to halt the cull or the disposal of the carcasses at a district landfill, while others suggested the avian flu virus does not exist and the need for the cull was fraudulent.
During the meeting, district vice-chairman Aiden McLaren-Caux said the cull was "horrifying," but the district "would likely have little legal standing to refuse to accept the carcasses at the landfill.
"We can say what we want (to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency). They don't have to listen to us," he said.
Uli Wolf, the district's general manager of environmental services, said the district had been told to expect 50 to 75 tonnes of waste as a result of the cull but this was not a "significant increase to the organic loading" of the landfill and therefore presented no additional health risk.
Speaking to CBC News after the meeting, McLaren-Caux said the board passed two motions on Thursday. One states that it will not accept the carcasses of the ostriches until the CFIA conducted more testing on the birds, while a second motion asks that the results of those tests be made public.
The Canadian Food Inspection Agency has defended its decision to proceed with the cull, saying on Wednesday that allowing a domestic flock "known to be exposed to highly pathogenic avian influenza to remain alive allows a potential source of the virus to persist."
'This is ultimately a tragedy': professor
Fiona Brinkman, a professor at Simon Fraser University's department of molecular biology and biochemistry, said the CFIA is in a difficult position in the face of a highly infectious disease which impacts not just birds but also mammals, including humans.
"It's a really tough one," she said in an interview with CBC Daybreak South host Chris Walker. "This is ultimately a tragedy of a pathogen that is now a threat to multiple industries and many animals."
The greatest fear, she said, is that a new variant of avian flu could mutate that is even more dangerous to animals and humans.
But, she said, she had hoped the CFIA would conduct new tests on the ostriches now that so much time has passed since the initial cull order was given.
"I do hope they're going to do a little bit more investigation," she said.
Brinkman noted that for most domestic flocks of birds, the mortality rate once avian flu is detected is upwards of 90 per cent but that was not the case for ostriches, with the majority still alive. However, that also meant the virus could "linger" in the birds for a longer period of time, potentially spreading to wild flocks.
And, she said, since it's an open-air farm there's also room for new infections to be introduced to the ostriches.
"There's a real problem with the birds not being able to be sheltered," she said. "Poultry, for example, you can put them in a barn. That's not appropriate for ostriches."
She said aside from Universal Ostrich, there have been many other farmers that have had to see their entire flocks killed, as well as wild animals and sea life that have also died as avian flu spreads.
"My heart breaks," she said. "Right now, there's just no happy ending... we do not want to go through a pandemic again."
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
With files from Brady Strachan, Chris Walker and The Canadian Press' Darryl Greer
B.C ostrich farm 'devastated' after federal judge rules cull of nearly 400 birds can proceed
Farm suffered avian flu outbreak but owners have argued they did not pose wider risk
A B.C. ostrich farm says it is devastated by a federal court ruling Tuesday that upholds an order to have the nearly 400-bird flock killed due to the detection of avian flu, and hopes to continue to fight the case in court.
The order to have the birds killed has attracted the attention of hundreds of supporters, who have made monetary donations to the farm's legal fund and held rallies in favour of saving the ostriches. The owners of Universal Ostrich, in Edgewood in southeastern B.C., argue the birds that have survived the outbreak are happy and healthy and could provide valuable insight into fighting the disease.
Though Federal Court Justice Russel Zinn wrote that he has "considerable sympathy" for the farmers, he also found that the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) ordered the cull after following proper procedure and its mandate to attempt to stop the spread of the deadly bird virus.
"Personal losses must be weighed against the broader public interest in protecting public health and maintaining trade stability," Zinn wrote in his ruling.
"Avian influenza is a virus capable of causing serious harm to both animals and humans, with significant implications for Canada's poultry businesses and international trade status. To combat threats like this virus, Parliament has authorized the CFIA to act decisively, making swift decisions with far-reaching consequences, often under conditions of scientific uncertainty."
A herd of ostriches is seen on a remote farm in Edgewood, B.C., in an undated photo supplied by Universal Ostrich Farms Inc. (Katie Pasitney/Canadian Press)
In a post to its Facebook page, Save Our Ostriches, the farm says it is "absolutely devastated" by the ruling, which includes an order that it pay $15,000 to cover the CFIA's legal costs.
"We are heartbroken by this outcome and uncertain about the future of our farm," the post reads.
Katie Pasitney, whose mother is co-owner of the farm, says they plan "to fight this legally as far as we can go."
She told The Canadian Press they are inviting supporters to come to the farm and show "kindness, peacefulness and love" in protest of the cull, adding the Canadian Food Inspection Agency had the "full authority ... to come in whenever they want."
Pasitney said the agency had given no indication when culling might begin.
"They're not gonna make it a public topic because they don't want everybody to know. We have thousands of people behind us," she said.
CBC News has reached out to the CFIA.
More than 8.7 million birds have been culled in B.C. at hundreds of farms, most of them commercial, since the first outbreak of a highly contagious form of the avian flu in the spring of 2022.
'Stamping out' policy at heart of dispute
The cull was first ordered on Dec. 31, 2024, after avian flu was detected in several birds at Universal Ostrich.
But the farm managed to stave off that cull through a court injunction that allowed both sides to make their case before a federal judge in April.
The lawyer for Universal Ostrich argued in that case that the CFIA failed in its mandate to fully investigate the case and didn't follow its own policy around possible exemptions to a cull order, claiming ostriches should not be treated the same as poultry.
Supporters of Universal Ostrich pose outside the farm in B.C.'s West Kootenay region in April 2025. (Katie Pasitney/Facebook)
The farm's legal counsel argued that the CFIA's "stamping out" policy, which results in the killing and disposal of all domestic birds on site where avian flu is present, to have been both ineffective at stopping the spread of avian flu, and unnecessary now that it has been detected throughout the province and because the ostriches themselves are flightless.
But the CFIA's lawyer said culls control the spread of diseases and limit the chance it can mutate into forms that are more easily passed on to mammals, including humans.
Zinn ruled Tuesday that the agency's decisions were both reasonable and procedurally fair, with the judge noting that "courts generally stay out of scientific debates."
"Courts must also respect the demonstrated scientific and technical expertise of administrative agencies," the judgment says. "When Parliament leaves technical or scientific assessments to specialized administrative bodies, it signals that those bodies, not the courts, are best positioned to make judgments on complex, expertise-driven matters."
Zinn also said the disposal notice and denial of the farm's exemption happened in December 2024 and January 2025, and the court can't consider evidence that wasn't available to it when those decisions were made.
He said the court "would be faulting decision-makers for lacking a crystal ball."
"This court cannot consider 'new' evidence, such as the current health status of the ostriches, recent test results or updated scientific developments," the ruling says in reference to claims that the ostriches are now free of disease.
Biosecurity concerns
He also found that Universal Ostrich had "many issues" with biosecurity, with the farm featuring open-air enclosures, in close proximity to wildlife, including a large pond routinely visited by wild ducks. Reports also showed that proper quarantine requirements had not always been followed at the farm when ostriches fell sick, with infected and dead birds in close proximity to healthy ones, and "unauthorized individuals walking inside the infected zone."
While Zinn said there is a "real and negative impact" on the farm due to the cull order, including economic loss and emotional distress, he also found that the stamping out policy is a reasonable one, given the goals of the CFIA to stop the spread and mutation of disease.
"I conclude that the CFIA has fulfilled the high level of duty of fairness it owed to the Applicant [Universal Ostrich]," the ruling reads.
The court ruling notes that the agency's "mandate is protective rather than punitive," and provides compensation to owners whose animals are destroyed — up to $3,000 per animal in the case of ostriches.
Independent MLA for Peace River North Jordan Kealy, who supported the attempt to halt the cull, said he was "devastated" by the decision, adding that the farm was "completely different" from a typical poultry farm that could quickly restock.
"I honestly believe that there could have been an alternative to this scenario rather than culling and killing all the birds, because they're 30-year-old animals that are not just easily replaced," he said.
B.C. Agriculture Minister Lana Popham said in a statement that while the government's thoughts were with the owners of Universal Ostrich Farms during a difficult time, "we respect the decision of the courts, as well as the jurisdiction of the CFIA."
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
With files from Brady Strachan and the Canadian Press
3 MLAs are supporting a B.C. farming family whose 400 ostriches are to be culled
Birds were ordered to be culled after an avian flu outbreak, but family says they are healthy
A member of an ostrich farming family held back tears Thursday as she called on the provincial government to help stop the cull of their 400 birds.
Katie Pasitney, spokesperson for Universal Ostrich Farm owned by her parents, said she is hopeful that her meeting with provincial officials, including B.C.'s Agriculture Minister Lana Popham, will lead to changes that would save the birds because of their potential significance to the poultry industry.
The Canadian Food Inspection Agency ordered their cull in late 2024 after an avian flu outbreak, but a Federal Court granted them a stay of execution in late January pending a judicial review.
The family and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency now await a ruling from a Federal Court judge on the fate of the animals. A decision is expected to come early next week.
Pasitney said the animals living on her parents' farm in Edgewood, B.C., are "healthy" and "happy" now and pose no risk. She said the birds could contribute to the fight against avian flu because they have developed herd immunity.
Court pauses cull order on B.C. ostriches ordered killed over avian flu fears"They are a living research laboratory," she said before meeting with Popham.
Pasitney said after the meeting with the minister that she remains hopeful that her plea to save the birds on the basis of their potential contribution to research will pay off.
She said the provincial officials made no commitments.
"They listened … and they are going to absorb all the information," she said.
Pasitney said the birds are her family's livelihood and having to kill them would be catastrophic.
"Some of these animals have personalities," she said, speaking with reporters before her meeting with the minister.
Ostrich farm faces Feb. 1 cullPasitney has been receiving support from three Independents members of the legislature, and Dallas Brodie and Tara Armstrong even visually underscored their support by holding up ostrich eggs during a news conference with reporters.
Peace River North MLA Jordan Kealy acknowledged that the federal government will decide the fate of the birds, but said the provincial government can help secure a stay of execution by lobbying for an exemption from the culling rules.
"I think you have to look at every avenue to advocate, and right now, when it came to trying to reach out and contact the (inspection agency), I had difficulties," Kealy said.
The fate of the birds had also came up in the legislature when Kealy introduced Pasitney as a representative of the farm, which he described as an "innovative and research-driven operation" that has spent the past three year developing practices based on antibodies to protect against diseases and viruses, including H5N1.
"This farm is not used for food consumption and purely research-based," he said.
Responding to questions from Kealy, Popham said avian influenza can have a heavy emotional and economic toll, but also pointed to its dangers.
"If it mutates into a widespread human illness, the impacts would be catastrophic," she said. "That is the context for why … CFIA is taking the steps they take."
More than 8.7 million birds have been culled in B.C. at 236 farms, most of them commercial, since the first outbreak of a highly contagious form of the avian flu broke out in the spring of 2022.
How a BC Ostrich Farm Sparked a Far-Right Crusade
Convoy supporters and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. have rallied around the farm, which is facing a cull of its 400-strong flock.
A B.C. ostrich farm fighting an order to kill its 400 birds has become a flashpoint for the far right and people skeptical of both mainstream science and the regulatory powers of governments.
The cull at Universal Ostrich in Edgewood, about 100 kilometres southeast of Vernon, was ordered to prevent the spread of avian flu after birds were infected.
A volunteer researcher with a grassroots group called Unmask the Right says he’s concerned about the involvement of high-profile convoy protesters and people who have threatened violence. Even U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has attacked the cull.
The rhetoric has intensified in the wake of a Federal Court ruling that allows the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, or CFIA, to proceed with the animal cull to prevent the spread of avian flu.
The researcher sent The Tyee a Facebook post by James Sowery, an Alberta man convicted of assault with a weapon related to his actions at the Coutts border protest in 2022, when he drove his truck at an RCMP officer.
In response to Sowery’s AI-generated picture of an army-helmeted ostrich with the tag line “Save our ostriches,” B.C. commenters have called a federal judge “evil” for ruling Tuesday that the CFIA’s cull of the ostrich flock could go ahead. One called for “the gallows” to be brought back so people could watch the government officials who made the decision “draw their last breaths.”
Several commenters envisioned themselves dying to defend the farm, while others referred to the television show Yellowstone and a plot line involving an isolated canyon outside of government jurisdiction where characters on the show kill enemies or dispose of bodies.
“The key organizers have repeatedly called for their supporters to keep things peaceful, but the online talk among a significant number of those supporters has been anything but,” said the researcher, whom The Tyee is quoting anonymously because he fears harassment or violence.
“People have been talking about peaceful protest being ineffective, strapping up and joining the party, grabbing their weapons and blocking the road,” he said. “The situation has become increasingly volatile over the last 24 hours since the court’s decision came down, and the potential for this conflict to intensify is very real.”
Karen Esperson, the owner of Universal Ostrich, has called for supporters to come and surround the farm to prevent the cull from happening.
The Tyee asked the farm spokesperson, Esperson’s daughter Katie Pasitney, about the comments on Sowery’s post but did not receive a response by our deadline.
On an advocacy Facebook page called Save Our Ostriches, Pasitney has been asking supporters to use normal democratic methods to protest the decision, such as writing to the Regional District of Central Kootenay to ask them to refuse to accept the birds’ bodies in its landfill.
In a Monday post, Pasitney wrote that “the views and beliefs expressed by individuals posting on behalf of Universal Ostrich Farms Inc. may not always fully reflect the official stance, values, or mission of our farm.”
Pasitney’s family has been breeding ostriches on the farm, located in a rural area on the east shore of Upper Arrow Lake, since the 1990s. In emotional videos, Pasitney and Esperson have talked about their fear and sadness at the prospect of losing the animals.
According to the Federal Court’s ruling, Universal Ostrich’s troubles started in December, when around 20 to 30 ostriches got sick and died. After an anonymous report to the CFIA, inspectors showed up and tested two of the dead birds. Those tests showed the animals had been infected with avian flu, likely spread by wild ducks who had landed at the farm shortly before the ostriches became sick.
A current outbreak of avian flu, or H5N1, has affected poultry farms across Canada and the United States. The disease caused one 13-year-old in the Metro Vancouver area to become critically ill in 2024.
After the results of their tests on two of the ostriches, the CFIA ordered the entire flock of around 400 birds to be killed in order to contain the outbreak.
Birds at the Universal Ostrich farm are set to be killed after a Federal Court ruling.
Photo via Facebook.
But Universal Ostrich applied for an exemption, arguing that their ostriches have special antibodies that could be used to fight various diseases and unique genetic characteristics.
The farm bases that claim on their work with Japanese scientist Yasuhiro Tsukamoto, a veterinary professor and president of Kyoto Prefectural University, who is so fascinated by ostriches that he goes by the moniker “Dr. Ostrich.”
In an interview with the Canadian Press, Tsukamoto confirmed he had been working with Universal Ostrich, extracting COVID-19 antibodies from ostrich eggs to research whether those antibodies can prevent infectious diseases like COVID-19 and H5N1.
Tsukamoto has also studied whether ostrich antibodies could be used to regrow human hair. A company called Ostrigen, which sells a hair-regrowing product called OstriGrow, claims its product is based on Tsukamoto’s research. A mask he invented in 2020 that used ostrich antibodies showed success in detecting COVID-19 infection, according to news reports.
“It’s proven, we’re at usable stages here,” Pasitney said. “We actually have done studies with Immune Biosolutions in 2021 and we were proven effective to neutralize, with our antibodies, the COVID variants. Which was huge.”
Pasitney said Universal Ostrich stopped working with Immune Biosolutions after the Quebec-based company changed hands, a situation she said she found “sinister.” Pasitney said she believes the company “doesn’t want our research out.”
Immune Biosolutions did not respond to a request for comment from The Tyee.
In a 2022 interview with a publication called Dezeen, Tsukamoto said he had been inspired to start researching ostrich antibodies because of their “amazing immunity and resilience.”
But Annelise Botes, a professor of biochemistry at Stellenbosch University in South Africa who studies diseases in ostriches, said it’s misleading to link the ostriches’ capability to fight off disease and the antibodies developed in their eggs.
“Antibodies, although very important in an immune response, are only part of a complex network of immune cells and components in the animal’s (or human) body, involved in reacting to an antigen,” she said.
“It is true that compared to poultry, ostriches are resilient to avian influenza,” she said. But the antibody “does not carry with it the characteristics of the whole animal. You will therefore not have super-immunity to avian influenza and all future variations of the virus if you use ostrich antibodies as a treatment.”
The CFIA did not accept the farm’s request for an exemption, and Universal Ostrich then turned to the Federal Court to ask for a judicial review of the CFIA’s cull order. But on Tuesday, Justice Russel Zinn dismissed the application, saying the CFIA had properly used its authority to contain an avian flu outbreak.
According to the Federal Court decision, Universal Ostrich argued that although 69 birds had died by mid-January, the rest of the flock now likely had “herd immunity” to avian flu.
However, the court ruling noted that H5N1 “can persist outside of hosts in feces, grass, and soil [and] can remain viable for months or even years in fresh water at low temperatures, creating long-lasting sources of infection or re-infection.”
During the two-day Federal Court hearing, Universal Ostrich presented expert reports from Dr. Steven Pelech, Dr. Byram Bridle and Dr. Jeff Wilson. Both Pelech and Bridle became outspoken opponents of COVID-19 vaccines and public health restrictions during the pandemic.
Bridle told the Federal Court that the CFIA hadn’t done enough work to establish whether the H5N1 virus detected in the ostriches was “proof of a highly pathogenic virus.” Pelech said the virus “behaved phenotypically like a low-pathogenic strain.”
The CFIA presented its own veterinarian employee as its expert but also noted that Pelech and Bridle’s “‘herd immunity’ thesis sits well outside mainstream peer-reviewed literature” and “underlines that Drs. Pelech and Bridle have been criticized by courts in other legal proceedings for advocacy masquerading as expertise and have had their reports rejected.”
Justice Zinn wrote that it wasn’t up to the court to arbitrate whether the science was right, but to rule on whether the CFIA’s process was fair and its existing policies are “rational, intelligible and justified.”
The farm’s cause has been taken up by right-wing media figures, including New York billionaire and radio host John Catsimatidis. On a radio segment devoted to the ostrich cull, Catsimatidis interviewed Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the U.S. secretary of health and human services. Kennedy’s controversial views include opposing vaccines, believing that fluoridated water has negative health effects and blaming processed foods for cancer and other health problems.
“Mr. Secretary... I want to ask you about ostriches in Canada. These are ancient animals and they have a natural healing process — antibiotics in their eggs,” Catsimatidis told Kennedy during an April 20 broadcast.
“And they’re in danger, because the pharmaceutical companies want to kill them, because they don’t want their solution.”
Kennedy responded that he thought it was “a huge mistake” to cull the ostriches. “These animals live to 50 years old,” he said. “They’re not badly affected by bird flu and we should not be killing them, we should be studying them.”
In his ruling, Zinn pointed out that if the CFIA does not follow its established culling policy in response to avian flu outbreaks, other countries can impose trade restrictions, potentially leading to “severe national economic consequence” for Canadian food producers. The CFIA’s cull and disinfection processes are similar to how our trading partners deal with similar outbreaks, Zinn wrote.
The volunteer researcher who’s been monitoring social media posts about the ostrich farm said he’s seeing signs the ostrich cull is inspiring people to protest, similar to the convoy protest that took over Ottawa in 2022.
“They’ve been expressing hopes for hundreds or even thousands to rally and physically block the Canadian Food Inspection Agency from culling the herd,” he told The Tyee.
“Increasingly this looks to be turning into a test of strength against what they see as tyrannical overreach by a globalist government.”
Universal Ostrich’s plight has now been taken up by the three Independent MLAs who recently left the B.C. Conservatives after a dispute about one of the MLAs’ comments about residential school survivors.
Jordan Kealy, MLA for Peace River North, has visited the farm and invited Esperson and Pasitney to speak at the B.C. legislature.
In a Facebook post published on May 15, Conservative MP Scott Anderson said he had also visited the farm after the Federal Court ruling and said his “team was working on a plan to save the ostriches.”
Anderson said he’d discussed the issue with Pelech and Wilson: “While I am no scientist in the hard sciences, these folks are, and all of them say that a cull is unnecessary and that the birds and eggs are extremely valuable research subjects.”
In response, a Facebook commenter accused Anderson of being too diplomatic.
“Guarantee the cancellation of the cull, or start culling CFIA employees,” Bradley Winters wrote in response to Anderson’s post.
Protesters opposed to cull at B.C. ostrich farm prepare for long-term stay
More than 200 protesters showed up on Saturday to oppose the cull, and the plan at the moment is to stay 'peaceful, loving, and lawful'
Author of the article:
NAKUSP — Protesters who have been camping this weekend at a B.C. ostrich farm that’s been ordered to kill its entire flock because of bird flu say they’re preparing to stay longer.
Universal Ostrich Farm, in Edgewood, has been battling with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency over the cull of 399 birds after the farm lost its court battle to save the birds.
One of the protesters, Jim Kerr, says more than 200 people showed up on Saturday to oppose the cull, and the plan at this moment is to stay “peaceful, loving, and lawful.”
But Kerr says that doesn’t mean they will make it easy for the authorities if they come by, saying the group intends to “slow them down” or catch them doing anything that would be “deemed to be against the law.”
“We are still currently, unfortunately, at the hands of the CFIA, which feels they have the legal right to come in here and cull these 399 ostriches,” said Kerr.
“The family has other plans. They’ve decided that they’re going to stand by their ostriches no matter what, while we pursue all legal avenues as well as just increasing the attendance here.”
He said supporters are making preparations for a longer-term stay at the farm.
The Regional District of Central Kootenay passed a resolution Thursday not to allow the CFIA to dispose of ostrich carcasses in its landfills pending further testing of the birds for avian flu, which some opponents of the cull have interpreted to mean carcasses will be rejected unless they test positive.
The CFIA says it’s aware of the regional district’s motion, but the cull will still proceed with veterinary oversight, although operation dates and plans will not be shared with the public in advance.
“We have a duty to protect Canadians from the serious potential risks that Avian Influenza presents to our people and our economy,” the agency said in a statement Saturday.
The agency ordered the birds destroyed in December after avian flu was found on the farm and a Federal Court ruled to uphold the decision last week. More than 8.7 million birds have been culled in British Columbia since a highly infectious form of the avian flu showed up on farms starting in the spring of 2022.
Aidan McLaren-Caux, a board vice-chair with the Regional District of Central Kootenay, has said if the birds get tested and are found to be well, the hope is that the cull order will be rescinded.
Katie Pasitney, whose parents own the farm, says she hasn’t heard from the CFIA yet, but her family saw the news that the authority will do the cull, in a way that it chooses, without prior notice.
“This is the corruption and the tyranny we’re fighting … This is not right,” said Pasitney, “We are at war with an agency that is supposed to be protecting farmers.”
“There’s no sympathy, there’s no empathy, and there’s no compassion towards what is happening here at the farm, and there is what we’re fighting for, which is just to retest these animals to prove to the public health that we are absolutely OK.”
It was great meeting Scott Anderson yesterday at the Universal Ostrich Farm, and I think he will be a great newly appointed MP. I look forward to seeing what results he can make happen federally with the CFIA!!!
The family said the animals that survived the outbreak have recovered, having developed what Pasitney said is “herd immunity” to the virus, making the birds more valuable to researchers alive than dead.
The Federal Court’s ruling said CFIA did testing with two dead birds following an anonymous report of “multiple ostrich deaths” at the farm, and the test results showed the birds had tested positive for avian flu.
The ruling said the total ostrich mortality tied to flu-like illness at the farm had reached 69 birds by the end of January.
“The Applicant alleges that the last death occurred on January 15, 2025, with the surviving majority appearing healthy or recovered. This reinforced its belief in the flock’s attainment of at least partial herd immunity against H5N1,” read the ruling.
The CFIA said in its Saturday statement that under the Health of Animals Act, if an owner refuses to meet the depopulation requirements outlined by the CFIA, the agency could move forward with depopulation itself or use a third-party contractor.
The authority said this could mean withholding part or all compensation for the depopulation from the owners.
The court decision said the farm could be compensated up to a maximum of $3,000 per ostrich.
The farmers’ cause has also been mentioned by U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who told a New York radio show last month he was “horrified by the idea that they are going to kill these animals.”
Opponents of the cull have been shooting videos and livestreaming from the farm over the weekend, with one person saying on a video that they will take on a “much more serious long-term activism role.”
Support B.C. journalism
Our newsroom is dedicated to covering the stories and issues that matter to British Columbians. Here are five things you can do to stay informed and support local journalism:
- Bookmark vancouversun.com and check back daily for the latest news.
- Subscribe to get unlimited access to The Vancouver Sun online, as well as the ePaper and our app.
- Download our app for iOS or Android, and be sure to turn on breaking news alerts.
- Subscribe to our free newsletters to get the best of our news, opinion and sports coverage delivered straight to your inbox.
- Follow us on X, Bluesky and YouTube.
Jordan Kealy MLA from Peace River Alberta at Universal Ostrich Farm under cull order from CFIA
Universal Ostrich Farm 
Karen Greba Espersen (Greba)
Intro
Comments
Scott Anderson, Conservative MP
West kootenay trading post
Intro
Contact info
- (250) 226-0080Mobile
- kootnaychoppers@outlook.com
B.C. ostrich farmers lose court battle to save healthy flock and issue mass call to action
Jordan Kealy MLA for Peace River North
Intro
Farmer, Mechanic, Politician, and True North Strong Conservative.
please like, share or follow!!!
please be respectful others otherwise you will be blocked.
Featured
Tara Halisky Armstrong
Intro
Tara Armstrong MLA for Kelowna-Lake Country-Coldstream
Intro
MLA: Jordan Kealy
Office:
Constituency:
Constituency:
Universal Ostrich Farms Inc.
Kari Simpson
Intro
Posts
2 Comments
Court rejects Christian activist's $11M claim against judges as 'abuse of process'
Kari Simpson sued multiple levels of the justice system over handling of defamation claim against Rafe Mair
A right-wing Fraser Valley activist's bid for an $11-million payout from multiple levels of the Canadian justice system over the outcome of a 15-year-old defamation suit has been dismissed as an "abuse of process."
Kari Simpson, who described herself as a "respected Christian social activist" in a B.C. Supreme Court filing, had asked for a parliamentary inquiry into the handling of her unsuccessful defamation suit against the late radio host Rafe Mair.
Justice David Crossin struck Simpson's latest claim in its entirety last month, ordering her to pay costs to the defendants, who include the former chief justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, the now-deceased former chief justice of the B.C. Supreme Court and the attorneys general of both Canada and British Columbia.
"The proceeding at bar amounts to an abuse of process," Crossin wrote in the Feb. 27 judgment.
"The claim as a whole, in essence, seeks to either re-litigate matters decided in the defamation action and/or attack the integrity of the decision makers in relation to that matter."
Longtime B.C. broadcaster Rafe Mair died last year. (UBC)
The convoluted history of this legal battle dates all the way back to 1999, when Mair criticized Simpson in a radio editorial, calling her a bigot and making references to Nazi Germany and the Ku Klux Klan.
At the time, Simpson was campaigning against books depicting gay couples being available in Surrey schools.
She filed a defamation suit against Mair in 2003, a claim that eventually landed in the Supreme Court of Canada. In a landmark 2008 ruling, the justices of Canada's highest court rejected Simpson's claim, ordered her to pay costs and expanded the defences available to people accused of defamation.
Allegations of judicial negligence
A decade later, Simpson has attempted to reopen the matter by filing a new claim alleging she was the victim of, among other things, "breach of duty, dereliction of duty, fraud upon the court, malfeasance, malice."
The sprawling, 26-page claim was filed in December and alleges that now-retired B.C. Supreme Court justice Mary Marvin Koenigsberg was unfit to hear the original defamation case and that the judge defamed Simpson in her reasons for rejecting the lawsuit.
Simpson also alleged that the late B.C. Supreme Court chief justice Donald Brenner was negligent in allowing Koenigsberg to hear the case, and that Beverley McLachlin, the former chief justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, should have ordered an investigation into the lower court judge.
Simpson claimed that she is "terrorized daily by the financial assault targeted against her" by the Supreme Court's decision to order her to pay costs in the defamation case.
Former Supreme Court of Canada chief justice Beverley McLachlin was named in Simpson's suit. (Evan Mitsui/CBC)
In the words of Justice David Crossin, Simpson's suit asked for a "panoply of remedies" for the harms she alleged she suffered, remedies that span two full pages of the claim.
They include more than $11 million in damages, formal apologies and an order that the federal justice minister "inform all Canadian law schools and media that the administration of justice failed to uphold and protect the rights of the plaintiff."
In his February judgment, Crossin wrote that "the relief sought in these paragraphs are not available as a matter of law."
'Completely baseless' claims
Crossin said he was dismissing the claims against the judges named in Simpson's suit because they are all protected by judicial immunity.
"In addition, and in any event, on the face of the pleadings the allegations are completely baseless. There are no material facts pled that remotely support a cause of action," Crossin wrote.
He went on to say that Simpson's suit includes "no reasonable claim against any named defendant."
Simpson, who represented herself in the lawsuit, has not responded to requests for comment on the judgment. The exact amount of the costs she has been ordered to pay has yet to be determined.
Simpson continues to campaign against the inclusion of LGBT-related teaching materials in schools. Most recently, she has lobbied against B.C.'s Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity program (SOGI), which directs schools to recognize sexual orientation and gender identity in their anti-bullying programs.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
CULLING IS MURDER
Killing an entire flock of birds when some of them are sick is an absolutely abominable practice that must be stopped. Hopefully, this example will be the catalyst that ends this barbaric practice.
Please watch the music video below and share this link: CullingIsMurder.com
https://rumble.com/v6h5zdp-culling-is-murder.html
THIS IS THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION’S ONE HEALTH APPROACH IN ACTION
CLICK HERE for data involving the murder of millions of animals
UPDATE (As of February 8, 2025)
This battle is far from over. A hearing on this matter may be held as soon as Wednesday, February 12, 2025.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1Snsa3Qn_s&t=134s
REGARDLESS OF WHERE YOU LIVE, PLEASE HELP BY TAKING THE ACTION BELOW:
Re: Save Our Ostriches
Dear Sirs:
I demand that you halt the senseless killing of healthy animals.
I understand that a court decision has correctly granted a 30 day stay of execution for the Edgewood, BC, Universal Ostrich Farms Herd. Despite that, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) has submitted an application to the court to allow them to proceed with the execution of the herd as soon as possible. This application will be heard as early as WEDNESDAY, 12 February, 2025.
I strongly oppose CFIA’s intention to cull these 400 healthy ostriches. Although CFIA alleges that the herd has been exposed to a pathogen and must therefore be killed, they have not only refused to test the herd but have prohibited the owners from testing or treating their own herd on pain of massive fines and imprisonment. These healthy ostriches demonstrate natural immunity, making their culling not only unscientific but also cruel and counterproductive to human health, sustainable farming practices and animal welfare.
This research herd of ostriches is a living laboratory and presents a unique scientific opportunity to study natural immunity and its implications for human health, which could significantly impact future veterinary practices and public health policies.
These animals pose no risk, but the CFIA extermination protocol imposes a very serious risk: it is CFIA which must be curtailed.
I demand you act to halt this senseless killing immediately.
Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lawrence MacAulay: lawrence.macaulay@parl.gc.ca
Minister of Health of Canada, Mark Holland: Mark.Holland@parl.gc.ca
Federal MP, Mel Arnold: Mel.Arnold.C1@parl.gc.ca
Provincial MLA, Ian Paton: Ian.Paton.MLA@leg.bc.ca (supportive)
Provincial MLA, Steve Morisette (Kootenay-Monashee): Steve.Morissette.MLA@leg.bc.ca
Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA):
Paul.Mackinnon@inspection.gc.ca, President CFIA
Government Directories
Federal Members of Parliament (MP’s)
Access directory HERE
BC Provincial Members of the Legislative Assembly (MLA’s)
Access directory HERE
1. Lack of Due Process and Procedural Fairness
Under Canadian administrative law, government agencies must act fairly and reasonably when making enforcement decisions. The CFIA’s order to cull:
Fails to follow proper diagnostic protocols by relying solely on PCR testing, which is known to detect viral fragments rather than confirm an active infection.
Disregards the owners’ request for additional tissue sampling to confirm the actual cause of death, despite prior documented cases of pseudomonas with identical symptoms.
Denies a proportionate response by imposing the most extreme measure (mass culling) instead of a more measured approach (quarantine, additional testing, and risk assessment).
These procedural violations constitute arbitrary and unreasonable decision-making, rendering the culling order subject to legal challenge and judicial review.
2. Misapplication of Disease Control Measures
The CFIA’s decision is based on poultry industry protocols rather than species-specific science, leading to an inappropriate and excessive response. Under Canada’s Health of Animals Act, disease control measures must be proportionate to the risk posed. However:
Ostriches are highly resistant to avian influenza, as documented in peer-reviewed research (e.g., Avian Diseases, 2016).
There is no evidence of human health risk since these birds are raised in a controlled research setting and are not intended for food consumption.
Alternative measures such as serological testing, targeted culling (only if necessary), and quarantine were not adequately explored.
The CFIA’s failure to tailor its approach to the specific biological characteristics of ostriches may violate the principle of proportionality, exposing the agency to legal challenges for excessive and unnecessary destruction.
3. Violation of Research Protections and Scientific Integrity
The herd in question is maintained for veterinary and human medical research, with a focus on harnessing ostrich antibodies for disease treatment. Premature culling would:
Irreparably harm ongoing scientific research, leading to a significant loss of progress in developing medical treatments.
Potentially breach research agreements or funding conditions that protect research animals from unnecessary harm.
Set a dangerous precedent where government overreach can arbitrarily destroy valuable scientific resources.
4. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency must:
Immediately halt the culling order pending a full review of the scientific and legal issues outlined above.
Provide transparent justification for why it disregarded alternative measures such as serological testing or targeted culling (if necessary).
Engage with independent experts in virology and veterinary medicine to reassess the true risk level posed by this herd.
Disclose the full diagnostic data and decision-making process that led to this order.
Please watch this brief interview that explains the connection to the “One Health Approach:
https://rumble.com/v6hmx2g-macksforces-welcomes-james-roguski.html?start=246s
The
video below describes the situation that arose a few weeks ago . The
urgent crisis has since been averted, but the threat extends beyond this
one situation. Please watch it in order to understand the background
regarding how this issue has developed and how it impacts everyone going
forward.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SPwB9s5QkbM
Why we all need to understand and support this cause:
Why is mass murder the first and only solution considered?
If this flawed protocol is allowed, who’s animals are next? Pets?
Why not examine potential treatments?????
It is clear that PCR tests are unreliable.
Studying ostrich immunity will benefit our natural health.
Destruction of a living laboratory, a huge loss.
The birds are healthy.
Concerns regarding culling – CFIA Inhumane Treatment?
Undue emotional Distress to Ostriches, Owners, and the Public.
https://x.com/i/spaces/1vAGROQAEzRJl/peek
The Canadian legal definition of “poultry” is NOT living birds!
Poultry: is meat derived from dressed carcasses of turkey, duck, goose, guinea fowl or birds of the species Gallus domesticus as defined by the Safe Food for Canadians Regulations.
https://inspection.canada.ca/en/about-cfia/organizational-structure/senior-management
World Organization For Animal Health (WOAH)
Taking Orders from WOAH?
https://www.woah.org/en/what-we-do/standards/codes-and-manuals/terrestrial-manual-online-access/
https://www.woah.org/fileadmin/Home/eng/Health_standards/tahm/3.03.04_AI.pdf
https://www.woah.org/en/disease/avian-influenza/
British Columbia ostrich farm showing resistance to avian flu
While the avian flu is wiping out entire poultry farms, one bird species is showing a unique resilience to the disease.
An active avian flu outbreak was declared Dec. 31 at an Edgewood ostrich farm.
Universal Ostrich has approximately 400 birds and is located in the Regional District of Central Kootenay (RDCK), east of Vernon near Arrow Lake. It is also a scientific antibody program.
President and part owner Karen Espersen confirms the farm is under quarantine with strict protocols and no birds or products leaving.
The outbreak is believed to have come from a flock of ducks that migrated to the farm.
The ostrich farm started out seeing two, three, sometimes four birds a day dying.
But over the last few days there has only been one death. And then none as of Wednesday, Jan. 8, which Espersen says is a good sign for the herd.
"All of our older birds are showing no signs, they aren't getting anything at all," said Espersen. "We're only at a 10 per cent loss."
It's a situation unique to the large species, which Espersen is seeing in the U.S. as well with avian flu cases.
"If it's a chicken farm they drop dead overnight," she said.
She credits the largest living dinosaur's resilience.
"That's how they have been on the earth for so many years."
Espersen's daughter attests to the situation.
"Even the ones that have been sick, if caught early are responding to treatment and getting better, they're healing themselves," said Katie Pasitney, who was raised with the ostrich for the last 34 years. "What they do is build up a herd immunity. They themselves are so strong and they will create an antibody to the flu."
It's this antibody and the unique resilience ostriches have that the farm is trying to use to study the disease and find a cure for other birds.
Working with the Kyoto Prefectural University and U.S. and Canada, the farm is gleaning the expertise of Kyoto's president Yasuhiro Tsukamoto - who calls himself Dr. Ostrich.
"High-quality antibodies have been successfully extracted from ostrich eggs by Kyoto Prefectural University president Dr. Tsukamoto," the government of Japan stated in a 2022 social media post. "Ostriches are hardy animals with strong immune systems, and at 1/4000 the price of antibodies from other animals, their high-quality antibodies are easier to mass-produce, meaning they may show the way forward for the modern world, where responses to viruses like COVID-19 and the economic problems they cause are global goals."
Espersen and her business partner Dave Bilinski were hoping to work with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) and the government on such groundbreaking work.
"With the immune system of the ostrich so strong this is where we wanted to take it a step further," said Espersen.
Universal Ostriches collaboration and partnership with Tsukamoto and Dr. Stu Greeburg creating Stuthio Bio Science are currently using the science and technology they have developed as a method to mass produce ostrich antibodies against the H5N1 avian influenza virus.
They have established effective infection prevention measures, with the necessary know-how already in place.
Instead of what could be devastating, they are focusing on using this as an opportunity to educate and push forward in a positive direction.
A priority would be to work with wildlife to help mitigate migratory birds carrying the virus by using their technology already created to treat areas highly populated with migratory birds, just like the ducks in their field.
"This is a chance to help curb the flight risk to avian species," said Espersen.
Not only are they planning on saving animals but Espersen says they have proposed the government to continue Tsukamoto's work in progress for a treatment for humans.
But CFIA issued a letter Jan. 10 ordering all the ostriches to be destroyed, a decision they say will not only devastate the farm, but science.
"We are fighting for 400 lives," said Pasitney, tears swelling in her eyes.
Instead of this being a devastating situation, the farm wants to use it as a scientific experiment that could help more birds.
The approximately 350-pound ostrich wouldn't be subject to any cruelty, just further science that is already taking place at the farm.
"We see these birds have the opportunity to do something really amazing," said Pasitney, who would also like to see the ostrich antibodies used in the 300 wild ducks that took up house in one of the pens and brought the avian flu to the farm.
While the farm says ostrich are red meat, the CFIA classifies them as poultry and "they are not exempt from a stamping-out policy."
Kootenay-Monashee Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) Steve Morissette has also provided a letter of support for the farm to CFIA.
"As MLA it's my job to support and advocate for my constituents, especially in heartbreaking situations like this one,” Morissette said.
https://www.thefreepress.ca/news/bc-ostrich-farm-showing-resistance-to-avian-flu-7748533
GOOD NEWS - But this is just one example of a global problem
January 31st, 2025
by Alyson Turnbull, Organizer
Today is a good day!!!!!!
We have won an injunction for the cull while a full judicial review is conducted on the CFIA’s handling of this order.
Thank you, thank you, thank you! To everyone who has shared, written, called, protested, and donated.
This
month has been really difficult, and we have been surprised so many
times by this experience. (A lot of the time in a bad way.) But every
step of the way we have had so many people standing beside us, in all of
this truly we have never felt alone.
We have time
and space to breathe again while this is reviewed. We have always had
total faith that whenever this could be reviewed by a rational person,
they would put a stop to it! It’s wild that it took this long to finally
reach someone. It’s absolutely disturbing and shameful that so much
effort was made by our own government to try block that.
This weekend we can breathe and recharge, and then February is for justice.
Judge grants temporary reprieve to hundreds of B.C. ostriches facing avian flu cull
A federal judge has granted a temporary reprieve to about 400 ostriches that were facing a deadline on Saturday [February 1, 2025] for them to be killed at a British Columbia farm hit by an outbreak of avian flu.
Justice Michael Battista ruled Friday to stay the cull order imposed by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency while the farm seeks a judicial review of the case.
Battista said in a written decision that going ahead with Saturday’s order before the matter could be further examined “would expose the applicant to irreparable harm.”
A lawyer for Universal Ostrich Farms Inc. had argued in a Friday hearing in Toronto Federal Court that the ostriches should be exempt from the order because their genetics are the subject of an antibody research study, making them rare and valuable.
Michael Carter said his clients — farm co-owners Karen Espersen and Dave Bilinski — had “happy tears” when they learned the news after watching the proceedings virtually from Edgewood, B.C., about 200 kilometres east of Kelowna.
“Next we will be proceeding with the hearing to look at the CFIA’s decision to have the birds culled and whether it was reasonable,” Carter said in a phone call after the decision.
Espersen’s daughter, Katie Pasitney, said everyone involved with the farm was “ecstatic” after learning about Friday’s decision.
“It’s been a lot of sleepless nights, and it’s been a lot of long days, not knowing if we were looking at having to see 35 years of 400 animals get unnecessarily murdered, killed,” she said in a phone interview.
Pasitney said supporters would be gathering on Saturday to celebrate the “huge win,” while respecting a quarantine notice on the farm.
“Ostriches love people. They’re very curious. They’re very interested in people and they love music, so I’m sure everybody is going to see the ostriches all lined up along the road, at the fence, watching what’s going on tomorrow.”
Still, Pasitney said Universal Ostrich knows there is a long road ahead. They had not been informed of a date for a hearing in the judicial review, she added.
The CFIA issued the cull order after avian flu was detected in two dead ostriches Dec. 30 and its lawyer argued Friday that public health concerns outweighed the farm’s position.
The federal agency’s lawyer, Paul Saunders, told the hearing that it required farms to cull entire herds because there was a risk that the virus could incubate, mutate and create new variants, even in healthy animals.
“There is a risk of human transmission. There is a risk of illness and death,” Saunders said.
The farm initially applied for a CFIA exemption for animals with rare genetics, but the federal agency denied their application Jan. 10.
In his ruling, Battista said that allowing the cull to proceed would mean irreparable harm in the form of “the closure of (a) 25-year-old business and the loss of the applicant’s decades-long efforts in cultivating a unique herd of ostriches.”
The disposal order is stayed until a decision in the judicial review.
Battista denied a request to amend the quarantine notice on the farm.
The farm’s ostriches have been the subject of a research project in collaboration with Dr. Yasuhiro Tsukamoto, president of Kyoto Prefectural University in Japan.
The scientist, also known as Dr. Ostrich, has been extracting COVID-19 antibodies from ostrich eggs in B.C., building on his decades of research on the antibodies in ostrich egg yolk that can block infectious diseases.
Tsukamoto has said his research could be applied to avian flu.
Carter had argued that the ostriches’ genetics were irreplaceable and they should be treated and researched.
“They treated the ostriches like chickens in a chicken barn,” Carter said of the CFIA decision that considered the birds poultry.
Court documents show 69 of the 450 ostriches on the farm died between mid-December and Jan. 15 after showing symptoms of avian influenza.
— With files from Brenna Owen in Vancouver
Universal Ostrich Farm:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpSKGN4Kwic
Summaries of the situation prior to the injunction granted by the court:
https://www.youtube.com/live/dM5xHTKSzV0
https://x.com/thevivafrei/status/1884026007977341170
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hmpblfLHzSc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KE7QxP19LgY
There are over 400 ostriches on this farm. This is NOT a commercial poultry farm, it is a backyard flock of flightless birds living in an extremely remote area of BC under strict quarantine measures, and the vast majority of them are showing incredible resistance to this virus. More than 300 of them have not even showed one symptom. In the beginning of the outbreak, they were losing 3-4 ostriches per day, but in the past week there has only been one death, and the only birds that have died have been young. All of the older birds with strong immune systems (some are up to 35 years old) are absolutely fine. These ostriches can live up to 75 years of age, they are not the same as regular poultry and they should not be classified the same way.
Over the last few years, the main focus of the farm has been specifically in antibody research and development with Kyoto Prefectural University in Japan.
"High-quality antibodies have been successfully extracted from ostrich eggs by Kyoto Prefectural University president Dr. Tsukamoto," the government of Japan stated in a 2022 social media post. "Ostriches are hardy animals with strong immune systems, and at 1/4000 the price of antibodies from other animals, their high-quality antibodies are easier to mass-produce, meaning they may show the way forward for the modern world, where responses to viruses like COVID-19 and the economic problems they cause are global goals."
This flu was brought to the farm by wild ducks that migrated to the farm and stayed because of an abnormally warm winter. If the ostriches are destroyed, these ducks will still just travel to the next place, infecting more of peoples animals. We have a unique opportunity to use our scientific patented technology to help mitigate this virus using the powerful antibodies produced by these ostrich (that have names and are loved by everyone in our family, as well as the countless people who have had an opportunity to visit and learn about these incredible birds from my aunt, who is the kindest person I know.)
This is truly an emergency, as they have been ordered to destroy all these birds at their own hand by February 1st, based on only two positive tests with nothing else included, except a link to mental health resources at the bottom of the order. These animals are 250lbs each, decades old, the majority of which are healthy, happy, and dancing. The thought of ending their lives is completely horrific.
Please help us save Universal Ostrich by donating. The proceeds will go towards legal assistance and recovery efforts the farm. Thank you so much.
Thank you.https://www.givesendgo.com/save-our-ostriches
https://www.gofundme.com/f/help-ostrich-farmers-fight-to-save-herd-from-avian-flu
Ask the Ostriches by Vicky Wallace
This is a magical story of a family working together to help educate the masses. When Vicky told her kids about the Ostriches they responded with ‘ Is it bird flu? bird flu is so dangerous!!’ Concerned that propaganda was already circulating in schools, Vicky read her kids the book she had started and they happily drew pictures for it, knowing that our immune systems keep us healthy and safe.
Available in print copy or PDF. Please send order requests and e-transfers to Vicky at farmfreshokanagan@proton.me
Profits will go towards legal funds to save the Ostriches.
James Roguski
310-619-3055
JamesRoguski.substack.com/archive
Please help spread the word about the harmful effects of the mRNA bioweapons:
NotSafeAndNotEffective.com
I claim no copyright of any kind whatsoever, over any of my work, ever. Everyone is encouraged to copy any and all of it, in part, or in full, and use it for whatever purposes they wish. In fact, I would be delighted if someone were to copy this entire body of work. I encourage everyone to duplicate and mirror it in its entirety. I also encourage everyone to adapt and utilize the information in whatever manner they deem appropriate. No citation or other reference is requested or required. It would actually bring me great joy to see this information multiply exponentially and "go viral".
All content is free to all readers.
All support is deeply appreciated.
https://jamesroguski.substack.com/p/save-our-ostriches-update
Save Our Ostriches Update
Immediate action is needed to help spread the word and raise awareness in advance of a hearing that is scheduled for Wednesday or Thursday, February 12-13, 2025.
Please watch the latest (February 10, 2025) update:
https://rumble.com/v6jac54-save-our-ostriches.html
ADDITIONAL DETAILS:
START HERE: SaveOurOstriches.com
SEND AN EMAIL: PreventGenocide2030.com
ADDITIONAL INFO: CullingIsMurder.com
DONATE: GiveSendGo - GoFundMe
The "400 Healthy Ostriches Must be "Eradicated" says Canadian Food Inspection Agency" post on FaceBook recorded over 45K views in less than 24 hours, X recorded 21K, and Instagram 64K until Instagram "suspended" the account!
Please watch the February 9, 2025 update video below:
Discussion with CFIA inspectors:
Please watch and share the music video below:
https://rumble.com/v6h5zdp-culling-is-murder.html
WHY THIS MATTERS TO EVERYONE:
The Canadian government’s order to cull 400 ostriches at the Universal Ostrich Farm in Edgewood, British Columbia, is not just a tragedy for the farmers, it’s a chilling warning for all of us. This isn’t just about 400 ostriches. It’s about whether we have the right to medical freedom, property rights, and basic due process. If the government can swoop in and destroy an entire research facility based on flimsy evidence, what stops them from coming for your farm, your animals, or your business?
Universal Ostrich Farm isn’t just another farm, it’s a research facility studying natural antibodies in ostrich eggs. Their work could reduce dependence on Big Pharma’s expensive, side-effect-ridden treatments. This isn’t about health, it’s about WEALTH. It’s about eliminating a disruptive technology that threatens the pharmaceutical industry’s monopoly on medicine.
Universal Ostrich Farm has been targeted for destruction under the pretense of an avian flu outbreak, but the deeper story reveals a global push to eliminate natural medicine, independent farming, and food sovereignty.
This isn’t about public health or food safety. These ostriches are NOT part of the food supply, and their only crime appears to be their incredible ability to produce life-saving antibodies that could rival Big Pharma’s most profitable treatments.
If we don’t stop this now, we are allowing a dangerous precedent to be set, one that could lead to more government overreach, more destruction of independent businesses, and total control over what we are allowed to consume and research.
Control Disguised as Safety
The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) claims that their actions are about preventing the spread of avian flu, but their reasoning doesn’t add up. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) relied solely on PCR “testing,” a highly questionable method that is well known to produce false positives. The only two birds that were tested were already dead for two days before samples were taken. None of the people and none of the live ostriches were tested. The inspectors refused to test any of the live birds and the owners were threatened with both enormous fines and jail time if they were to test or treat their own birds.
One Health
Pushed by global institutions like the United Nations and the World Health Organization, the "one health approach" seeks to give government sweeping powers to interfere in private industry, personal health choices, and food production under the guise of preventing future pandemics. Under the one health approach, independent farms, holistic medicine, and alternative research are all at risk because they challenge the corporate and globalist monopoly on health. If we allow this to happen, where does it end? What happens when the government decides your backyard chickens pose a risk? Or claims that your dog or cat might be carrying an illness that warrants mass euthanasia?
During COVID-19, the governments in Australia and China rounded up and killed pet dogs and cats under the pretense of public health. In Denmark, thousands of mink were forcibly culled in 2020 due to fears of a mutated COVID strain, even though the risk was never scientifically confirmed. Once a government establishes that it has the power to exterminate animals without proof of danger, that power will be expanded. It always is.
We need to demand answers. The CFIA must be forced to publicly justify their decision with full transparency of test results, methodology, and the legal basis for this order.
The cull date was originally set for February 1, 2025. On January 31, 2025, Justice Michael Battista ruled to stay the cull order imposed by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency while the farm seeks a judicial review of the case.
Battista said in a written decision that going ahead with Saturday’s order before the matter could be further examined “would expose the applicant to irreparable harm.”
Now of course that seemed like a win but was it? While joy was felt around the globe, it was short lived. CFIA, in an attempt to bully the owners and set them up for failure, issued a whole new list of quarantine demands, knowing full well that it will be impossible to fulfill most of the demands. Hopefully Judge Battista will see through this ploy when they are brought back to the courtroom on February 12 or 13, 2025 at the request of CFIA, who is pushing to be allowed to go ahead with the killing of 400 healthy birds that could very well hold the key to literally saving mankind from so-called deadly diseases.
If the ostriches are culled, it would be nearly impossible to reclaim their economic or research value. These birds are not just livestock, they are a unique, living bio-repository of natural antibodies developed over years of careful research. Once they are gone, the specific genetic and immune adaptations and more would be lost forever. Even if the farmers were allowed to start again, it would take decades to breed, test, and validate new birds capable of replicating these results. Research partnerships, potential investors, and any commercial applications for their discoveries could be permanently derailed.
This is precisely why such actions are so effective in erasing competition and ensuring that only government-approved or Big Pharma-backed solutions remain in play. The ostrich farm’s groundbreaking work threatens the pharmaceutical industry’s profit model, and if the birds are destroyed, so too is the proof that alternative, natural medicine could provide a safer, more affordable path forward.
The information above is summarized from Connie Shields’ article HERE.
James Roguski
310-619-3055
JamesRoguski.substack.com/archive
Please help spread the word about the harmful effects of the mRNA bioweapons:
NotSafeAndNotEffective.com
CullingIsMurder.com
PCRfraud.com
MaskCharade.com
I claim no copyright of any kind whatsoever, over any of my work, ever. Everyone is encouraged to copy any and all of it, in part, or in full, and use it for whatever purposes they wish. In fact, I would be delighted if someone were to copy this entire body of work. I encourage everyone to duplicate and mirror it in its entirety. I also encourage everyone to adapt and utilize the information in whatever manner they deem appropriate. No citation or other reference is requested or required. It would actually bring me great joy to see this information multiply exponentially and "go viral".
Canadian Government Appeals Ostrich Injunction
Status Update on the Ostriches - Interview with Kari Simpson
For previous articles regarding this issue, CLICK HERE and HERE.
PLEASE READ THE IMPORTANT UPDATES.
Be sure to take the time to understand item [D] below!!
On
Monday, February 10, 2025 lawyers from the Canadian Justice department
filed an appeal to overturn the stay of execution in order to facilitate
the killing of 390+ healthy ostriches.
THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL are as follows:
1. The Motions Judge erred in law and in principle, and/or seriously misapprehended the facts, in:
a. finding that irreparable harm “in the form of the closure of its 25-year old business and the loss of the [Respondent’s] decades-long efforts in cultivating a unique herd of ostriches” would flow to the Respondent if an injunction were not granted, notwithstanding that the injunction motion was only in respect of the Notice and not in respect of the Minister’s authority to dispose of the ostriches pursuant to subsection 48(1) of the Health of Animals Act if the Respondent did not do so; and
b. finding that the balance of convenience favoured granting the injunction, including by:
i. erroneously concluding that not issuing the injunction would render the underlying application moot;
ii. finding that the Appellant has “a range of options under the HAA [Health of Animal Act] to address its concerns regarding public safety”, when there were no options other than disposal of the ostriches; and
iii. failing to account for or seriously misapprehending the facts concerning public interest factors that overwhelmingly favoured not issuing an injunction.
2. To the extent the Motions Judge made an order enjoining the Minister from disposing of Universal’s ostriches under subsection 48(1) of the Health of Animals Act, or pursuant to the Minister’s authority under other sections of that Act, the Motions Judge erred in law and in principle, including by exceeding his jurisdiction. On February 7, 2025, the Appellant filed a motion in Federal Court file T-294-25, seeking clarification as to the scope of the Federal Court’s January 31, 2025 Order, including whether the Order was intended to enjoin the Minister from disposing of Universal’s ostriches under subsection 48(1) of the Health of Animals Act.
3. Such further and other grounds as counsel may advise and this Honourable Court may permit.
Let’s destroy their arguments one item at a time:
[A] 1(a) Irreparable harm
[B] 1(b)(i) Moot
[C] 1(b)(ii) Range of options
[D] 1(b)(iii) Public interest factors [THIS IS THE REAL REASON]
[E] 2 Jurisdiction
[A]
1(a) Irreparable harm
The text of the appeal states the following:
1. The Motions Judge erred in law and in principle, and/or seriously misapprehended the facts, in:
a. finding that irreparable harm “in the form of the closure of its 25-year old business and the loss of the [Respondent’s] decades-long efforts in cultivating a unique herd of ostriches” would flow to the Respondent if an injunction were not granted, notwithstanding that the injunction motion was only in respect of the Notice and not in respect of the Minister’s authority to dispose of the ostriches pursuant to subsection 48(1) of the Health of Animals Act if the Respondent did not do so;
This attempted word sorcery is astonishingly ridiculous.
The Canadian Food Inspection Agency has ordered the “disposal” of the entire flock of healthy ostriches and yet they somehow have the audacity to claim that this would not cause irreparable harm. If the injunction had not been granted, the ostriches would have already been killed.
They are trying to split hairs by claiming that the injunction that was granted on January 31, 2025 only relieved the the owners of the Universal Ostrich Farm from killing their own ostriches. They seem to be claiming that the injunction did not apply to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) and that if the CFIA kills the ostriches, then the owners would not suffer any financial or emotional harm.
Since 2020, Universal Ostrich Farm has been entirely dedicated to the production of antibodies with its ostrich herd. It is not a commercial poultry facility and it does not produce any ostrich meat or eggs for human consumption.
A term of the quarantine order prohibits Universal Ostrich Farm from testing or treating the ostriches. However, based on expert opinions obtained, it is highly likely the ostriches have developed natural immunity, and it is extremely unlikely that they would be shedding the virus to each other, or people, birds, and other animals. In fact, the opinion suggests it is safer to keep the ostriches that have developed natural immunity, rather than killing them and bringing in new ostriches that do not have natural immunity.
The last ostrich death was on January 15, 2025. Nearly a month has passed without a death. There are approximately 390 ostriches that are now healthy, but the December decision still mandates that they be killed.
If the cost of purchasibng an ostrich is estimated at $5,000, the financial harm alone would be approximately $2 million dollars.
The loss of genetic diversity and research potential would harm society as a whole.
The emotional trauma that would be inflicted upon the owners by the killing of 390+ treasured ostriches would be immeasurable.
[B]
1(b)(i) Moot
1. The Motions Judge erred in law and in principle, and/or seriously misapprehended the facts, in:
b. finding that the balance of convenience favoured granting the injunction, including by:
i. erroneously concluding that not issuing the injunction would render the underlying application moot;
This word salad is absolutely absurd.
If the injunction had not been issued, and the ostriches had been “disposed” of (killed), then clearly the underlying application to grant a stay of execution would have been rendered moot - the ostriches would be dead.
[C]
1(b)(ii) Range of options
The text of the appeal states the following:
1. The Motions Judge erred in law and in principle, and/or seriously misapprehended the facts, in:
b. finding that the balance of convenience favoured granting the injunction, including by:
ii. finding that the Appellant has “a range of options under the HAA [Health of Animal Act] to address its concerns regarding public safety”, when there were no options other than disposal of the ostriches;
THE CANADIAN GOVERNMENT’S CLAIM THAT “THERE WERE NO OTHER OPTIONS OTHER THAN DISPOSAL OF THE OSTRICHES” IS CLEARLY UNTRUE.
I
encourage the Honourable Justice Battista to point out to Counsel for
the Appellant (Aileen Jones and Paul Saunders) that Sections 26,
27.6(1)(a) and 48(2) of the 1990 Health of Animals Act CLEARLY SHOW THAT
THERE ARE OPTIONS OTHER THAN KILLING THE 390+ HEALTHY OSTRICHES.
Please
review the following sections of the 1990 Health of Animals Act to see
that there are clearly options other than killing the ostriches:
[OPTION 1]
Declaration that place no longer infected
26 A place, or any part of a place, that has been constituted to be an infected place by the delivery of a declaration under section 22 or 23 ceases to be an infected place when an inspector or officer declares in writing that
(a) the disease or toxic substance described in the declaration
(i) does not exist in, or will not spread from, the place or the part of the place, or
(ii) is not injurious to the health of persons or animals;
[OPTION 2]
Treatment
27.6 (1) The Minister may, in respect of a designated animal or thing that is or has been in a primary or secondary control zone,
(a) treat that animal or thing or require its owner or the person having the possession, care or control of it to treat it or to have it treated if the Minister considers that the treatment will be effective in eliminating the disease or toxic substance or preventing its spread;
[OPTION 3]
48 (2) The Minister may treat any animal or thing described in subsection (1), or require its owner or the person having the possession, care or control of it to treat it or to have it treated, where the Minister considers that the treatment will be effective in eliminating or preventing the spread of the disease or toxic substance.
https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/sc-1990-c-21/latest/sc-1990-c-21.html
I believe that this is the real reason behind this debacle:
[D]
1(b)(iii) Public interest factors
The text of the appeal states the following:
1. The Motions Judge erred in law and in principle, and/or seriously misapprehended the facts, in:
b. finding that the balance of convenience favoured granting the injunction, including by:
iii. failing to account for or seriously misapprehending the facts concerning public interest factors that overwhelmingly favoured not issuing an injunction.
The
lawyers from Canada’s Justice Department are INaccurately supporting a
policy of “stamping out” (killing) healthy ostriches that:
Does not legally apply to ostriches (ostriches are not poultry)
Will not effect Canada’s status as an Avian Influenza zone according to World Organisation For Animal Health (WOAH) guidelines, but the Justice Department lawyers are behaving as if it will impact Canada’s status.
What the heck are “public interest factors”?
The Canadian government is prioritizing international trade issues over the lives of healthy ostriches.
(page 5)
If Canada does not follow the stamping out policy, it risks adverse impacts on producers and Canada’s trade relationships, including that trading partners could stop importing poultry and egg trade from Canada, not just from a particular zone or province. (page 5)
(page 42)
Canadian Food Inspection Agency ‘s (CFIA’s) response strategy to an outbreak of Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza (HPAI) in poultry is to eradicate detected disease and re-establish Canada’s disease-free status as quickly as possible. This is referred to by CFIA and others as a “stamping out” strategy or policy. Stamping out includes ensuring that poultry flocks infected with or exposed to HPAI on an infected premises are humanely destroyed.
The Stamping out policy is applied for all detections of AI subtype H5 in domestic poultry, regardless of within flock mortality and evidence of clinical symptoms. This includes situations where birds appear healthy. The stamping out policy mitigates the risk of further spread of the virus, opportunity for virus mutation and risk of transmission to humans.
CFIA’s implementation of stamping out aligns with WOAH’s standards. Without stamping out, a country cannot be considered free from HPAI until at least 12 months from an infection in poultry, as opposed 28 days where stamping out is implemented.
Attached to my affidavit as Exhibit A is an excerpt from the Terrestrial Animal Health Code, Chapter 10.4, “Infection with High Pathogenicity Avian Influenza Viruses”, which refers to stamping out and its impacts on a country’s disease status.
(page 73)
Avian Influenza also has potential to create far-reaching economic harm. In addition to impacts on farmers of an outbreak of AI in their own flocks, loss of “disease-free” status by not applying a stamping out policy (including in this case) could have adverse ramifications for Canada’s poultry industry as a whole.
According to the Poultry - Meat Cuts Manual, ostriches are not included in the definition of “poultry.”
Meat cut nomenclature and description
1. Poultry: is meat derived from dressed carcasses of turkey, duck, goose, guinea fowl or birds of the species Gallus domesticus as defined by the Safe Food for Canadians Regulations.
According
to the World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH), the ostriches at
Universal Ostrich Farm are NOT included in the WOAH definition of
“poultry.”
WOAH GLOSSARY:
POULTRY means all birds reared or kept in captivity for the production of any commercial animal products or for breeding for this purpose, fighting cocks used for any purpose, and all birds used for restocking supplies of game or for breeding for this purpose, until they are released from captivity.
Birds that are kept in a single household, the products of which are used within the same household exclusively, are not considered poultry, provided that they have no direct or indirect contact with poultry or poultry facilities.
Birds that are kept in captivity for other reasons, including those that are kept for shows, racing, exhibitions, zoological collections and competitions, and for breeding or selling for these purposes, as well as pet birds, are not considered poultry, provided that they have no direct or indirect contact with poultry or poultry facilities.
https://www.woah.org/fileadmin/Home/eng/Health_standards/tahc/current/glossaire.pdf
This situation does not trigger the WOAH “stamping out” policy.
Article 10.4.1.
General provisions
A notification of infection of birds other than poultry, including wild birds, with influenza A viruses of high pathogenicity, or of infection of domestic or captive wild birds with low pathogenicity avian influenza viruses does not affect the high pathogenicity avian influenza status of the country or zone.
Since ostriches do not have a 14 day incubation period, the section below clearly does not apply in this situation
Article 10.4.6.
Recovery of free status
If infection with high pathogenicity avian influenza virus has occurred in poultry in a previously free country or zone, the free status may be regained after a minimum period of 28 days (i.e. two flock-level incubation periods) after a stamping-out policy has been completed (i.e. after the disinfection of the last affected establishment), provided that surveillance in accordance with Articles 10.4.26. to 10.4.30., in particular point 3 of Article 10.4.28., has been carried out during that period and has demonstrated the absence of infection.
January 10, 2025
REJECTION OF REQUEST FOR EXEMPTION
It is critical that, in honouring requests for exemptions from depopulation, we at Canada Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) remain aligned with our World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH) obligations to Canada’s stamping-out policy with regards to the detection of Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza (HPAI). We take these requests seriously and give each request that meets our initial screening criteria due consideration. Conclusions reached in reviewing these applications are final and will not be re-evaluated.
WOAH considers the genus Struthio spp. (Ostrich) as “poultry” in their definition of poultry and they are not exempt from a stamping-out policy. [IS THIS TRUE OR FALSE??]
This stamping-out policy reflects the risks posed by HPAI infected poultry flocks to humans, domestic animals, and wildlife. As part of the stamping-out policy, the CFIA does not consider individual bird test results when evaluating the epidemiological unit on an HPAI infected premises. In order for Canada to mitigate the risks posed by HPAI infected poultry, maintain its international obligations and the expectation of our trading partners, all birds within the HPAI infected epidemiological unit of a non-commercial poultry infected premises must be destroyed and appropriately disposed.
After reviewing all of the information provided, including, but not limited to, email communications from Universal Ostrich Inc. and Yasuhiro Tsukamoto, as well as Struthio Biosciences Inc. business plans, the request for an exemption to depopulation based on rare and valuable poultry genetics is denied.
This decision is final and is not subject to appeal.
A draft plan for the destruction and disposal of all birds and things listed on the 4202 can be provided to your case officer for subsequent CFIA review and approval. We appreciate that this is a difficult decision, and should you need support regarding a plan for destruction and /or disposal please let your case officer know. We have also provided the link for the AgSafe mental health website. They have valuable resources that you may find helpful.
Troy Bourque B.Sc., D.V.M. Planning Chief, Western HPAI Response
Cortnie Fotheringham, Incident Commander, Western HPAI Response
[E]
2 Jurisdiction
The text of the appeal states the following:
2. To the extent the Motions Judge made an order enjoining the Minister from disposing of Universal’s ostriches under subsection 48(1) of the Health of Animals Act, or pursuant to the Minister’s authority under other sections of that Act, the Motions Judge erred in law and in principle, including by exceeding his jurisdiction.
The lawyers for the Canadian Justice Department offered no valid evidence to dispute Justice Battista’s jurisdiction over this matter.
The Canadian Food Inspection Agency certainly accepted a ruling of the Canadian Federal Court when it was decided in their favor.
January 20, 2025
HEALTHY OSTRICHES
January 31, 2025
COURT ORDERED STAY OF EXECUTION
The Respondent (Canadian Food Inspection Agency) has a range of options under the Healthy Animals Act (HAA) to address its concerns regarding public safety;
THIS COURT ORDERS that:
1. The Notice dated December 31, 2024 requiring the Applicant to dispose of the ostriches pursuant to subsection 48(1) of the HAA, is stayed until a decision is rendered in the underlying application for judicial review;
February 7, 2025
GOVERNMENT MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION AND EXPEDITED HEARING
If Canada does not follow the stamping out policy, it risks adverse impacts on producers and Canada’s trade relationships, including that trading partners could stop importing poultry and egg trade from Canada, not just from a particular zone or province. (page 5)
February 10, 2025
GOVERNMENT APPEAL OF STAY OF EXECUTION
Lawyers
for the Justice Department of Canada (Aileen Jones and Paul Saunders)
filed an appeal in support of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (a
corporation) hoping to have Justice Battista overturn the stay of
execution of 400 healthy ostriches that he declared on January 31, 2025.
THE APPELLANT APPEALS to the Federal Court of Appeal from the order of the Honourable Justice Battista (“Motions Judge”) dated January 31, 2025 (Court File No. T-294-25) (“Order”), by which the Motion Judge granted the Respondent’s motion for an interlocutory injunction staying a notice dated December 31, 2024 requiring the Respondent to dispose of their ostriches by February 1, 2025 pursuant to subsection 48(1) of the Health of Animal Act, SC 1990, c 21 (“Notice”). THE APPELLANT ASKS that this Honourable Court:
(a) allow the appeal and set aside the Order;
Counsel for the Appellant
Attorney General of Canada
Department of Justice
British Columbia Region
National Litigation Sector
900 – 840 Howe Street
Vancouver, BC V6Z 2S9
Counsel for the Appellant
Aileen Jones can be reached at:
Phone: 604-666-6671
Fax: 604-666-6258
Email: aileen.jones@justice.gc.ca
https://www.goc411.ca/en/93252/Aileen-Jones
Counsel for the Appellant
Paul Saunders can be reached at:
Phone: 604-362-5137
Fax: 604-666-2639
Email: paul.saunders@justice.gc.ca
Business/Regulatory Law, Litigation Services
https://www.canadianlawlist.com/listingdetail/contact/paul-saunders-676132/
James Roguski
310-619-3055
james.roguski@gmail.com
JamesRoguski.substack.com/archive
Please help spread the word about the harmful effects of the mRNA bioweapons:
NotSafeAndNotEffective.com
CullingIsMurder.com
PCRfraud.com
MaskCharade.com
I claim no copyright of any kind whatsoever, over any of my work, ever. Everyone is encouraged to copy any and all of it, in part, or in full, and use it for whatever purposes they wish. In fact, I would be delighted if someone were to copy this entire body of work. I encourage everyone to duplicate and mirror it in its entirety. I also encourage everyone to adapt and utilize the information in whatever manner they deem appropriate. No citation or other reference is requested or required. It would actually bring me great joy to see this information multiply exponentially and "go viral".
All content is free to all readers.
All support is deeply appreciated.
From: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, May 21, 2025 at 5:59 PM
Subject: Fwd: Delivery Status Notification (Failure)
To: lturner@doakshirreff.com <lturner@doakshirreff.com>
From: Mail Delivery Subsystem <mailer-daemon@googlemail.com>
Date: Tue, May 20, 2025 at 8:21 PM
Subject: Delivery Status Notification (Failure)
To: <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.
| |||||
|
The response from the remote server was:
554 Email rejected due to security policies - https://community.mimecast. |
From: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, May 20, 2025 at 8:09 PM
Subject: Fwd: Fw: Attn Dr Biil Deagle we should talk about Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) on your show ASAP
To: <MLGutscher@protonmail.com>, paulpalango <paulpalango@protonmail.com>, paul <paul@paulfromm.com>, <jordan.marks@justice.gc.ca>, <michael@clevelanddoan.com>, <alyona@clevelanddoan.com>, lturner@doakshirreff.com <lturner@doakshirreff.com>, <thefirm@doakshirreff.com>, <Sophie.Baton@justice.gc.ca>, <Banafsheh.Sokhansanj@justice.gc.ca>
Sunday, 18 May 2025
CFIA says B.C. ostrich cull will go ahead despite regional district refusing to accept the carcasses
Appearances: Michael Carter (Cleaveland Doan LLP) 604-536-5002 representing Applicant Lee Turner (Doak Shirreff Lawyers LLP) 250-979-2531 representing Applicant Aileen Jones, Paul Saunders (DOJ) 604-376-0995 / 604 362 5137 representing Respondent
Justice Zinn Language: E Before the Court: Judicial Review Result of Hearing: Matter reserved held in Court Duration per day: 15-APR-2025 from 09:30 to 16:07 Courtroom : Courtroom - 8th Floor (701) - Vancouver Court Registrar: Frank Fedorak 16-APR-2025 from 09:30 to 17:36 Courtroom : Courtroom - 8th Floor (701) - Vancouver Court Registrar: Frank Fedorak Total Duration: 2d Appearances: Michael Carter - Cleveland Doan LLP (604) 536-5002 representing Applicant Lee Turner - Doak Shirreff LLP (250) 763-4323 representing Applicant Aileen Jones, Paul Saunders, Banafsheh Sokhansanj, Sophie Baton - D o J (604) 666-2061 representing Respondent Comments: for full minutes see T-293-25 vol 118 pages 42-54 Minutes of Hearing entered in Vol. 1128 page(s) 55 - 56 Abstract of Hearing placed on file
Honourable Mr. Justice Battista Language: E Before the Court: Motion Doc. No. 2 on behalf of Applicant Result of Hearing: Matter reserved held by way of video conference Duration per day: 31-JAN-2025 from 12:02 to 02:27 Courtroom : Ottawa (Zoom) Court Registrar: Jasmine Normand Total Duration: 2h 25min Appearances: Michael Carter michael@clevelanddoan.com representing Applicant Alyona Kokanova alyona@clevelanddoan.com representing Applicant Paul Saunders paul.saunders@justice.gc.ca representing Respondent Jordan Marks jordan.marks@justice.gc.ca representing Respondent Comments: high media interest // Minutes of Hearing entered in Vol. 1124 page(s) 497 - 499 Abstract of Hearing placed on file
From: Team Anderson CPC <anderson4mp@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, May 20, 2025 at 1:35 PM
Subject: Thank you for contacting MP Scott Anderson Re: YO Mr Anderson who is the woman who thinks I am funny???
To: <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.
Thank you for contacting Scott Anderson, Member of Parliament for Vernon–Lake Country–Monashee.
During the upcoming transition period, this will be the best email to reach Mr. Anderson and his team. We will share updated contact information—including a permanent phone number and office address—as soon as it is finalized.
Thank you once again for your support. We look forward to reconnecting with you soon.
Warm regards,
Office of Scott Anderson, MP
Vernon–Lake Country–Monashee
From: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.
Date: Tue, May 20, 2025 at 1:34 PM
Subject: YO Mr Anderson who is the woman who thinks I am funny???
To: <anderson4mp@gmail.com>, Sean - M.P. <Sean.Fraser@parl.gc.ca>, To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.
Cc: <james.roguski@gmail.com>
Scott Anderson is a long time conservative, former 2-term City Councillor in Vernon BC, military officer, and leader of the BC Conservatives.
From: Fraser, Sean - M.P. <Sean.Fraser@parl.gc.ca>
Date: Tue, May 20, 2025 at 12:18 PM
Subject: Automatic reply: Fw: Attn Dr Biil Deagle we should talk about Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) on your show ASAP
To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.
Thank you for your contacting the constituency office of Sean Fraser, Member of Parliament for Central Nova.
This is an automated reply.
Please note that all correspondence is read, however due to the high volume of emails we receive on a daily basis there may be a delay in getting back to you. Priority will be given to residents of Central Nova.
To ensure we get back to you in a timely manner, please include your full name, home address including postal code and phone number when reaching out.
Thank you.
-------------
Merci d'avoir contacté le bureau de circonscription de Sean Fraser, député de Central Nova. Il s'agit d'une réponse automatisée.
Veuillez noter que toute la correspondance est lue, mais qu'en raison du volume élevé de courriels que nous recevons quotidiennement, il se peut que nous ne puissions pas vous répondre dans les meilleurs délais.
Pour que nous puissions vous répondre dans les meilleurs délais, veuillez indiquer votre nom complet, votre adresse personnelle, y compris le code postal, et votre numéro de téléphone lorsque vous nous contactez.
Nous vous remercions.
Facebook : facebook.com/SeanFraserMP
Twitter : @SeanFraserMP
Instagram : SeanFraserMP
Sans frais : 1-844-641-5886
From: Ministerial Correspondence Unit - Justice Canada <mcu@justice.gc.ca>
Date: Tue, May 20, 2025 at 12:21 PM
Subject: Automatic Reply
To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.
Thank you for writing to the 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 au 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: OfficeofthePremier, Office PREM:EX <Premier@gov.bc.ca>
Date: Tue, May 20, 2025 at 12:17 PM
Subject: Automatic reply: Fw: Attn Dr Biil Deagle we should talk about Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) on your show ASAP
To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.
Hello,
Thank you for taking the time to write. Due to the volume of incoming messages, this is an automated response to let you know that your email has been received and will be reviewed at the earliest opportunity.
If your inquiry can be more appropriately and fully responded to by a Ministry or other area of government, staff will refer your email for review and consideration.
If you are requesting a meeting with the Premier for a matter that falls under a specific Ministry’s mandate, staff may refer your request to that Ministry.
Sincerely,
Office of the Premier
From: Media Request / Requêtes médias (CFIA/ACIA) <cfia.media.acia@inspection.
Date: Tue, May 20, 2025 at 12:18 PM
Subject: Thank you for your request / Merci pour votre demande
To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.
Le français suit…
The Canadian Food Inspection Agency Media Relations team has received your request and are working on a response.
If you are not a member of the media, please redirect your request to the Public Enquiries Inbox: information@inspection.gc.ca.
Hours of Operation:
Monday to Friday – 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. Eastern Time
Saturday and Statutory Holidays – 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. Eastern Time
This inbox is not monitored on Sundays. All requests will be actioned on Monday morning.
///
L'équipe des relations avec les médias de l'Agence canadienne d'inspection des aliments a reçu votre demande et travaille à une réponse.
Si vous n'êtes pas un membre des médias, veuillez rediriger votre demande vers la boîte de réception des demandes de renseignements du public : information@inspection.gc.ca.
Heures d'ouverture :
Du lundi au vendredi - de 8 h à 19 h, heure de l'Est
Samedi et jours fériés - 9 h à 17 h, heure de l'Est
Cette boîte de réception n'est pas surveillée le dimanche. Toutes les demandes seront traitées le lundi matin.
From: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.
Date: Tue, May 20, 2025 at 12:15 PM
Subject: Fwd: Fw: Attn Dr Biil Deagle we should talk about Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) on your show ASAP
To: <Jordan.Kealy.MLA@leg.bc.ca>, <tara.armstrong@
Cc: <james.roguski@gmail.com>, <farmfreshokanagan@proton.me>, <saveourostriches@gmail.com>
Person Information
Mark Belliveau - Deputy Executive Director and General Counsel
From: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.
Date: Sun, May 18, 2025 at 6:10 PM
Subject: Fwd: Fw: Attn Dr Biil Deagle we should talk about Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) on your show ASAP
To: David Amos
Jordan Kealy MLA from Peace River Alberta at Universal Ostrich Farm under cull order from CFIA
Universal Ostrich Farm 6 Comments
About the President
Prior to joining the CFIA, Paul served as Deputy Secretary to the Cabinet (Governance) at the Privy Council Office (PCO) from 2021 to 2024. While there, Paul supported the Government House Leader in delivering the Government's legislative agenda while also being responsible for providing advice on machinery of government issues across numerous agencies and departments.
From 2019 to 2021, Paul was Executive Vice-President of the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA). He played a key role in leading Canada's management of the border for both travel and trade during the COVID-19 pandemic, working to support Canadian businesses by ensuring that pathways for the exporting and importing of goods remained open.
Prior to joining the CBSA, Paul was Assistant Deputy Minister of Strategic and Program Policy, at Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (2016 to 2019). His responsibilities included leading consultations with national and international partners and stakeholders to advance Canada's broad immigration policy.
Paul served as Assistant Deputy Minister of Portfolio Affairs and Communications at Public Safety Canada from 2011 to 2016. Paul worked extensively on Canada-United States border issues. He was the lead Canadian negotiator for the Agreement on Land, Rail, Marine and Air Transport Preclearance between the Government of Canada and the United States, which expedites the flow of legitimate travel and trade between Canada and the US while ensuring security and border integrity.
Paul has a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science from the University of Prince Edward Island.
Paul MacKinnon - President
Vice-President, Chief Fin. Officer & Chief Security Officer, Corporate Management
From: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.
Date: Thu, Oct 31, 2024 at 6:00 PM
Subject: Nathalie G. Drouin and CSIS know Rule 55 permits the Court to vary a rule or dispense with compliance with a rule
To: bruce.fitch <bruce.fitch@gnb.ca>, <erika.hachey@mosshacheylaw.
Cc: Jason Lavigne <jason@yellowhead.vote>, jagmeet.singh <jagmeet.singh@parl.gc.ca>, <DerekRants9595@gmail.com>, ragingdissident <ragingdissident@protonmail.
Thursday 31 October 2024
Nathalie G. Drouin and CSIS know Rule 55 permits the Court to vary a rule or dispense with compliance with a rule
Senior public servant Nathalie Drouin named national security adviser to PM
Drouin takes over as government considers reforms to CSIS's governing legislation
Nathalie
Drouin has been deputy clerk of the Privy Council since August 2021 and
will retain that title as she becomes the prime minister's new national
security adviser. (facebook.com/JusticeCanada)Veteran public servant Nathalie Drouin has been named national security and intelligence adviser to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.
Drouin, deputy clerk of the Privy Council since August 2021, will retain that title when she takes up her new role on Jan. 27.
She becomes adviser as the Liberal government ponders significant reform of the legislation governing Canada's spy service to better address security threats.
Drouin was deputy minister of justice from 2017 to 2021.
As deputy Privy Council clerk, Drouin testified in November 2022 at the inquiry into the invocation of the Emergencies Act in response to protests that paralyzed downtown Ottawa and choked key border points.
Drouin replaces the retiring Jody Thomas, who became security adviser two years ago after serving as deputy minister of national defence.
FROM : WEBB J.A.
DATE : October 30, 2017
RE : DAVID RAYMOND AMOS v. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Court File: A-48-16
______________________________
DIRECTION
The Registry is requested to advise the parties:
Upon notice that William F. Pentney, Q.C. is named as solicitor of record for the respondent;
“Wyman W. Webb”
J.A
From: Drouin, Nathalie G <Nathalie.G.Drouin@pco-bcp.gc.
Date: Thu, Oct 31, 2024 at 3:49 PM
Subject: Automatic reply: Hey Bruce Fitch Perhaps you should talk to Barbara Whitenect I got a call from one of your minions within "Mental Heath" claiming the RCMP are calling me crazy again
To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.
Good day,
Please note that I am currently away from the office until Friday, November 1, 2024, with limited access to my email.
For any assistance, please contact my office at (613) 957-5056.
Thank you
********************
Bonjour,
Veuillez noter que je suis présentement absente du bureau et ce jusqu'au vendredi 1er novembre 2024 avec un accès limité à mes courriels.
Pour toute assistance, veuillez communiquer avec mon bureau au (613) 957-5056.
Merci
https://www.youtube.com/watch?
Jeremy MacKenzie - Government Surveillance & Public Accountability
https://www.youtube.com/
Peter R. Mac Isaac & Paul Westhaver - Accountability in Nova Scotia
Oct 30, 2024
In this episode, Peter R. Mac Isaac @PeterRMacIsaac and Paul Westhaver discuss Nova Scotia’s latest political shifts and government officials' growing demand for accountability. The conversation covers the recent snap election announcement, transparency issues, and the independent movement gaining traction throughout the province. Hosted by Corey Morgan, this discussion gives an in-depth look at how citizens can stand up to political gamesmanship.
Introduction by Cory Morgan Cory @CoryBMorgan discusses recent political developments, including Alberta’s leadership review and a surprise provincial election in Nova Scotia. He highlights the importance of citizen engagement and accountability in both provinces.
From: Premier <PREMIER@novascotia.ca>
Date: Thu, Oct 31, 2024 at 3:51 PM
Subject: Thank you for your email
To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.
Thank you for contacting the Office of the Premier.
We are currently in a provincial election period. During this time, responses to correspondence may be delayed. We appreciate your understanding and patience. If your matter is urgent, please contact the appropriate department directly. For general inquiries, we will respond as soon as possible after the election period.
Best regards,
The Premier’s Correspondence TeamDate: Wed, 22 Nov 2023 19:46:12 -0400
Subject: YO Mr Trudeau Need I say Bah Humbug again???
To: ragingdissident@protonmail.com
<motomaniac333@gmail.com>, blevy@postmedia.com, "rick@fodalaw.com, pm
<pm@pm.gc.ca>, mcu <mcu@justice.gc.ca>, \"Michael.Duheme"
<Michael.Duheme@rcmp-grc.gc.ca
Cc: dnd_mdn@forces.gc.ca, pierre.poilievre@parl.gc.ca, "blaine.higgs"
<blaine.higgs@gnb.ca>, premier <premier@ontario.ca>, premier
<premier@gov.ab.ca>, paulpalango <paulpalango@protonmail.com>, Office
of the Premier <scott.moe@gov.sk.ca>, premier <premier@leg.gov.mb.ca>,
premier <premier@gov.pe.ca>, premier <premier@gov.bc.ca>, premier
<premier@gov.nl.ca>
Dec 14th, 2015 https://archive.org/details/
>>>>> 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
>>>>> essential for the security and tranquility of the developed world. An
>>>>> ISIS “caliphate,” in the Middle East, no matter how small, is a clear
>>>>> and present danger to the entire world. This “occupied state,”
>>>>> or“failed state” will prosecute an unending Islamic inspired war of
>>>>> terror against not only the “western world,” but Arab states
>>>>> “moderate” or not, as well. The security, safety, and tranquility of
>>>>> Canada and Canadians are just at risk now with the emergence of an
>>>>> ISIS“caliphate” no matter how large or small, as it was with the
>>>>> Taliban and Al Quaeda “marriage” in Afghanistan.
>>>>>
>>>>> One of the everlasting “legacies” of the “Trudeau the Elder’s dynasty
>>>>> was Canada and successive Liberal governments cowering behind the
>>>>> amerkan’s nuclear and conventional military shield, at the same time
>>>>> denigrating, insulting them, opposing them, and at the same time
>>>>> self-aggrandizing ourselves as “peace keepers,” and progenitors of
>>>>> “world peace.” Canada failed. The United States of Amerka, NATO, the
>>>>> G7 and or G20 will no longer permit that sort of sanctimonious
>>>>> behavior from Canada or its government any longer. And Prime Minister
>>>>> Stephen Harper, Foreign Minister John Baird , and Cabinet are fully
>>>>> cognizant of that reality. Even if some editorial boards, and pundits
>>>>> are not.
>>>>>
>>>>> Justin, Trudeau “the younger” is reprising the time “honoured” liberal
>>>>> mantra, and tradition of expecting the amerkans or the rest of the
>>>>> world to do “the heavy lifting.” Justin Trudeau and his “butt buddy”
>>>>> David Amos are telling Canadians that we can guarantee our security
>>>>> and safety by expecting other nations to fight for us. That Canada can
>>>>> and should attempt to guarantee Canadians safety by providing
>>>>> “humanitarian aid” somewhere, and call a sitting US president a “war
>>>>> criminal.” This morning Australia announced they too, were sending
>>>>> tactical aircraft to eliminate the menace of an ISIS “caliphate.”
>>>>>
>>>>> In one sense Prime Minister Harper is every bit the scoundrel Trudeau
>>>>> “the elder” and Jean ‘the crook” Chretien was. Just As Trudeau, and
>>>>> successive Liberal governments delighted in diminishing,
>>>>> marginalizing, under funding Canadian Forces, and sending Canadian
>>>>> military men and women to die with inadequate kit and modern
>>>>> equipment; so too is Prime Minister Stephen Harper. Canada’s F-18s are
>>>>> antiquated, poorly equipped, and ought to have been replaced five
>>>>> years ago. But alas, there won’t be single RCAF fighter jock that
>>>>> won’t go, or won’t want to go, to make Canada safe or safer.
>>>>>
>>>>> My Grandfather served this country. My father served this country. My
>>>>> Uncle served this country. And I have served this country. Justin
>>>>> Trudeau has not served Canada in any way. Thomas Mulcair has not
>>>>> served this country in any way. Liberals and so called social
>>>>> democrats haven’t served this country in any way. David Amos, and
>>>>> other drooling fools have not served this great nation in any way. Yet
>>>>> these fools are more than prepared to ensure their, our safety to
>>>>> other nations, and then criticize them for doing so.
>>>>>
>>>>> Canada must again, now, “do our bit” to guarantee our own security,
>>>>> and tranquility, but also that of the world. Canada has never before
>>>>> shirked its responsibility to its citizens and that of the world.
>>>>>
>>>>> Prime Minister Harper will not permit this country to do so now
>>>>>
>>>>> From: dnd_mdn@forces.gc.ca
>>>>> Date: Fri, 27 May 2011 14:17:17 -0400
>>>>> Subject: RE: Re Greg Weston, The CBC , Wikileaks, USSOCOM, Canada and
>>>>> the War in Iraq (I just called SOCOM and let them know I was still
>>>>> alive
>>>>> To: david.raymond.amos@gmail.com
>>>>>
>>>>> This is to confirm that the Minister of National Defence has received
>>>>> your email and it will be reviewed in due course. Please do not reply
>>>>> to this message: it is an automatic acknowledgement.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ---------- Original message ----------
>>>>> From: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>
>>>>> Date: Fri, 27 May 2011 13:55:30 -0300
>>>>> Subject: Re Greg Weston, The CBC , Wikileaks, USSOCOM, Canada and the
>>>>> War in Iraq (I just called SOCOM and let them know I was still alive
>>>>> To: DECPR@forces.gc.ca, Public.Affairs@socom.mil,
>>>>> Raymonde.Cleroux@mpcc-cppm.gc.
>>>>> william.elliott@rcmp-grc.gc.ca
>>>>> dnd_mdn@forces.gc.ca, media@drdc-rddc.gc.ca, information@forces.gc.ca,
>>>>> milner@unb.ca, charters@unb.ca, lwindsor@unb.ca,
>>>>> sarah.weir@mpcc-cppm.gc.ca, birgir <birgir@althingi.is>, smari
>>>>> <smari@immi.is>, greg.weston@cbc.ca, pm <pm@pm.gc.ca>,
>>>>> susan@blueskystrategygroup.com
>>>>> eugene@blueskystrategygroup.
>>>>> Cc: "Edith. Cody-Rice" <Edith.Cody-Rice@cbc.ca>, "terry.seguin"
>>>>> <terry.seguin@cbc.ca>, acampbell <acampbell@ctv.ca>, whistleblower
>>>>> <whistleblower@ctv.ca>
>>>>>
>>>>> I talked to Don Newman earlier this week before the beancounters David
>>>>> Dodge and Don Drummond now of Queen's gave their spin about Canada's
>>>>> Health Care system yesterday and Sheila Fraser yapped on and on on
>>>>> CAPAC during her last days in office as if she were oh so ethical.. To
>>>>> be fair to him I just called Greg Weston (613-288-6938) I suggested
>>>>> that he should at least Google SOUCOM and David Amos It would be wise
>>>>> if he check ALL of CBC's sources before he publishes something else
>>>>> about the DND EH Don Newman? Lets just say that the fact that your
>>>>> old CBC buddy, Tony Burman is now in charge of Al Jazeera English
>>>>> never impressed me. The fact that he set up a Canadian office is
>>>>> interesting though
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.cbc.ca/news/arts/
>>>>>
>>>>> Anyone can call me back and stress test my integrity after they read
>>>>> this simple pdf file. BTW what you Blue Sky dudes pubished about
>>>>> Potash Corp and BHP is truly funny. Perhaps Stevey Boy Harper or Brad
>>>>> Wall will fill ya in if you are to shy to call mean old me.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.scribd.com/doc/
>>>>>
>>>>> The Governor General, the PMO and the PCO offices know that I am not a
>>>>> shy political animal
>>>>>
>>>>> Veritas Vincit
>>>>> David Raymond Amos
>>>>> 902 800 0369
>>>>>
>>>>> Enjoy Mr Weston
>>>>> http://www.cbc.ca/m/touch/
>>>>>
>>>>> "But Lang, defence minister McCallum's chief of staff, says military
>>>>> brass were not entirely forthcoming on the issue. For instance, he
>>>>> says, even McCallum initially didn't know those soldiers were helping
>>>>> to plan the invasion of Iraq up to the highest levels of command,
>>>>> including a Canadian general.
>>>>>
>>>>> That general is Walt Natynczyk, now Canada's chief of defence staff,
>>>>> who eight months after the invasion became deputy commander of 35,000
>>>>> U.S. soldiers and other allied forces in Iraq. Lang says Natynczyk was
>>>>> also part of the team of mainly senior U.S. military brass that helped
>>>>> prepare for the invasion from a mobile command in Kuwait."
>>>>>
>>>>> http://baconfat53.blogspot.
>>>>>
>>>>> "I remember years ago when the debate was on in Canada, about there
>>>>> being weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Our American 'friends"
>>>>> demanded that Canada join into "the Coalition of the Willing. American
>>>>> "veterans" and sportscasters loudly denounced Canada for NOT buying
>>>>> into the US policy.
>>>>>
>>>>> At the time I was serving as a planner at NDHQ and with 24 other of my
>>>>> colleagues we went to Tampa SOUCOM HQ to be involved in the planning
>>>>> in the planning stages of the op....and to report to NDHQ, that would
>>>>> report to the PMO upon the merits of the proposed operation. There was
>>>>> never at anytime an existing target list of verified sites where there
>>>>> were deployed WMD.
>>>>>
>>>>> Coalition assets were more than sufficient for the initial strike and
>>>>> invasion phase but even at that point in the planning, we were
>>>>> concerned about the number of "boots on the ground" for the occupation
>>>>> (and end game) stage of an operation in Iraq. We were also concerned
>>>>> about the American plans for occupation plans of Iraq because they at
>>>>> that stage included no contingency for a handing over of civil
>>>>> authority to a vetted Iraqi government and bureaucracy.
>>>>>
>>>>> There was no detailed plan for Iraq being "liberated" and returned to
>>>>> its people...nor a thought to an eventual exit plan. This was contrary
>>>>> to the lessons of Vietnam but also to current military thought, that
>>>>> folks like Colin Powell and "Stuffy" Leighton and others elucidated
>>>>> upon. "What's the mission" how long is the mission, what conditions
>>>>> are to met before US troop can redeploy? Prime Minister Jean Chretien
>>>>> and the PMO were even at the very preliminary planning stages wary of
>>>>> Canadian involvement in an Iraq operation....History would prove them
>>>>> correct. The political pressure being applied on the PMO from the
>>>>> George W Bush administration was onerous
>>>>>
>>>>> American military assets were extremely overstretched, and Canadian
>>>>> military assets even more so It was proposed by the PMO that Canadian
>>>>> naval platforms would deploy to assist in naval quarantine operations
>>>>> in the Gulf and that Canadian army assets would deploy in Afghanistan
>>>>> thus permitting US army assets to redeploy for an Iraqi
>>>>> operation....The PMO thought that "compromise would save Canadian
>>>>> lives and liberal political capital.. and the priority of which
>>>>> ....not necessarily in that order. "
>>>>>
>>>>> You can bet that I called these sneaky Yankees again today EH John
>>>>> Adams? of the CSE within the DND?
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.socom.mil/
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>EdmontonFreedomCentral@shaw.
>> >>>>>>> From: "Murray, Charles (Ombud)" <Charles.Murray@gnb.ca>
>> >>>>>>> Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2019 18:16:15 +0000
>> >>>>>>> Subject: You wished to speak with me
>> >>>>>>> To: "motomaniac333@gmail.com" <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> I have the advantage, sir, of having read many of your emails
>> >>>>>>> over
>> >>>>>>> the
>> >>>>>>> years.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> As such, I do not think a phone conversation between us, and
>> >>>>>>> specifically one which you might mistakenly assume was in
>> >>>>>>> response
>> >>>>>>> to
>> >>>>>>> your threat of legal action against me, is likely to prove a
>> >>>>>>> productive use of either of our time.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> If there is some specific matter about which you wish to
>> communicate
>> >>>>>>> with me, feel free to email me with the full details and it will
>> >>>>>>> be
>> >>>>>>> given due consideration.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> Sincerely,
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> Charles Murray
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> Ombud NB
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> Acting Integrity Commissioner
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> 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
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> 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
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> ---------- 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
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>
>> http://davidraymondamos3.
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> 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
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> ---------- Original message ----------
>> >>>>> Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 19:01:11 -0700 (PDT)
>> >>>>> From: "David Amos" motomaniac_02186@yahoo.com
>> >>>>> Subject: Now everybody and his dog knows TJ Burke and his cop
>> >>>>> buddies
>> >>>>> allegations against me are false and you had the proof all along EH
>> >>>>> Chucky?
>> >>>>> To: oldmaison@yahoo.com, nbombud@gnb.ca, dan.bussieres@gnb.ca,
>> >>>>> jacques_poitras@cbc.ca, news@dailygleaner.com,
>> >>>>> kcarmichael@bloomberg.net, advocacycollective@yahoo.com,
>> >>>>> Easter.W@parl.gc.ca, Comartin.J@parl.gc.ca,
>> >>>>> cityadmin@fredericton.ca
>> ,
>> >>>>> info@gg.ca, bmosher@mosherchedore.ca, rchedore@mosherchedore.ca,
>> >>>>> police@fredericton.ca, chebert@thestar.ca, Stoffer.P@parl.gc.ca,
>> >>>>> Stronach.B@parl.gc.ca, Matthews.B@parl.gc.ca,
>> >>>>> alltrue@nl.rogers.com,
>> >>>>> Harper.S@parl.gc.ca, Layton.J@parl.gc.ca, Dryden.K@parl.gc.ca,
>> >>>>> Duceppe.G@parl.gc.ca
>> >>>>> CC: dgleg@nb.aibn.com, brad.woodside@fredericton.ca,
>> >>>>> whalen@fredericton.ca, david.kelly@fredericton.ca,
>> >>>>> cathy.maclaggan@fredericton.ca
>> >>>>> tom.jellinek@fredericton.ca, scott.mcconaghy@fredericton.ca
>> >>>>> marilyn.kerton@fredericton.ca, walter.brown@fredericton.ca,
>> >>>>> norah.davidson@fredericton.ca, mike.obrien@fredericton.ca,
>> >>>>> bruce.grandy@fredericton.ca, dan.keenan@fredericton.ca,
>> >>>>> jeff.mockler@gnb.ca, mrichard@lawsociety-barreau.
>> >>>>> cynthia.merlini@dfait-maeci.
>> >>>>> scotta@parl.gc.ca, michael.bray@gnb.ca, jack.e.mackay@gnb.ca
>> >>>>>
>> http://www.cbc.ca/canada/new-
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> http://www.canadaeast.com/ce2/
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> http://oldmaison.blogspot.com/
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> http://oldmaison.blogspot.com/
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> http://oldmaison.blogspot.com/
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> http://maritimes.indymedia.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Methinks your liberal pals just made a major faux pas N'est Pas?
>> >>>>> Scroll down Frenchie and go down?.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Threat against Burke taken seriously
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> By STEPHEN LLEWELLYN
>> >>>>> dgleg@nb.aibn.com
>> >>>>> Published Thursday May 24th, 2007
>> >>>>> Appeared on page A1
>> >>>>> An RCMP security detail has been guarding Justice Minister and
>> >>>>> Attorney General T.J. Burke because of threats made against him
>> >>>>> recently.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Burke, the Liberal MLA for Fredericton-Fort Nashwaaksis, wouldn't
>> >>>>> explain the nature of the threats.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> "I have had a particular individual or individuals who have made
>> >>>>> specific overtures about causing harm towards me," he told
>> >>>>> reporters
>> >>>>> Wednesday.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> "The RCMP has provided security to me recently by accompanying me
>> >>>>> to
>> a
>> >>>>> couple of public functions where the individual is known to reside
>> >>>>> or
>> >>>>> have family members in the area," said Burke. "It is nice to have
>> some
>> >>>>> added protection and that added comfort."
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> The RCMP provides protection to the premier and MLAs with its VIP
>> >>>>> security
>> >>>>> unit.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Burke didn't say when the threat was made but it's believed to have
>> >>>>> been in recent weeks.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> "When a threat is posed to you and it is a credible threat, you
>> >>>>> have
>> >>>>> to be cautious about where you go and who you are around," he said.
>> >>>>> "But again, I am more concerned about my family as opposed to my
>> >>>>> own
>> >>>>> personal safety."
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Burke said he doesn't feel any differently and he has not changed
>> >>>>> his
>> >>>>> pattern of activity.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> "It doesn't bother me one bit," he said. "It makes my wife feel
>> >>>>> awful
>> >>>>> nervous."
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Burke served in an elite American military unit before becoming a
>> >>>>> lawyer and going into politics in New Brunswick.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> "(I) have taken my own precautions and what I have to do to ensure
>> >>>>> my
>> >>>>> family's safety," he said. "I am a very cautious person in general
>> due
>> >>>>> to my background and training.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> "I am comfortable with defending myself or my family if it ever had
>> to
>> >>>>> happen."
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Burke said it is not uncommon for politicians to have security
>> >>>>> concerns.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> "We do live unfortunately in an age and in a society now where
>> threats
>> >>>>> have to be taken pretty seriously," he said.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Since the terrorism attacks in the United States on Sept. 11, 2001,
>> >>>>> security in New Brunswick has been
>> >>>>> beefed up.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Metal detectors were recently installed in the legislature and all
>> >>>>> visitors are screened.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> The position of attorney general is often referred to as the
>> >>>>> province's "top cop."
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Burke said sometimes people do not differentiate between his role
>> >>>>> as
>> >>>>> the manager of the justice system and the individual who actually
>> >>>>> prosecutes them.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> "With the job sometimes comes threats," he said. "I have had
>> >>>>> numerous
>> >>>>> threats since Day 1 in office."
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Burke said he hopes his First Nations heritage has nothing to do
>> >>>>> with
>> >>>>> it.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> "I think it is more of an issue where people get fixated on a
>> >>>>> matter
>> >>>>> and they believe you are personally responsible for assigning them
>> >>>>> their punishment or their sanction," he said.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Is the threat from someone who was recently incarcerated?
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> "I probably shouldn't answer that," he replied.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Reporters asked when the threat would be over.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> "I don't think a threat ever passes once it has been made," said
>> >>>>> Burke. "You have to consider the credibility of the source."
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Bruce Fitch, former justice minister in the Conservative
>> >>>>> government,
>> >>>>> said "every now and again there would be e-mails that were not
>> >>>>> complimentary."
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> "I did have a meeting with the RCMP who are in charge of the
>> >>>>> security
>> >>>>> of the MLAs and ministers," said Fitch.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> "They look at each and every situation."
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Fitch said he never had bodyguards assigned to him although former
>> >>>>> premier Bernard Lord and former health minister Elvy Robichaud did
>> >>>>> have extra security staff assigned on occasion.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> He said if any MLA felt threatened, he or she would discuss it with
>> >>>>> the
>> >>>>> RCMP.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> http://www.archive.org/
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Small World EH Chucky Leblanc?
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> "Lafleur, Lou" lou.lafleur@fredericton.ca wrote:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> From: "Lafleur, Lou" lou.lafleur@fredericton.ca
>> >>>>> To: "'motomaniac_02186@yahoo.com'" motomaniac_02186@yahoo.com,
>> >>>>> "Lafleur, Lou" lou.lafleur@fredericton.ca
>> >>>>> Subject: Fredericton Police Force
>> >>>>> Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 15:21:13 -0300
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Dear Mr. Amos
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> My Name is Lou LaFleur and I am a Detective with the Fredericton
>> >>>>> Police Major Crime Unit. I would like to talk to you regarding
>> >>>>> files
>> >>>>> that I am investigating and that you are alleged to have
>> >>>>> involvement
>> >>>>> in.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Please call me at your earliest convenience and leave a message and
>> >>>>> a
>> >>>>> phone number on my secure and confidential line if I am not in my
>> >>>>> office.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> yours truly,
>> >>>>> Cpl. Lou LaFleur
>> >>>>> Fredericton Police Force
>> >>>>> 311 Queen St.
>> >>>>> Fredericton, NB
>> >>>>> 506-460-2332
>> >>>>> ______________________________
>> >>>>> This electronic mail, including any attachments, is confidential
>> >>>>> and
>> >>>>> is for the sole use of the intended recipient and may be
>> >>>>> privileged.
>> >>>>> Any unauthorized distribution, copying, disclosure or review is
>> >>>>> prohibited. Neither communication over the Internet nor disclosure
>> >>>>> to
>> >>>>> anyone other than the intended recipient constitutes waiver of
>> >>>>> privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, please
>> >>>>> immediately
>> >>>>> notify the sender and then delete this communication and any
>> >>>>> attachments from your computer system and records without saving or
>> >>>>> forwarding it. Thank you.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >
>>
Save the Ostriches!
Hundreds of healthy, immune ostriches are set to be slaughtered by government mandate while groundbreaking research and a family farm’s livelihood hang in the balance.
UPDATE: Ostrich executed as B.C. farm awaits ruling on order to slaughter flock
Why? Because the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) has issued a culling order after an anonymous tip led them to the secluded farm and claimed that the PCR test results they ran on two diseased birds came back positive for H5N1 avian flu weeks ago.
The farmers have good reason to believe that their 400 remaining long-necked friends have already achieved natural immunity for the avian flu and it’s possible that the younger ones who did get sick were not sick with H5N1 at all.
Even worse, the ostriches at Universal Ostrich Farms are not even used for human consumption. Instead, they’ve been crucial to a groundbreaking collaboration with Japan’s Kyoto Prefectural University.
Through this partnership, scientists and the university’s
president, Dr. Yasuhiro Tsukamoto, have been successfully extracting
antibodies from the birds robust eggs in an effort to further
interventions to the avian flu that's supposedly the reason for ordering
the killing of the birds and millions upon millions of others like
them.
But such progress doesn’t align with the $590 million grant Moderna just received to develop mRNA vaccines for bird flu, does it?
Click "EDIT AND SEND EMAIL" below to email the following officials to demand the CIFA and Ministry of Agriculture and Agri-Food reverse this scheduled massacre!
- Paul MacKinnon, President of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency
- CFAO Appeals & Complaints
- Lawrence MacAulay, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food
- John Barlow, Shadow Minister for Agriculture, Agri-Food and Food Security
- Cortnie Fotheringham, CFIA/AFIA Supervisor
- Hui Hang, CFIA/AFIA Director of Animal Health
- Carlie Watson, CFIA/AFIA Head of Western Operations
- The Animal Health Centre at CFIA/AFIA
Related stories
No comments:
Post a Comment