Breaking: First Emergency Declaration To Fall! Judge Honorably Rules Canadas Emergencies Act For Peaceful Trucker Convoy Protest Was Unlawful & Ultra Vires, Acting Beyond Granted Authority

Justice For Freedom Convoy! Justice in Canada for a change!!! Keep the faith good people, the justice system in Canada is still functioning where it counts! The WHO's PHEIC and fake emergency is next

Jan 23, 2024

Keep the faith in our justice systems.

They are supposed to be here to help us and sometimes they even go so far as to act in honor and kick the ASS of tyranny to protect the vulnerable and oppressed. Not every judge is corrupted and many are actually on the straight and narrow.

The first global emergency declaration just fell in Canada!!! It’s the PERFECT time to forge forward and Sue The WHO for their fake covid-19 emergency declarations of a PHEIC and alleged global pandemic. The Attorney has been preparing the case and we thank EVERYONE who donates to ensure he is being paid his fees to get the work done. We are still short to pay him off, but with your help we CAN AND WILL WIN THIS GLOBALLY. Good job Canada and freedom fighters. Time to reclaim our rights and world back.

Support IOJ Upcoming Lawsuit

See the ruling here: https://www.jccf.ca/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/2024-01-23-T-306-22-T-316-22-T-347-22-T-382-22-Reasons-FINAL.pdf

From the ruling:

I find that the remaining Applicants have established that the decision to issue the Proclamation was unreasonable and led to infringement of Charter rights not justified under section 1.

[357] The Respondent acknowledges that the suspension of bank accounts and credit cards affected joint account holders and credit cards issued on the accounts to other family members and suggests that it was unavoidable. Indeed the Jost Applicants submitted evidence of that happening to one of them. Thus someone who had nothing to do with the protests could find themselves without the means to access necessaries for household and other family purposes while the accounts were suspended. There appears to have been no effort made to find a solution to that problem while the measures were in effect.

[358] Of particular concern from a section 1 justification perspective is that there was no standard applied to determine whether someone should be the target of the measures or process to allow them to question that determination. As described by Superintendent Beaudoin in crossexamination, it was all informal and ad hoc. [359] Having found that the infringements of Charter sections 2(b) and 8 were not minimally impairing, I find that they were not justified under section 1.

[366] In their written argument and Amended Notice of Constitutional Question, the Jost Applicants, of which Messrs. Cornell and Gircys were then part, alleged that the Economic Order infringed sections 1 and 2 of the Canadian Bill of Rights as they pertain to due process and property rights. A similar assertion was made in oral argument. No authority was cited in support of the proposition other than by reference to the terms of the Canadian Bill of Rights itself. In reply to the Respondent’s written argument, the Jost Applicants contended that the Economic Order was in clear contravention of due process property rights at common law and pursuant to the Canadian Bill of Rights, again without citing authority for the proposition.

[367] In far ranging oral argument at the hearing, referencing Charter section 8 and due process concerns, counsel argued that Cornell and Gircys were entitled to have a hearing in a court before their accounts could be frozen. Their submissions envisaged a small army of prosecutors, defence counsel and judges being mobilized to deal with the cases before any concrete action could be taken against the participants’ property interests. Counsel likened such a process to the busy dockets in criminal courts across the country. Page: 123

[368] The Respondent did not reply to the claims regarding the Canadian Bill of Rights raised by the Jost Applicants in their written argument. But in responding to Nagle/CFN’s similar claims, the Respondent argued that the process followed by the RCMP complied with due process of law requirements. The content of those requirements being “eminently variable, inherently flexible and context-specific”: Vavilov, at para 77. And in the context of an emergency, the requirements need not always be satisfied when the initial decision is made but can be later if maintained or continued after the immediate urgency: Ross v Mohawk Council of Kanesatake, 2003 FCT 531 at para 79.

[369] This is not a case in my view that squarely addresses the enjoyment of property protection in section 1(a) of the Canadian Bill of Rights. The freezing of Messrs. Cornell and Gircy’s bank accounts was of short duration. While no doubt inconvenient, it did not cause them significant harm and they were both able to manage without quick access to cash or the use of credit cards. I agree with the Respondent that in this context, due process did not require that the special measures be put on hold while counsel and courts were engaged and hearings conducted. This would be contrary to the very purpose of the Emergencies Act and an unnecessary burden on the justice system given the temporary nature of the special measures. X. Conclusion

[370] At the outset of these proceedings, while I had not reached a decision on any of the four applications, I was leaning to the view that the decision to invoke the EA was reasonable. I considered the events that occurred in Ottawa and other locations in January and February 2022 went beyond legitimate protest and reflected an unacceptable breakdown of public order. I had Page: 124 and continue to have considerable sympathy for those in government who were confronted with this situation. Had I been at their tables at that time, I may have agreed that it was necessary to invoke the Act. And I acknowledge that in conducting judicial review of that decision, I am revisiting that time with the benefit of hindsight and a more extensive record of the facts and law than that which was before the GIC.

[371] My preliminary view of the reasonableness of the decision may have prevailed following the hearing due to excellent advocacy on the part of counsel for the Attorney General of Canada had I not taken the time to carefully deliberate about the evidence and submissions, particularly those of the CCLA and CCF. Their participation in these proceedings has demonstrated again the value of public interest litigants. Especially in presenting informed legal argument. This case may not have turned out the way it has without their involvement, as the private interest litigants were not as capable of marshalling the evidence and argument in support of their applications.

[372] I have concluded that the decision to issue the Proclamation does not bear the hallmarks of reasonableness – justification, transparency and intelligibility – and was not justified in relation to the relevant factual and legal constraints that were required to be taken into consideration. In my view, there can be only one reasonable interpretation of EA sections 3 and 17 and paragraph 2(c) of the CSIS Act and the Applicants have established that the legal constraints on the discretion of the GIC to declare a public order emergency were not satisfied.

[373] As discussed above, I have found that Kristen Nagle, Canadian Frontline Nurses, Jeremiah Jost and Harold Ristau lack standing to seek judicial review of the decision and their Page: 125 applications are dismissed for that reason. I recognize that Edward Cornell and Vincent Gircys have direct standing to challenge the decision and grant public interest standing to the CCLA and CCF. I find that the remaining Applicants have established that the decision to issue the Proclamation was unreasonable and led to infringement of Charter rights not justified under section 1. Their applications are granted to that extent. I find no reason to apply the Canadian Bill of Rights. (1) Remedies

[374] The Applicants all sought declaratory relief if any of the legislative instruments were found to be unreasonable or unconstitutional. Gircys and Cornell went further in their Memorandum of Fact and Law to request a declaration that the Emergencies Act is inconsistent with s 91, s 92 and s 96 of The Constitution Act, 1867, 30 & 31 Vict, c 3, and, to the extent of those inconsistencies, is of no force or effect pursuant to s 52(1) of the Constitution Act. As they did not make that argument at the hearing, I took it to have been abandoned. In any event, I considered it to be of no merit. This case was not about the constitutionality of the Act but, rather, how it was applied in this instance.

[375] Judgments will be issued in each Application to reflect the conclusions I have reached.

Support IOJ Upcoming Lawsuit

If you haven’t signed the petition to the HHS about the WHO pandemic agreement being void and unethical asking for a science hearing - please sign below!

Some people are not seeing the link to sign and we think you possibly need a different browser because the form is working. We are looking into why some people are not able to see the link. Thank you for signing to tell HHS to give us a hearing on why the Pandemic Treaty/Accord is a bad idea and why the US should exit the WHO.

Link to sign the petition: https://whowatch.org/sign-to-protest-who-agendas