• Mossberg Owners is in the process of upgrading the software. Please bear with us while we transition to the new look and new upgraded software.

Federal Court Orders Liberals to Hand Over Evidence for May 2020 Attacks

1ABNDT

.270 WIN
I hope you are all doing well, wishing you and your loved ones all the best.


https://thegunblog.ca/2021/05/31/fed...-2020-attacks/


Federal Court Orders Liberals to Hand Over Evidence for May 2020 Attacks

31 May 2021

2 min read

TheGunBlog.ca — Canada’s Federal Court ordered the government to hand over all documents leading to its May 2020 political attacks against licensed gun owners and businesses, in a major procedural win for the teams fighting the crackdown.

30 Day Deadline
Associate Chief Justice Jocelyne Gagné gave the Attorney General of Canada (AGC) 30 days to turn in the evidence, she said in a decision dated May 27 and received by lawyers today.

The governing Liberal Party previously refused to share materials behind its 01 May 2020 Order in Council (OIC) criminalizing honest citizens and ordering them to surrender their suddenly blacklisted rifles and shotguns by April 2022.

‘Landmark Decision’ — Burlew
“In this landmark decision Justice Gagné has required that AGC provide the court with all documents, being the evidentiary record before cabinet that were used in deciding to enact the OIC banning firearms that became SOR/2020-97,” Edward Burlew, one of the lawyers challenging the crackdown, told TheGunBlog.ca today by e-mail.

The Department of Justice in Ottawa didn’t respond to our invitation to comment.

Rule 317, Under Court Seal
The notes, reports, emails and other documents to be produced under Rule 317 of the Federal Courts Rules will be viewable only by the court at first.

Gagné’s decision said the court will analyze the material to decide “whether the public interest in disclosure outweighs its secrecy.”

She rejected the government’s claim to cabinet confidentiality under Section 39 of the Canada Evidence Act.

What the Documents May Show
The political and ideological motivations for the Liberal attacks on honest Canadians.
Why the Liberals developed the crackdown in secret and hid their plans from parliament and the public.
How the Royal Canadian Mounted Police supported the attacks, in particular the role of Murray Smith.
The cost of the crackdown, estimated at hundreds of millions or billions of tax dollars.

How the Liberals and RCMP invented the tactic of “nullifying” firearm-registration certificates to criminalize lawful owners.
‘Democratic Principles Prevailed’ — Generoux

“I am deeply relieved that democratic principles prevailed in this situation, and very happy that the judge will get a fuller picture of what went on behind the scenes in the secret drafting of this OIC,” Christine Generoux, a gun owner who’s representing herself in Federal Court, told TheGunBlog.ca. “I feel confident that any existing empirical evidence will support our arguments and exonerate gun owners.”

Memos, Emails and More
Annex A of Gagné’s decision starting on Page 19 is eight pages of the types of documents to be handed over.

They include “Certified copies of all records, research, analysis, policy papers, briefing reports, studies, proposals, presentations, reports, memos, opinions, advice, letters, emails and any other communications that were prepared, commissioned, considered or received” by the government.

Seeing the Evidence — Ek
“We are confident that we will get to see much more than what the government wanted us to see, which was nothing!” said Nils Ek, a national pistol competitor and one of the court applicants.

TheGunBlog.ca is deeply thankful to our subscribers and supporters who make our work possible.



Federal Court Order to Produce Evidence

Federal Court Cases: Summary Table

Court Number Date Filed (2020) Lead Party Lead Lawyer

T-569-20 May 21 Cassandra Parker Solomon Friedman
https://www.fct-cf.gc.ca/en/court-fi...urt-files#cont

T-577-20 May 26 CCFR Michael Loberg
https://www.fct-cf.gc.ca/en/court-fi...urt-files#cont

T-581-20 May 27 John Hipwell Edward Burlew
https://www.fct-cf.gc.ca/en/court-fi...urt-files#cont

T-677-20 Jun 29 Michael Doherty Arkadi Bouchelev
https://www.fct-cf.gc.ca/en/court-fi...urt-files#cont

T-735-20 Jul 10 Christine Generoux Christine Generoux
https://www.fct-cf.gc.ca/en/court-fi...urt-files#cont

T-905-20 Aug 11 Jennifer Eichenberg Eugene Meehan
https://www.fct-cf.gc.ca/en/court-fi...urt-files#cont




 

cmcdonald

Forum Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Supporter
"Philanthropist"
Thanks for posting that up. It will be interesting to see what documents the Libs cough up for the judge...I'm doubtful of their ability to turn over legit docs. And I wouldn't doubt for a second they are already hastily throwing together whatever they can and trashing whatever might look bad on them before it gets to the court. These people lie daily to the public and the media about firearms law and firearms owners...why wouldn't they lie to a judge?
 

1ABNDT

.270 WIN
Thanks for posting that up. It will be interesting to see what documents the Libs cough up for the judge...I'm doubtful of their ability to turn over legit docs. And I wouldn't doubt for a second they are already hastily throwing together whatever they can and trashing whatever might look bad on them before it gets to the court. These people lie daily to the public and the media about firearms law and firearms owners...why wouldn't they lie to a judge?


I agree, from what I was able to gather from the first court hearing is that this judge does not except deception/lies. We were asked by the judge before the proceedings start that there will be no audio/video/pictures taken during the proceedings, well guess who broke that rule?

The Gun Control Coalition, the judge was definitely not impressed. However the judge was blown away by the attendance numbers for the proceedings, it was open to the public "via CCFR membership" and never fell below the limit of 1000 participants. So the judge asked the IT dept to open up the participants to the max 10,000. So if anyone is interested in viewing the court case and/or supporting the court challenges and firearms comnunity join the CCFR.

No documentation is going to help them explain to the courts as to why all the banned firearms that were brought into Canada by the RCMP/GOV for "hunting and sporting" purposes, all of a sudden have " no purpose" in Canada. And as to why the RCMP changed the "Canadian Law Comment" on the FRT.


A similar issue arises with the Stag 10. A pre-ban version of the FRT has an even clearer statement in its Canadian Law Comments regarding the Stag 10: “The Stag Arms, Model STAG-10 firearm does not incorporate mechanical, aesthetic or other design features that can be traced directly to any particular firearm; it is therefore not considered a variant of any firearm found in the “Prohibited Firearms Regulations” or the “Restricted Firearms Regulations” appended to the Criminal Code.”


This pre-ban FRT entry for the Stag, made publicly available and current just days before the May 1 OIC, clearly states that the Stag 10 is explicitly not an AR variant.


A post-ban version of the same FRT entry, now reflecting the Stag’s current prohibited status has no Canadian Law Comments.



This later version of the publicly available FRT, current as of last week, indicates that the Stag 10 is now prohibited as an AR variant.


In other words, evidence of the Stag’s justification for being non-restricted; that quite clear statement, “it is therefore not considered a variant of any firearm found in the “Prohibited Firearms Regulations” or the “Restricted Firearms Regulations,” has been removed, and the firearm reclassified… a move that, according to the previous FRT data and much like what we’re seeing with today’s prohibitions, seems to be beyond the scope of the OIC’s prohibition of explicitly AR variants.


We strongly recommend anyone with one of these rifles wait for further instruction. With such strong evidence of inappropriate tampering (with regards to the legal comments and other descriptors of formerly non-restricted firearms being summarily deleted from records) and prohibitions beyond the scope of the OIC’s regulatory amendments, it is highly likely that Judicial Reviews will be employed to address this overstepping.



Further to that point. The government authorizes those competitions by legislation that has not been repealed. It subsidizes those competitions by permitting them on Federal property and still does.


It sanctions the use of shooting ranges for those purposes, ranges whose range approvals still permit those competitions, knowing full well what equipment those competitions require.


If the government was genuinely of the belief that these firearms and those like them are not suitable for competition and such competitions are a danger to the public, then there are at least 20 other things that should have been banned along with the firearms themselves. The glaring inconsistencies definitely beg scrutiny.


Example Stag 10;

view

view

view

This is what the RCMP erased on the FRT;



Canadian Law Comments - the Stag Arms, Model STAG-10 firearm does not incorporate mechanical, aesthetic or other design features that can be traced directly to any particular firearm; it is therefore not considered a variant of any firearm found in the "Prohibited Firearms Regulations" or the "Restricted Firearms Regulations" appended to the Criminal Code
PART III, Section 84.


Another issue is that all firearms that were "shadow banned" by the RCMP/GOV after the May 1 OIC, are not protected under the "Amnesty". So unless you hold a "Prohibited" FA license the GOV has put any owner in a "Possession of a Prohibited" weapon.


List of Banned Firearns by way of OIC;

https://gazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p2/2020/2020-05-01-x3/html/sor-dors96-eng.html

List of all banned Firearms including the "shadow banned" after the OIC;

https://www.armalytics.ca/?size=n_5_n&filters%5B0%5D%5Bfield%5D=banned&filters%5B0%5D%5Bvalues%5D%5B0%5D=Yes&filters%5B0%5D%5Btype%5D=any



Stay well everyone, wishing you all the best.






 

Attachments

  • Stag 10 FRT_178923 .pdf
    57.9 KB · Views: 0
Last edited:

CaddmannQ

.50 BMG
Thank you for posting up the news, 1ABNDT. Until the government of Canada quits thinking itself part of the monarchy of the Commonwealth, and becomes an independent thinking republic, I see no good ending to this.
 

1ABNDT

.270 WIN
Thank you for posting up the news, 1ABNDT. Until the government of Canada quits thinking itself part of the monarchy of the Commonwealth, and becomes an independent thinking republic, I see no good ending to this.


Its not the Government as a whole that my concern is with, its specifically this "pot smoking, racist, fake woke, narcissistic, elite, criminal", that is dictating and not governing.

 

1ABNDT

.270 WIN
I read this week that only 1 legislator opposed putting a stop on elections until covid was over. Meaning, there will be no more elections until covid is over.

https://dontspeaknews.com/2021/06/0...votes-to-suspend-elections-during-a-pandemic/


Boy Blunder can walk out of his office and down to the Governor General and ask for one or any of the partys can call a vote of "Non Confidence" at any time.

And this is part of the reason why Bill Blair stated the framework work for the confiscation and ban would take at least 2 yrs. Just long enough to get his Pension.


The other federal parties can, at any time, depose the Liberal minority government through a non-confidence vote. But they won’t for at least two years. Why? In part, because of parliamentary pensions.

Now that the Liberals are in a minority, the opposition parties control the committees, and Parliament itself, if they work collectively.

They can put before the public the secrets that the Liberals worked so assiduously to hide. Some of the information that former attorney-general Jody Wilson-Raybould and others said they wished to share but were precluded from doing so, could potentially come out. The Liberals can no longer block committee hearings or prevent witnesses from testifying, although they can still invoke cabinet confidentiality and solicitor-client privilege.

Canada Post is right: Defined-benefit pension plans are unaffordable for any employer

If you lie to an employer during hiring, you can be fired. Shouldn’t that apply to Trudeau too?

Liberal moves to legislate work-life balance are voter friendly, but disastrous for business

One might think that the other parties would rush to bring down the Liberal party. After all, they made political mileage over the government’s refusal to release Wilson-Raybould, former Treasury Board president Jane Philpott and others from cabinet confidentiality, despite how anxious witnesses were to tell their stories.

But that was before the election. There are two reasons that they won’t now. The first is that, if the Liberals are totally wiped out by the revelations, the Conservative party will likely get a majority and the NDP and Bloc Quebecois will lose the upper hand in Parliament, with Liberals dependent upon them to enact legislation.

But one should never ignore the impact of a more mundane motivation: pensions.

MPs initially elected in 2015 are not eligible to claim their Parliamentary pension unless they remain in office until at least 2021. This is a defined benefit pension plan, pursuant to the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act, which can be received regardless of interest rates or the market.

Such plans used to be relatively common in large private sector employers but they are so expensive that they drove many companies into insolvency. That is why you scarcely find them today outside of the public sector. An analysis by Frederick Vettese, author of the book, Retirement Income for Life: Getting More without Saving More, predicts that defined benefit plans will be extinct in the private sector by 2026 while continuing to grow in the public sector.

One might think it unfair that Parliamentarians receive pensions the vast majority of Canadian employers cannot afford for their own employees. But, for the same reason public sector unions are loath to give them up, Parliamentarians are motivated to ensure that they work the requisite number of years to receive them. That is why they are unlikely to drive the Liberals out of office for at least two years.

In my practice, I have found that employees are loath to leave their jobs before they receive a significant bonus or other potential entitlement. Few MPs are children of privilege or have created significant wealth themselves. So why topple the Liberals and call an election now, before they are guaranteed their pensions?

The traditional private-public sector dichotomy was that public sector employees had better benefits and pensions, enjoyed greater job security, worked less but, in return, earned less. Over the last number of years, that has reversed with public sector workers continuing to enjoy these advantages, particularly the defined benefit pension, but earning more as well.

Why is that? In the private sector, union and non-union alike, market discipline applies. If an employer provides wages that are too high, it goes out of business. Even unions understand that and, in my experience, are open to employers sharing their financial statements and modifying their demands to ensure their members keep their jobs.

In the public sector, market discipline does not apply. The government simply runs a deficit. Moreover, the people negotiating on the other side of the unions are directed by politicians whose main goal is to avoid a strike “on their watch.” The politicians simply defer the consequences of their lavish public sector benefits/pensions and the resulting deficits to later years.


Howard Levitt is senior partner of Levitt LLP, employment and labour lawyers. He practises employment law in eight provinces. The most recent of his six books is Law of Dismissal in Canada
 
Last edited:

CaddmannQ

.50 BMG
Justin Trudeau and his & beneficiaries are in charge of Canada because the rest of the government doesn’t prevent it as long as they are profiting from it.

Same thing is happening here.

I can certainly believe the business about the pensions.
 

cmcdonald

Forum Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Supporter
"Philanthropist"


I agree, from what I was able to gather from the first court hearing is that this judge does not except deception/lies. We were asked by the judge before the proceedings start that there will be no audio/video/pictures taken during the proceedings, well guess who broke that rule?

The Gun Control Coalition, the judge was definitely not impressed. However the judge was blown away by the attendance numbers for the proceedings, it was open to the public "via CCFR membership" and never fell below the limit of 1000 participants. So the judge asked the IT dept to open up the participants to the max 10,000. So if anyone is interested in viewing the court case and/or supporting the court challenges and firearms comnunity join the CCFR.

No documentation is going to help them explain to the courts as to why all the banned firearms that were brought into Canada by the RCMP/GOV for "hunting and sporting" purposes, all of a sudden have " no purpose" in Canada. And as to why the RCMP changed the "Canadian Law Comment" on the FRT.


A similar issue arises with the Stag 10. A pre-ban version of the FRT has an even clearer statement in its Canadian Law Comments regarding the Stag 10: “The Stag Arms, Model STAG-10 firearm does not incorporate mechanical, aesthetic or other design features that can be traced directly to any particular firearm; it is therefore not considered a variant of any firearm found in the “Prohibited Firearms Regulations” or the “Restricted Firearms Regulations” appended to the Criminal Code.”


This pre-ban FRT entry for the Stag, made publicly available and current just days before the May 1 OIC, clearly states that the Stag 10 is explicitly not an AR variant.


A post-ban version of the same FRT entry, now reflecting the Stag’s current prohibited status has no Canadian Law Comments.



This later version of the publicly available FRT, current as of last week, indicates that the Stag 10 is now prohibited as an AR variant.


In other words, evidence of the Stag’s justification for being non-restricted; that quite clear statement, “it is therefore not considered a variant of any firearm found in the “Prohibited Firearms Regulations” or the “Restricted Firearms Regulations,” has been removed, and the firearm reclassified… a move that, according to the previous FRT data and much like what we’re seeing with today’s prohibitions, seems to be beyond the scope of the OIC’s prohibition of explicitly AR variants.


We strongly recommend anyone with one of these rifles wait for further instruction. With such strong evidence of inappropriate tampering (with regards to the legal comments and other descriptors of formerly non-restricted firearms being summarily deleted from records) and prohibitions beyond the scope of the OIC’s regulatory amendments, it is highly likely that Judicial Reviews will be employed to address this overstepping.



Further to that point. The government authorizes those competitions by legislation that has not been repealed. It subsidizes those competitions by permitting them on Federal property and still does.


It sanctions the use of shooting ranges for those purposes, ranges whose range approvals still permit those competitions, knowing full well what equipment those competitions require.


If the government was genuinely of the belief that these firearms and those like them are not suitable for competition and such competitions are a danger to the public, then there are at least 20 other things that should have been banned along with the firearms themselves. The glaring inconsistencies definitely beg scrutiny.


Example Stag 10;

view

view

view

This is what the RCMP erased on the FRT;



Canadian Law Comments - the Stag Arms, Model STAG-10 firearm does not incorporate mechanical, aesthetic or other design features that can be traced directly to any particular firearm; it is therefore not considered a variant of any firearm found in the "Prohibited Firearms Regulations" or the "Restricted Firearms Regulations" appended to the Criminal Code
PART III, Section 84.


Another issue is that all firearms that were "shadow banned" by the RCMP/GOV after the May 1 OIC, are not protected under the "Amnesty". So unless you hold a "Prohibited" FA license the GOV has put any owner in a "Possession of a Prohibited" weapon.


List of Banned Firearns by way of OIC;

https://gazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p2/2020/2020-05-01-x3/html/sor-dors96-eng.html

List of all banned Firearms including the "shadow banned" after the OIC;

https://www.armalytics.ca/?size=n_5_n&filters%5B0%5D%5Bfield%5D=banned&filters%5B0%5D%5Bvalues%5D%5B0%5D=Yes&filters%5B0%5D%5Btype%5D=any



Stay well everyone, wishing you all the best.






Let's hope this one judge who will not disappoint. I've lost most of my faith in our "justice" system as justice seems so ever lacking. You get the odd provincial court judge who will really stick their finger in it now and again and surprise with a stiff or exceptionally fair and logical verdict...that seems really rare these days with the culturally sensitive and "woke" feds.
 

1ABNDT

.270 WIN
Update

https://thegunblog.ca/2021/06/16/lib...-2020-attacks/


Liberals Refuse Federal Court Order to Give Evidence for May 2020 Attacks

16 June 2021

2 min read

TheGunBlog.ca — Canada’s Liberal Party-led government refused a Federal Court order to produce the evidence that led to its political attacks begun in May 2020 against gun owners.

Hidden Under Section 39
The Clerk of the Privy Council, the most-senior government employee and a top adviser to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, used Section 39 of the Canada Evidence Act to keep e-mails, memos and notes hidden from the court and the public.

A Federal Court judge on May 27 gave the government 30 days to produce all documents related to its crackdown.
The Clerk of the Privy Council, Janice Charette, signed the Section 39 certificate on June 14.
Disclosure ‘Shall Be Refused’
“As a result of the certification by the Clerk, pursuant to s. 39, ‘disclosure of the information shall be refused without examination or hearing of the information by the court,’” government lawyers told the Federal Court yesterday.

“The attached s. 39 certificate is an absolute bar to filing with the Court under seal the information encompassed by the Order.”

Criminalize and Confiscate
The refusal is the Liberals’ latest obstruction tactic as they push ahead with their May 2020 Order in Council (OIC) that criminalized honest citizens and ordered the confiscation of suddenly blacklisted rifles and shotguns.

The Liberals, in coordination with the RCMP, directly targeted roughly 10% of Canada’s 2.2 million government-licensed firearm users, part of their broader program to suppress personal gun ownership.
TheGunBlog.ca isn’t aware of anyone who intends to surrender their goods. Several provinces are working to block the attacks.
Six groups of gun owners and businesses applied to the Federal Court to stop the crackdown for being abusive, illegal and unconstitutional.
A hearing has yet to be scheduled.
The Liberal attacks and their actions in this case have eroded trust in government, the RCMP, and the courts.
‘Uncharted Legal Territory’
“This is uncharted legal territory, and I mean unprecedented — I can’t find anything like this in our history,” Christine Generoux, one of the gun owners in Federal Court, told TheGunBlog.ca. “It’s become an illegal star chamber. They are trying to disobey the judge’s order. If they could get a certificate, why did we have to wait a year!?”

Generoux, who is representing herself and two associates in court, is seeking donations to cover their costs.

What the Evidence May Show
The political and ideological motivations for the Liberal attacks on honest Canadians.
Why the Liberals developed the crackdown in secret and hid their plans from parliament and the public.
How the Royal Canadian Mounted Police supported the attacks, in particular the role of Murray Smith.
The cost of the crackdown, estimated at hundreds of millions or billions of tax dollars.
How the Liberals and RCMP invented the tactic of “nullifying” firearm-registration certificates to criminalize lawful owners.



Government Lawyer’s June 15 Letter to Federal Court

Page 1 / 20Zoom 100%

Federal Court Cases: Summary Table

Court Number Date Filed (2020) Lead Party Lead Lawyer
T-569-20 May 21 Cassandra Parker Solomon Friedman
T-577-20 May 26 CCFR Michael Loberg
T-581-20 May 27 John Hipwell Edward Burlew
T-677-20 Jun 29 Michael Doherty Arkadi Bouchelev
T-735-20 Jul 10 Christine Generoux Christine Generoux
T-905-20 Aug 11 Jennifer Eichenberg Eugene Meehan


TheGunBlog.ca is deeply thankful to our subscribers and supporters who make our work possible.







https://firearmrights.ca/liberals-in...vide-evidence/


Bruce Hughson of the Department of Justice forwarded a notice to the Federal Court concerning our case against the Attorney General of Canada. The notice is to inform the court that the government has invoked Section 39 of the Canada Evidence Act. This is an action that the Clerk of the Privy Council can take to "make secret" any materials the government doesn't want the public to see. This puts the materials, in this case the government's evidence, beyond the reach of anyone, even the courts. Supposedly, this sweeping power is exercised when the material is so sensitive, it is against the public interest to disclose it.

READ THE NOTICE:

https://firearmrights.ca/wp-content/...icate60712.pdf


The certificate invoking S. 39 was signed by the Interim Clerk of the Privy Council, Janice Charette. Keep in mind, in late May, Judge Gagne ordered the government to provide its evidence to her alone, not the public. She would then evaluate if the materials were too sensitive for public disclosure. It appears that the government believes the evidence they used to ban up to a million firearms owned exclusively by licensed gun owners is too secret (or dangerous) to have even a federal judge view it.

Many questions come to mind. What is in the government's evidence that's so secret or such a danger to national security that even the Associate Chief Justice of the Federal Court of Canada can't see it? What could it possibly be? Could it be that the government has no evidence at all, and the prohibition is simply a political wedge issue to divide Canadians and secure urban votes? If so, what an incredibly corrupt use of government power that would be. Why wouldn't the government just deal fairly with gun owners? We aren't criminals, we haven't done anything to deserve this.


Regardless, this isn't the worst thing to happen to our case. Our team will ask the Judge to make an "adverse inference" against the government to the effect that whatever it is they are hiding would either hurt their case or at very least not help them. This has the potential to significantly damage their ability to defend.

Either way, this has become typical of the bad faith dealings of the Liberal Government of Justin Trudeau, Bill Blair & David Lametti the new Attorney General. "Open and transparent government", and "fact-based policy making" they said...



Wishing you all a wonderful Father's Day Weekend. God bless
 
Top