To Cheer or not to Cheer?

Is Canada' recent federal court decision really worth celebrating?

It is important to READ legal decisions and not just watch “Interviews” about them. This article shows why.

Here is the Legal Decision from Justice Mosley that has the freedom community cheering.

https://www.fct-cf.gc.ca/Content/assets/pdf/base/2024.01.23-306-22-T-316-22-T-347-22-T-382-22.pdf

---

Here’s a closer read:

Page 71 and 72 of the “Final” decision from judge Mosley:

[210] I agree with the CCLA and the CCF that the question of whether a Cabinet decision is

unconstrained in the way urged by the Respondent turns on the statutory text and context of

the provisions at issue. The Emergencies Act contains objective legal thresholds that must be

satisfied before a Proclamation may issue. And these thresholds are “more akin to the legal

determinations courts make, governed by legal authorities, not policy”: Entertainment Software

at para 34. Thus, while the ultimate decision of whether to invoke the Act is highly discretionary,

the determination of whether the objective legal thresholds were met is not and attracts no

special deference beyond that set out in Vavilov.

---

So what is Justice Mosely saying exactly?

1. The emergencies act “thresholds” are “legal” determinations for “legal authorities” to make.

It is for “Courts” to decide whether something justifies an “Emergencies Act”.

What does this mean?

This means that un-elected judges are the ones who will determine whether or not there’s an “Emergency” that requires the emergency act.

To see how “Legal” decisions have catastrophic implications have a look at “A Criminal Surprise”:

---

Can judges be trusted to be REASONABLE?

You decide:

(Though the article gives little explanation due to the court order, this judge thinks that I’d be guilty if anyone publishes online on a topic that I’ve been prohibited from publishing about)

---

Does this sound like a page of “Filler” to fatten up 190 pages of “Judgement” ?

1. [211] In this instance, as discussed in Vavilov at para 124 and Mason at para 71, the Court may conclude that the “interplay of text, context and purpose leaves room for a single reasonable interpretation of the statutory provision, or aspect of the statutory provision”.

   1. (2)Was the decision to issue the Proclamation unreasonable and ultra vires the Act?

2. [212] The main question underlying the three applications is whether the decision to issue the Proclamation “bears the hallmarks of reasonableness – justification, transparency and intelligibility – and whether it is justified in relation to the relevant factual and legal constraints that bear on the decision”: Vavilov at para 99.

   ---

Here’s where it get’s serious:

• [245] I agree with the Respondent that the Act does not require that there be unanimous agreement from the Provinces before the Federal Government can declare that an emergency exists. But most Premiers informed the Prime Minister that invocation of the Act was not required in their provinces as their legislation and law enforcement authorities could deal with the situation, as they had for example, in Quebec. Those opposed included the Premier of Alberta where the use of existing federal criminal law measures and Alberta’s Critical Infrastructure Defence Act, SA 2020, c C-32.7, by the RCMP and provincial officials had defused the situation at Coutts as the EA was being invoked.

What does this mean?

Judge Mosley thinks that provinces don’t have to agree before an “Emergency” can be declared.

For example, if Prince Edward Island “DECIDED” there was an “EMERGENCY” the other 9 provinces wouldn’t have to agree for a Canada WIDE state of emergency (so long as the “Court” agrees).

---

Does it Get WORSE?

Page 86 of the 190 page ruling:

• [253] Due to its nature and to the broad powers it grants the Federal Executive, the Emergencies Act is a tool of last resort. The GIC cannot invoke the Emergencies Act because it is convenient, or because it may work better than other tools at their disposal or available to the provinces. This does not mean that every tool has to be used and tried to determine that the situation exceeded the capacity or authority of the provinces. And in this instance, the evidence is clear that the majority of the provinces were able to deal with the situation using other federal law, such as the Criminal Code, and their own legislation.

Is justice Mosley saying the only reason the “Emergency” was unreasonable was because the provinces already had adequate laws to DEAL with the protests? (Without an emergencies act?)

• Are trucker's protesting a violation of human rights an emergency or is it the government that is violating those rights?

Does justice Mosley hint that provinces SHOULD have used their own laws and the criminal code to suppress TRUCKERS for being a “Threat to NATIONAL SECURITY”??

---

REALLY?

Lets look at what judge Mosley says on page 87:

• [254] …..“While I agree that the evidence supports the conclusion that the situation was critical and required an urgent resolution by governments the evidence, in my view, does not support the conclusion that it could not have been effectively dealt with under other laws of Canada, as it was in Alberta, or that it exceeded the capacity or authority of a province to deal with it. That was demonstrated not to be the case in Quebec and other provinces and territories including Ontario, except in Ottawa.

Mosley says in effect that Trucker’s standing up for their right not to be a part of an mRNA EXPERIMENT is a “Critical” situation requiring “URGENT” resolution by governments.

---

Does Mosley think Canadians standing up for their right not to be INJECTED with a pharmaceutical with unknown effects are a SECURITY THREAT TO CANADA?

(Let’s see what he says)

• [256] Was the “threats to the security of Canada” threshold met? In a general sense, it was reasonable for the GIC to be alarmed at the impact of the blockades and the effects they were having on cross-border trade. Those effects could be said to fall within a broader sense of “threats to the security of Canada” or, more generally, the concept of “national security”.

So judge Mosley thinks the Governor In Council (GIC) was REASONABLE to be ALARMED at the blockades? (But not alarmed at the government mandates to take a genotoxic mRNA injection?)

---

What does this all mean?

1. Federal judge Mosley thinks that the protests should have been dealt with using provincial laws and the CRIMINAL CODE of Canada.

2. (That’s the only reason he says that the Emergencies act was UNREASONABLE)

3. He also thinks that un-elected “Legal Authorities” have the power to decide what constitutes an “EMERGENCY”.

---

Do you think the decision is worth celebrating? Leave your comments below and a quote from what part of the 190 pages that judge Mosley wrote deserve “celebration”.