Robbins SCE Research
Home| British Columbia Polls| Canada Polls| US & the World Polls| Contact| Register| Search| Donate
Letter from Conservative Glen P. Robbins to U.S. President Donald J. Trump - Is a deal with Canada on NAFTA - a deal with the Devil?- includes SCC Chief Justice McLachlin - Lamar CJ - Powell of US Supreme
  Aug 08, 2017

Commentary
continued from August 7, 2017 under same title - the top of the law in Canada and US in support of Glen P. Robbins - draining the Canadian Swamp.
Decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada:
Here then is R v Askov Case Number 20560, Citation: R v Askov, {1990} 2 S.C.R. 1199 “Judgments of the Supreme Court of Canada” (The “R” represents Regina the Queen):
“Under Constitutional Law – Charter of Rights”: “Trial within a reasonable time – Delay of almost two years bringing case to trial...” “Delay resulting chiefly institutional problems”.
Per Dickson C.J. & La Forest, L'Heurxeux-Dube, Gonthier and Cory JJ:
“Under s.11(b) of the Charter, any person charged with an offense has the right to be tried within a reasonable time, and like other specific s.11 guarantees, is primarily concerned with an aspect of fundamental justice guaranteed by s.7.”
“Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a constitutional provision that protects an individual's autonomy and personal legal rights for action of the government in Canada. There are three types of protection within (that) section, namely the right to life, liberty and security of the person.”
(ED: The point here is that although the delay issue before the Court involves a matter of criminal nature, the fact that section 22.(b) is recognized as being linked to any judicial process which by legal inference would include non criminal matters (unless the S.C.C. - is dividing up rights to classes of cases??
Given that the appellant (victim) IR was awarded the entitlement nearly 20 years ago under then Liberal Prime Minister Jean Chretien – following extensive scrutiny and reform considerations of the system under the decade old long Liberals – including by businessman and Liberal finance minister Paul Martin – IMR's entitlement was well vetted and certain.
The only overturning of this had to be done by the Crown which has the legal obligation of reverse onus (they had to prove the case should be overturned).
Reverse Onus exists in defamation cases. Normally the plaintiff has the burden of proof in civil cases (reasonable doubt in criminal cases). In essence the government must take action which is tantamount to the appeal of the existing entitlement in IMR's legal possession. Because their position lacked proper authority and jurisdiction (wasn't competent) on the basis that CRA provoked the investigation not permitted under the law – IR is de facto appealing a decision of a Crown appeal of her entitlement – which isn't an appeal at all.
Also, by proceeding on the illegal basis of Canada Revenue (our IRS) IMR's privacy as mentioned is breached. Further involvement of other persons (such as employers) forms in IMR's opinion an effort to defame her.
(ED: You see how the lawyers and no journalists are trying to benefit by untruths, lies, and use of confusing language to bully people?. (ED: I say this, because by taking these onerous steps against IR, the Government of Canada has inferred a type of accusation against her. An accusation requiring more legal 'heft' when the legal onus was already established as being completely and unequivocally it.
OK, Back to the Supreme Court of Canada in Askov:
“The majority stated that “(T)he court should consider a number of factors in determining whether the delay to trial....has been unreasonable – (determined by): (1) the length of the delay; (2) the explanation for the delay; (3) waiver; (4) prejudiced to the accused.”
“The longer the delay, the more difficult for the court to excuse it, and very lengthy delays may be such that they cannot be justified for any reason.”
“Delays attributed to the Crown will weigh in favor of the accused.”
“System or institutional delays will also weigh against the Crown.”
“In all cases it will be incumbent upon the Crown to show that the institutional delay in question is justifiable.”
“Here the delay of almost two years following the preliminary hearing was clearly excessive and unreasonable.”
“The Crown did not show that the time delay did not prejudice the appellants, and nothing in the case was so complex or inherently different as to justify a lengthy delay.”
From McLachlin J. (ED: Mr. President – this is the current Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada as she wrote in Askov)
“Cory J's (the lead writer of the majority decision in Askov) reasons were agreed with and comments were made on the process of determining whether a trial has been unreasonably delayed.”
“Section 11(b) is designed to serve the interests of society generally (as well as those of the accused and prosecution)”
“Two elements must be assessed under s. 11(b): the length of the delay, and its reasonableness. If the delay is prima facie excessive, it is necessary to consider whether it is nonetheless reasonable.”
“Reasonableness may depend on a variety of factors, including the prejudice caused by the delay.”
“Here (Askov) the delay was prima facie excessive.”
Lamar C.J. (ED: the Chief Justice BEFORE McLachlin J.) who helps some with a more libertarian statement vis-a-vis delays:
“While society may have an influence in the..criminal justice system, this interest is not what s. 11(b) is designed to protect. “(T)here exists an irrebuttable presumption of prejudice to the accused...(and) “(t)he accused need not demonstrate any further manifestations of prejudice beyond the kind presumed in order to establish an infringement of s. 11(b).”
(ED: So Lamar C.J. Keeps it simple – anytime the Crown makes an accusation against any citizen the meter is on for prejudice under delay. (ED: Back to McLachlin J. (as she was then) – where she consults U.S. case law in Barker v Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972) Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals from the Sixteenth Circuit:
“It was held by the Court “That a constitutional right to a speedy trial can (only) be determined on an ad hoc basis.” (ED: Ad hoc in this context implies a special purpose. The special purpose here is the specific case.
Mr. Justice Powell (U.S.) delivered the opinion of the Court in Wingo at page 398 U.S. 401:
“Pointing out his concurring opinion in Dickey, in none of these cases have we attempted to set out the criteria by which the speedy trail is to be judged.” “This case compels us to make such an attempt.” “The right to a speedy trial is generally different from any other rights enshrined in the Constitution.”
“In addition to the general concern that all.... persons be treated according to decent and fair proceedings...then is a societal interest in providing a speedy trial which exists separate from...the interests of the accused.”
So, McLachlin J. who cites the 'societal interest' in her reasons, in Askov the current Chief Justice is given to see it distinctly from the right to a speedy trial (historically associated with criminal offenses) as was decided in Wingo – which she cites as that which provokes her position. (This isn't the first time McLachlin J has cited serious U.S. case law including in “Beals” v (a State of Florida case originally).
(ED: Chief Justice Lamar (as he was then): does not disagree with the societal interest consideration in observing s. 11 (b), but does not link it to s.11(b) (“designed to protect”). Again, Lamar CJ links the demonstration of prejudice at the beginning of the event.
(ED: One of the cases cited by Lamar CJ related to his reasoning in Askov is Mills v The Queen:
“Of the 19 month delay complained of, the Crown acknowledged that 10 months was due to its negligent inaction.” In this instance 52.61% of the time was wasted by the Crown.
(ED: IR submits that 100% of the delays are attributable to the Crown given they should never have take the action they did in the first place. However, even if some latitude is given, (for purposes of underscoring the absurdity of the government and lawyers) and if we take the commencement point at 2008, 2009 or even 2011 we are well over 6 years, with the best case scenario for the Institutional aspect of those delays proven by the journalism evidence of at least four years (5 years).
Lamar C.J. asserts: “Section 24 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms provides remedies that are available to those whose Charter rights are shown to be violated.” “24.(1) Anyone whose rights and freedoms, as guaranteed by the Charter, have been infringed or denied may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction to obtain such remedy as the court considers appropriate.” “(2) Where, in proceedings under subsection (1), a court considers that evidence was obtained in a manner that infringed or denied any rights of freedoms guaranteed by this Charter, the evidence shall be excluded if it is established that......that...the admission of it in the proceedings would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.”
From academic scholar Peter W. Hogg – “Constitutional Law in Canada”, 2003 Student Ed (Scarborough, Ontario – Thomson Canada Limited, 2003), pp. 864-865: “Among other things, section 24 seems to give judges the power to place positive obligations upon a government.”
In R v Smith is was established that 'section 24 remedies be dispensed only by a court of competent jurisdiction' (ED: Suffice it to say Mills v The Queen informs us that in some instances, an 'actual judge' including a justice of the superior courts in each province may not always be able to lay claim to making their court one of competent jurisdiction. The Social Security Tribunal is not one of these.
Given the completely obvious pro active implications of the S.C.C relevant case law cited – a hearing relating to the section 11 and conjunctive section 24 Charter interests must be dealt with first, and ought to have been dealt with internally by the DoJ. The DoJ and SST are using tax dollars to take advantage of persons, in this case IR without legal representation. Given this is Canada, the argument might be advanced that IR is better off without it, and the onerous fees (which was obviously a factor in Harper-Kenney strategy to disenfranchise Canadians unlawfully). (ED: In being proactive on behalf of IR – I would say that both Harper & Kenney should be available as defendants in any class action. Mssr. Trudeau and Madame Raybould Wilson as well – depending on their legislative response-given that no response, at least politically (and likely legally) is an admission that everything is fine from the Harper-Kenney era on this subject matter.
Given that we know that Canada Revenue Agency overstepped its authority and breached IMR's privacy rights by sending information to the Minister (which it may not send unless there is a clear case for investigation of a criminal nature) – and that only the Minister or the client (IMR) may make such a request under law, we are able to say that section 24 applies- in this instance alone 24(2). According to Lamar C.J.'s position the prejudice to IMR occurred immediately.
DoJ material of late:
“The appellant's benefits were suspended in 2009, pending investigation of the Appellant's disability status.” “The Respondent ceased the Appellant's benefits as of May 2008.” (ED: The DoJ lies like a rug when it states that it paid IR until 2011, obviously a contradiction to these statements.
In every year of the disclosure of annual earnings commencing 2005 (why 2005, 2006, 2007?), IMR is a 'good as gold' with the legal provisions – with a football field to spare. There is no evidence (however obtained) to support the overturning of the ump's decision on the field (reverse onus) disability status, which may only be determined by earnings evidence (not medical evidence as the evidence from 1994 already legally determined is that IMR's medical position will be prolonged and is severe sufficient for the Chretien government using the same laws – to establish IMR's pension eligibility. All of IMR's maladies involved get infinitely worse with age, not better.
At para 9 page 3 DoJ states:
“The Respondent (DoJ) against requested the return of a signed consent form demanding IR sign a consent form”. (ED: This action is one of duress given that IMR's privacy rights had been unlawfully prejudiced in the transfer of IMR's personal information to the Minister. Throughout 2012 (at the point in time when Harper is making the transfer) there are further such demands made of IR – suggesting that the Government of Canada was trying to worm its way into compelling IR to take steps which might be construed later as 'waiver'.
The timing of these actions – suggest that many other Canadians likely got the same treatment by the Conservative con artists-- their lawyers – and their Tribunal Members – all paid to lie to law abiding Canadians. Sad. These events beg the investigation of all of the correspondence alleged by the DoJ to have been sent to IMR. We put the DoJ to prove it actually served any of this correspondence. Breach of service rules is somethings lawyers do as often as hookers trick. Only the Federal Court and Supreme Court of Canada have service rules that pass muster as impenetrable to abuse.
In 2012 out of an abundance of caution, IMR made a different application for CPP disability. Naturally medical evidence was required of her physician. This was provided to the Minister (including Kenney to his federal constituency office) (under the Act, the Minister can settle a claim him or herself) who acknowledged its receipt and the medical information there under. Even though IMR's status was determinate upon earnings exclusively, the fact that the Minister was (mus)using the language associated with criteria relating to assessment of disability, IR, as indicated had already satisfied that in 1994. It was the Minister's responsibility (onus) to overturn (the ruling on the field). IMRs provision of the medical information under separate cover of application ensured that she had made the Minister 'aware' as that word is used in most higher court decisions to mean that something had been served upon a party.
Conclusion:
Canada is selling itself as prudent fiscal managers when in fact they are not. The CPP example helps to showcase to the President some of what he is experiencing in Office in his own country. At the very top of the heap of political life – information is dubious – seldom transparent in the media. Canada's media cannot see its way past simply copying much fake news in the press. The people are stunned, wondering how long the big lie has been going on, whilst Swamp owners present the image of stellar institutional government. Canada may be 10 times worse with one tenth the population residing over a large land mass.
Free trade agreement is such a climate are contrary to democratic principles until the signatories can properly explain and solve the massive deficiencies in credibility. Canada is like the fellow in the big Mercedes with a roll of cash of five dollar bills and the top one (only) a thousand dollar bill – the original Michigan bank roll. Mr. President, a deal with Canada on NAFTA at this time would indeed be a deal with the devil.
Sincerely, Glen P. Robbins

Home| British Columbia Polls| Canada Polls| US and the World Polls| Contact| Register| Search| Site Map
Copyright Robbins SCE Research Inc. ©2017