November 9, 2023
Federal Court of Appeal Dismisses The Case In Which I Was Involved !
Judicial Supremacy —Plain Meaning of the Constitution Denied
‘I don’t think the Constitution is studied almost anywhere, including law schools. In law schools, what they study is what the court said about the Constitution. They study the opinions. They don’t study the Constitution itself.’
Judge Bork’s comments are relevant to this latest Court Dismissal. Captured by their own rules and interpretations Canadian Courts ignore the Constitution itself. And they are not about to consider the views of one , a former first minister who helped create the sections of the Constitution presently being examined.
Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms , a part of the Constitution Act of 1982 , is quite clear about what is needed to override the rights and freedoms provisions contained therein.
In the present case the Government Canada in invoking travel restrictions on unvaccinated Canadians citizens had to ‘demonstrably justify ‘ such actions, consistent with what one finds in a ‘free and democratic society.’ Section 1 of the Charter.
The Government never demonstrably justified their actions , let alone within any reasonable democratic framework. As a matter of fact there was testimony in the Federal Court hearing that the Government had no scientific justification to impose the travel restrictions. Justification lacking.
But lo and behold the Court , accepting the Federal Government argument that the travel restrictions now lifted at the time of Court hearing , although they could be imposed any time in the future, was all ‘moot’ , a term , of course , that the court itself has invented.
I , and my fellow litigants , and the other 6 million Canadians are left not knowing whether our rights to travel were violated or not. And the rest of the Canadian citizens remain in the dark as to what rights and freedoms they possess under the Charter.
My lawyer asked the Federal lawyers at the Federal Court hearing whether they would call me for cross examination given my involvement with the Charter. The answer was no.
In the later flawed Rouleau Inquiry my name was put forward to be a witness given the inquiry involved the Charter, that I was in Ottawa speaking on behalf of the Truckers Convoy and therefore could bring another perspective . I was not on the witness list.
Honourable A. Brian Peckford P.C.