Liberals determined to reject rule of law after Emergencies Act ruling: Aaron Wudrick

From the MacDonald Laurier Institute

The government comforts itself in the fiction that the rules don’t apply to it

On Tuesday, The Federal Court of Canada released a decision that all Canadians should celebrate as an important victory for the rule of law in Canada.

In an application brought by two public interest law associations — the Canadian Constitution Foundation and the Canadian Civil Liberties Association — the court considered two questions. Whether the Trudeau government acted outside the law in invoking the Emergencies Act in February 2022 to put an end to the Freedom Convoy protests in Ottawa, and whether orders issued under the authority of the act violated the Charter. On both counts, the court answered unambiguously: yes, they did.

Perhaps the most striking thing about the court decision authored by Justice Richard Mosley is how straightforward much of the reasoning is. There is no tortured logic, no obscure line of argument, no abstract reasoning; the principles at stake are easily digestible by lawyers and non-lawyers alike. Justice Mosley does exactly what most Canadians probably expect courts to do: consider evidence; read what the law says; and draw conclusions that, for lack of a better phrase, reflect common sense.

Take for example the government’s insistence that the Freedom Convoy constituted a “threat to the security of Canada” — a phrase which is explicitly defined in the Emergencies Act as having the same meaning as it does in Section 2 of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) Act. Unfortunately for the government, CSIS’s official determination was that the convoy did not constitute a threat to the security of Canada. This being a very inconvenient obstacle for a government that wanted to invoke the act, Cabinet simply came up with a new strategy: ignore the statutory requirement that the Section 2 CSIS Act definition be met, come up with an alternative definition that better fits their argument, and make the opposite finding! QED.

Understandably, Justice Mosley had none of this. The law says what the law says. Perhaps, as has been argued elsewhere, using the CSIS Act definition of “threat to the security of Canada” is a poor fit for the Emergencies Act. If so, Parliament is well within its rights to amend it. But it’s not what the law said in February 2022, and Cabinet cannot simply wave away the words because it happens to be inconvenient for their best-laid plans.

On issue after issue — the scope of the security threat; the claim that enforcement tools under existing laws being exhausted; the reasonableness of sweeping violations of Charter rights of free expression and against unreasonable search and seizure — Justice Mosley, after looking at all the evidence, disagreed with the government’s assertions. The government’s claims simply did not survive contact with a fulsome evidentiary record.

Nor was the ruling only damning to the government’s flimsy arguments. It was also an implicit rebuke to Justice Paul Rouleau, the head of the Public Order Emergency Commission, who made the unnecessary and ill-advised choice in his final report to muse about the legality of the act’s invocation, in spite of the fact that — by his own admission — it was not part of his mandate to do so, and he had not undertaken a formal analysis.

Perhaps most interesting of all was Justice Mosley’s candid admission towards the end of his decision that he had initially “been leaning to the view that the decision to invoke the (Emergencies Act) was reasonable” and acknowledged that it was only after taking the time to “carefully deliberate about the evidence and submissions” and the applicants’ “informed legal argument” did he conclude — unambiguously — that the government had acted outside the law.

And what of the political fallout? There is a world in which a government might, when confronted with a court ruling that they illegally invoked and abused the most draconian law on the books, simply accept the ruling with humility, apologize unreservedly for having overstepped, and resign on principle.

Clearly, we don’t live in that world: unrepentant as ever, and within an hour of the decision’s release, Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland announced that the government would be appealing it. This is completely in character for a government that has time and again sneered at the rule of law — e.g. their ethics violations both big and small, the SNC-Lavalin scandal — preferring to comfort itself with fiction that rules are for other people.

Canadians know better. Governments are obliged to follow the law, just like everyone else — and we owe Justice Mosley a debt of gratitude for the timely reminder of that fact.

Aaron Wudrick is a lawyer and the domestic policy director at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute.

Up Next

Liberal MP calls for review of Trudeau’s leadership: ‘Every leader has a best-before date’

Don't Miss

Federal government consistently spends beyond high spending targets

Todayville

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

A balanced approach shows climate change has been good for us: Alex Epstein

International / 2 hours ago

OP-ED Trudeau’s Dangerous Pandering to Extremists Has Turned Canada Into a Safe Haven for Hate and Terror

Crime / 3 hours ago

Trudeau’s pro-transgender regime is a get-out-of-jail-free card for Canada’s most violent criminals

COVID-19

Federal bill would require US colleges to compensate students injured by COVID shots

Published on November 4, 2024

Todayville

From LifeSiteNews

By Matt Lamb

Congressman Matt Rosendale’s new bill would make colleges that mandated the experimental, COVID shots financially liable for injuries caused by them, such as myocarditis and pericarditis.

Universities that required students to take COVID-19 shots would be held liable for the medical suffering caused by them, under proposed federal legislation.

Republican congressman Matt Rosendale introduced the “University Forced Vaccination Student Injury Mitigation Act of 2024” recently, along with Reps. Eli Crane and Bill Posey.

Universities would be required to pay the medical costs for students who suffered at least one jab injury, specifically listing myocarditis, pericarditis, thrombosis, Guillain-Barré syndrome, and “[a]ny other disease with a positive association with the COVID–19 vaccine which the Secretary of Education determines to be warranted.”

The abortion-tainted COVID jabs have been linked to a variety of medical consequences, including those listed in the legislation.

“If you are not prepared to face the consequences, you should have never committed the act,” Rosendale stated in a news release. “Colleges and universities forced students to inject themselves with an experimental vaccine knowing it was not going to prevent COVID-19 while potentially simultaneously causing life-threatening health defects like Guillian-Barre Syndrome and myocarditis.

“It is now time for schools to be held accountable for their brazen disregard for students’ health and pay for the issues they are responsible for causing,” he stated.

The legislation could impact hundreds of colleges – the New York Times reported in 2021 that more than 400 higher education institutions had COVID jab mandates.

Only 17 colleges still require the COVID jab, according to No College Mandates, which supports the legislation.

The group is “grateful” for the legislation and said it will “hold colleges accountable for the injuries their unnecessary, unethical and unscientific policies have caused for without such legislation, these students and their families would have no other recourse.”

The problems with the COVID shots have been extensively documented by LifeSiteNews and elsewhere. Documented adverse reactions include death, stroke, myocarditis, and Guillain-Barré syndrome, among others.

The documented problems with the COVID shots and myocarditis, which is inflammation of the heart, led a vaccine advisor for the Food and Drug Administration to warn against young men taking the jabs.

Dr. Doran Fink convinced the agency in June 2021 to add a warning about myocarditis and pericarditis to the Pfizer and Moderna shots. Fink reiterated his concerns during a September 17, 2021, FDA meeting on the safety of the jabs. He said that adults 40 years old and younger are at a greater risk of severe reactions from the jabs than they are from COVID itself.

College students specifically have been harmed by the COVID-19 shots, including one who died after the injection.

“If it wasn’t for the vaccine … He wouldn’t have, he wouldn’t more than likely have passed away now,” Bradford County Coroner Timothy Cahill concluded in 2021, based on his autopsy of George Watts. The 24-year-old male student took the jab as required by Corning Community College in the state of New York.

Northwestern University student Simone Scott also appeared to have died due to heart inflammation linked to the COVID jab, though she received it prior to the school’s mandate.

A Johns Hopkins University medical school professor also endorsed the legislation.

“I had to make efforts to prevent my own high school and college age children from receiving COVID-19 booster shots that they did not want or need,” Dr. Joseph Marine stated. “It seems reasonable to me that institutions that implemented such policies without a sound medical or scientific rationale should take responsibility for any proven medical harm that they caused.”

COVID-19

Dr John Campbell urges a complete moratorium on mRNA vaccines

Published on November 3, 2024

Duane Rolheiser

Dr. John Campbell

Turbo cancers are rapidly forming, spreading and mutating.

In this video Dr. John Campbell who has gathered millions of followers for his data driven, scientific approach to explaining the COVID pandemic, shares new information about a devastating wave of “Turbo” cancers which seem to be exploding in countries that pushed and promoted COVID vaccinations on the general public.

This information is fascinating and critically important as most health systems in the western world are still promoting the COVID treatments which may be doing more harm than good.

The video features presentations from UK surgeon, Dr James Royle and the research of several doctors working to unveil this dangerous new development.

More information on these doctors at the links below.