From the Canadian Taxpayers Federation

Author: Kris Sims

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation is calling on Alberta Premier Danielle Smith to join New Brunswick Premier Blaine Higgs and launch a legal challenge against the federal carbon tax.

“Alberta successfully led the fight against the ‘No More Pipelines’ law at the Supreme Court, and Smith should get our province to do the same against the carbon tax,” said Kris Sims, CTF Alberta Director. “Albertans are being punished every time we pay our heating bills and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is shredding constitutional accountability with his unequal application of the carbon tax.”

Higgs announced that if he is re-elected, New Brunswick would launch a renewed legal challenge against the federal carbon tax.

The federal carbon tax “carve-outs violate the Supreme Court’s ruling, and the tax makes gas, groceries, and essential services more expensive,” according to the Progressive Conservative Party of New Brunswick.

Last year, the federal government announced it is removing the carbon tax from furnace oil for three years, but did not exempt other forms of home heating energy.

“Across Canada, fuel oil makes up just three per cent of residential heating energy,” according to the government of Nova Scotia. “Natural gas was the most commonly used energy source for residential heating.”

The average Alberta home uses about  2,930 cubic metres of natural gas per year, according to Statistics Canada. That means removing the current federal carbon tax would save the average home about $439 this year.

“When Trudeau announced his furnace oil carve out, he admitted the carbon tax makes life more expensive and he left 97 per cent of Canadian families out in the cold,” said Franco Terrazzano, CTF Federal Director. “All premiers should do everything in their power to fight the carbon tax.”

A 2023 Leger poll found 70 per cent of Canadians support removing the carbon tax from all home heating fuels.

 From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

If the case is allowed to proceed, any business operator in Alberta from 2020 to 2022 who was negatively impacted by COVID orders would be eligible to join the lawsuit. Any payout from the lawsuit would come from the taxpayers, which ironically includes the business owners themselves.

Alberta business owners who faced massive losses or permanent closures due to COVID mandates might soon be able to proceed with a class-action lawsuit against the provincial government after lawyers representing the businesses were in court for a certification hearing.

The court heard from the business group’s lawyers regarding the lawsuit proposal, which comes from Alberta-based Rath & Company. Lead counsel Jeffrey Rath said the Alberta government has been placed on notice for its actions against businesses during the COVID lockdown era.

The Rath lawsuit proposal names Rebecca Ingram, a gym owner, and Chris Scott, a restaurant owner, as “representative plaintiffs who suffered significant financial harm due to (former Alberta Chief Medical Officer) Dr. (Deena) Hinshaw’s Public Health Orders.”

Well-known freedom-oriented constitutional lawyer Eva Chipiuk was with Rath in court for the certification hearing. In an X post on October 3, she shared that it was an “interesting two days in court arguing on behalf of businesses impacted by Alberta’s public health orders.”

“In the heart of democratic societies lies a fundamental principle: Justice must not only be done but must also be seen to be done. When justice systems operate in the open, public trust is maintained. People need to witness fairness, impartiality, and due process in action,” she wrote.

“When governments operate in the light of public scrutiny, they uphold not just the law but the trust of their citizens, ensuring that governance is not just a mechanism of power but a beacon of justice and equality.”

Chipiuk shared that a decision on whether or not the lawsuit will be allowed to proceed will be coming in a few months. She noted it will be “interesting how the judge decides in this case.”

“And will be very interesting how the government responds. They had an opportunity to get ahead of this issue but chose not to. We shall see if they took the right path or if they will be catching up and making up later,” she said.

Alberta Justice Colin Feasby noted at the end of the court certification hearing that both sides made good arguments, but the earliest a decision would be ready is December 1.

In court, representatives for the Alberta government eventually conceded that Ingram could be allowed to be a representative plaintiff but questioned whether Scott could be considering his case is more officially known.

Chipiuk and Rath told the judge that the government’s public health orders exceeded their legal authority and, as a result, all businesses affected by the COVID orders should be compensated.

The government’s legal team claimed that the COVID orders were put in place on a good faith initiative and that it was Alberta Health Services, not the government, that oversaw enforcement of the rules.

If the case is allowed to proceed, any business operator in Alberta from 2020 to 2022 who was negatively impacted by COVID orders would be eligible to join the lawsuit. Any payout from the lawsuit would come from the taxpayers, which ironically includes the business owners themselves.

The Alberta Court of King’s Bench’s Ingram v. Alberta decision put into doubt all cases involving those facing non-criminal COVID-related charges in the province, which in effect has allowed the class action to get this far.

As a result of the court ruling, Alberta Crown Prosecutions Service (ACPS) said Albertans facing COVID-related charges will not be convicted but instead have their charges stayed.

Thus far, Dr. Michal Princ, pizzeria owner Jesse Johnson, Scott, and Alberta pastors James Coates, Tim Stephens, and Artur Pawlowski, who were jailed for keeping churches open under then-Premier Jason Kenney, have had COVID charges against them dropped due to the court ruling.

Under Kenney, thousands of businesses, notably restaurants and small shops, were negatively impacted by severe COVID restrictions, mostly in 2020-21, that forced them to close for a time. Many never reopened. At the same time, as in the rest of Canada, big box stores were allowed to operate unimpeded.

Class action is about ‘accountability, transparency, and justice,’ lawyer says

Before the hearing, Chipiuk said it is crucial for the public to “understand the significant impact of the unlawful public health orders on Albertans. The financial, psychological, and tragic consequences cannot be ignored.”

“At the end of the day, Premier Smith must recognize the gravity and optics of this situation. Fighting against those harmed by the Province’s unlawful orders, while the Province heavily favored the public sector over the private sector, does not foster an environment that encourages entrepreneurs or promotes business and investment in Alberta,” she wrote on X.

“This case calls for accountability, transparency, and justice. The Province must acknowledge the devastation caused by its illegal actions and stop evading responsibility. This case also presents an opportunity for Premier Smith to demonstrate to Albertans that government overreach will not go unnoticed, and those harmed by it will be compensated — principles that align with the proposed amendments to the Alberta Bill of Rights.”

Danielle Smith took over the United Conservative Party (UCP) on October 11, 2022, after winning the leadership. Kenney was ousted due to low approval ratings and for reneging on promises not to lock Alberta down as well as enacting a vaccine passport.

Smith, however, has been mum on the class action as well as other lawsuits against the government that are in the works. She has promised that changes will be coming to the Alberta Bill of Rights that she said will offer Albertans more protections against government overreach.