Frack Patch Porn: The ultimate sexual assault by men in positions of power? Ensign drills Canada’s longest lateral, 7,770 metres (4.828 miles), at global frac-quake capital, Fox Creek, Alberta. Is it the world’s longest lateral onshore?
Misogynistic Justice. Rapist after rapist set free by Canadian judges. Think those judges will let you seek justice if your water is frac’d by Encana, enabled, covered-up by authorities with AER violating your Charter rights trying to terrify you into submissive silence, enabled by Supreme Court of Canada?
Violation of court order in Trans Mountain appeal ‘attack on the rule of law,’ judge says by Ian Burns, October 02, 2019, The Lawyer’s Daily
The Federal Court of Appeal has ordered one of the First Nations involved in the appeal of Canada’s most recent approval of the contentious Trans Mountain pipeline expansion project to rewrite its application for judicial review, saying it made a “serious and deliberate” violation of the order granting leave.
On Sept. 4, the court allowed six First Nations to challenge the federal cabinet’s approval of the project based on the adequacy of the consultation with Indigenous communities since Aug. 30, 2018.
The court’s order granting leave restricted the applications to three questions: was the consultation adequate in law; do any defences or bars to the application apply; and if the answers to the first two questions are no, should a remedy be granted and if so, what remedy and on what terms (Raincoast Conservation Foundation v. Canada (Attorney General) 2019 FCA 224).
But Justice David Stratas wrote the Tsleil-Waututh Nation’s application raised additional issues that went beyond the restrictions in the order granting leave (Ignace v. Canada (Attorney General) 2019 FCA 239, released Sept. 25). He held Tsleil-Waututh violated the order, and the violation was “serious and deliberate.” He noted Tsleil-Waututh “readily admits that its application for judicial review raises issues prohibited by the order granting leave.”
“Violation of a court order, particularly the sort of deliberate, defiant violation we have here, is most serious. It is an attack on the rule of law,” he wrote. “In some circumstances it can constitute contempt of court and be punishable by some of the toughest sanctions known to our law. The seriousness is compounded by Tsleil-Waututh’s penchant for relitigation and its unmeritorious attack on the impartiality of the court, two further abuses of process.”
Justice Stratas noted Tsleil-Waututh argued he was biased and had prejudged the outcome of the review of the applications, relying upon his previously expressed concern that Tsleil-Waututh’s notice of application was contrary to the restrictions in the order granting leave.
“I have not prejudged this review. I am not biased. I confirm that I have been open-minded and persuadable on all issues throughout,” he wrote. “This should be apparent, in part, from the care taken in these reasons to deal with the issues and the fact that, in the end, I have ordered a remedy similar to that proposed by Tsleil-Waututh Nation.”
Justice Stratas ordered Tsleil-Waututh and Squamish Nation, another party to the challenge, to file an amended notice of application for judicial review that complies with the restrictions in the order granting leave. He also kept in place the previously set timelines for the prehearing procedure in the challenge, despite the Trans Mountain Corporation’s contention Tsleil-Waututh Nation should not be given an opportunity to refile its application. He wrote doing that “would set in motion a complicated, potentially time-consuming chain of events that could undercut the objectives of the procedural and scheduling order, causing delay and frustrating the public interest.”
“In these circumstances, the public interest is paramount,” he wrote. “One way or the other, the parties in the consolidated proceedings — to say nothing of a good chunk of the population of Canada — await this Court’s ultimate verdict. A verdict is urgently needed.”
In an e-mail to The Lawyer’s Daily, the federal Department of Natural Resources noted Tsleil-Waututh Nation (TWN) has provided an amended application to the court. The government’s response to the application said it is generally compliant with the leave order, with two exceptions.
“First, TWN’s amended notice continues to impugn the governor-in-council’s decision on the basis of alleged flaws in the National Energy Board reconsideration process and scope,” the response said. “Second, TWN’s amended notice continues to allege that it has proven Aboriginal title and rights and seeks declaratory relief to that effect. Accordingly, while Canada objects to the filing of TWN’s amended notice as drafted, Canada would not object to the pleading if the non-compliant paragraphs that raise these impermissible issues were to be removed.”
David Wright of the University of Calgary faculty of law said the decision is “unusual, but we are in fairly unusual territory in general when it comes to this saga.”
“It’s not surprising to see that the six successful applicants on the leave to appeal were frustrated and decided to try to exceed the narrow parameters set by the court for their applications,” he said. “And on the other side it is not all that surprising to see the court is frustrated with such a flagrant non-compliance with the very clear and explicit court order of Sept. 4.” [Did the court grant these appeals for show? Keep the con going, make Canadians and the world believe there is some “justice” served by our courts?]
Wright said he was not surprised by the “pragmatic” remedy offered by the court.
“I think Justice Stratas does a good job of giving the parties his rationale. He says it’s within the court’s power here to shut the door tightly, but nobody wins in that circumstance,” he said. “So I wasn’t entirely surprised that after all these shots across the bow, if not shots directly to the hull, that he landed at that conclusion, even if it is just for pragmatic reasons.”
Wright said, although it looks as if Justice Stratas is making aggressive statements about Tsleil-Waututh Nation, “you can see hints he is talking to counsel.” [Gotta keep those rogue lawyers in line, scare them to keep enabling the abusive legal system?] He pointed to Justice Stratas’s statement that “the allegations of bias fall way short of the mark and never should have been made, especially by a sophisticated party represented by experienced counsel.”
“I don’t think he is frustrated with Tsleil-Waututh as a party, I think he is frustrated with the approach taken by counsel in this,” he said.
“And then in surprising language he also says basically the country is watching and public interest isn’t served if this gets even slower, so we’re going forward.”
[Or does the judge mean industry’s and industry’s enablers’ (banks, investors, hedge fund scammers, etc) interest isn’t served if this slows down? The public interest is served by this taking all the time that is needed. Politicians, legal industry players and public opinion manipulators boast about how long “justice” takes to be served, especially “fair” justice, and endlessly “justify” the endless years justice takes (while filling their pockets and pensions).]
Another interesting dimension of the decision is Justice Stratas “basically invites Tsleil-Waututh and Squamish Nation to apply for leave to the Supreme Court,” said Wright. [But, but, but, the Supreme Court’s process is terribly slow!]
“He says essentially what you have done is an appeal from this court to this court, and there is no any inherent power to do this. So, if you think you are right, go ahead and appeal to the Supreme Court,” he said.
Wright said it is “impossible to crystal ball” what the Supreme Court would do, but noted the Sept. 4 decision was not very detailed with respect to concerns about the environmental assessment and the Species at Risk Act.
“There is a thinness there that I think provide the basis for a potentially successful application to the Supreme Court to hear at least that dimension of things,” he said.
Both Scott Smith of Gowling WLG (Canada) LLP, who served as counsel for the Tsleil-Waututh Nation, and Maureen Killoran of Osler Hoskin & Harcourt LLP [representing Encana in Ernst vs Encana! Refer also below], who represented Trans Mountain, declined comment on the decision.
Refer also to:
2012 11 28: Power of Attorney Calgary managing partner for Osler Hoskin Harcourt, Maureen Killoran, interview with the Calgary Herald:
And, to be perfectly frank, when you do energy law, as I do, or corporate litigation, you’re not dealing with life and death situations and people whose lives have been turned upside down, plaintiffs who are weeping. It’s just about money.
Obviously, Ms. Killoran never asked Ernst if she cried(s) about her frac’d and dangerously contaminated drinking water (too dangerous to even use to flush toilets), the horrors of her public interest lawsuit, the threats trying to scare her to shut up, the horrors of the many obviously biased judges repeatedly setting her case backwards, etc.
What type of judge asks the defendants in a civil lawsuit about drinking water pollution to tell the court which judges they want? And what type of judge gives those defendants the judge they pick?
Ernst weeps regularly, especially now with her ex-lawyers working to kill her lawsuit and hurt Ernst directly by not returning that which belongs to her because she refuses to give lead lawyer, Murray Klippenstein what he (and the defendants and courts) want: “wind down” her lawsuit (which – of course – would come with a nice polluter-biased court-ordered gag).
Rule of law in Canada? Most unlikely, except to enable corporate abuse, greed & pollution; protect the rich, lying judges & lawyers, corrupt politicians & law violating regulators. Newfoundland and Labrador trying to jail journalist Justin Brake for doing his job, judge pathetically enables the abuse of process; Maureen Killoran, Encana lawyer in Ernst vs Encana, seeks outrageous injunction for Kinder Morgan, judge shows obvious bias for the company
How many Canadian judges work from the bench for the oil and gas industry, even American corporations, violating civil Canadians’ Charter rights? Justice Kenneth Affleck clearly coddles Trans Mountain
BARRISTERS’ BRIEFS Aspiring to Highest Standards of Civility: Excerpt from speech on importance of civility and truth in legal profession by Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench Chief Justice Neil C. Wittmann (volunteered to be Case Management Judge #2 in Ernst’s lawsuit)
Aka, not ok to lie in legal briefs or court or rulings etc, UNLESS, you are:
- Encana (lied in its Statement of Defence in Ernst vs Encana, says the company didn’t frac the wells the company’s own data shows the company frac’d, again and again and again and again),
- Alberta Environment also lied in it’s Statement of Defence, too many lies to list, see lawsuit page, and lied in briefs filed in court,
- AER’s outside counsel, Glenn Solomon (lied in briefs filed in Court of Queen’s Bench, Court of Appeal – one example, saying Ernst is a terrorist without filing any evidence to prove so, and in Supreme Court of Canada, saying Ernst argues she wants to be able to sue judges which Ernst never argued, lying about AER’s public interest, health and economic mandate, etc etc etc.),
- All nine Supreme Court of Canada judges, knowingly publishing the lie Justice Abella wrote in her ruling in Ernst vs AER, changing AER finding Ernst to be a criminal, then terrorist to the regulator finding Ernst to be a “vexatious litigant” (also without any evidence, no hearing or trial, our top court in the land not allowing Ernst to submit a Statement of Defence or the evidence to prove that Abella lied), even though the four dissenting judges, including then Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin, called Abella out on her lie in their dissent. The court included the lie in their summary sent to the media, not the dissent’s statement calling out the lie. The media, of course, just published the lie.
Nasty! Canadian courts describing “individuals as exhibiting ‘vexatious-style’ behavior without formally designating them as a vexatious litigant.” Is that how Supreme Court of Canada Justice Rosalie Abella gets away with ruling AER found Ernst to be “vexatious litigant” when evidence proves AER found Ernst to be a “criminal,” 7 years later, a terrorist – all without charges, evidence, trial or due process? With AG Jody Wilson-Raybould saying & doing nothing about Canada’s top judicial farce?
Labels given to Ernst by authorities/NGOs since she began speaking out about Encana’s, AER’s and Alberta Environment’s contaminated water cover-up and law violations:
- That “crazy lady” at Rosebud (by Encana’s licenced land agents, media, politicians and the regulators);
- Judged a “criminal” without due process and without any evidence by AER (then EUB) in 2005, in writing by a manager no less;
- “Eco-terrorist” by AER’s outside counsel, Glenn Solomon, in an official court filing in 2012, also without any evidence, fingerprinting, charges, due process;
- “Activist” and or “Fractivist” by Canada’s NGOs, including Council of Canadians and Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives (Why not name Ernst what she is? A Canadian citizen, Alberta business owner, landowner, scientist);
- “Water Activist” by Lawyers Weekly Magazine (see above smears by NGOs);
- Political grandstanding “Nutcase” by AER’s outside counsel, Glenn Solomon;
- “Vexatious litigant” and “Alice in Wonderland” by Justice Rosalie Abella in Supreme Court of Canada’s official ruling in Ernst vs AER,
- What smear next and by whom?
2019 07 09: Three Leaves to Appeal the Claimed Jurisdiction of Court of Queen’s Bench Over Vexatious Litigants by Jonnette Watson Hamilton:
… A vexatious litigant starts out with at least one strike against them….
Who orders a new hearing for a Supreme Court of Canada ruling where 9 justices knowingly published a lie and sent it to the media? Who “slaps” Justice Rosalie Abella for knowingly lying in her ruling and belittling the applicant?
Jessica Ernst Open Letter to Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin Regarding False and Seriously Damaging Statements in Justice Rosalie Abella’s Supreme Court of Canada Ruling, Ernst v AER
A few of the comments:
“In the split ruling, one of the Supreme Court judges, Rosalie Abella, said the regulator found Ernst a“vexatious litigant,” though no regulator in Alberta has ever described Ernst as such.”
Judge Rosalie Abella’s conduct in pronouncing Ernst a vexatious litigant is a profound error in judgement raising questions as to her competence. It is not within her jurisdiction to even make such a comment revealing her unprofessional attitude and error.
Had that matter been put forth by the defendant, it may have been appropriate to rule on that matter. To add that “finding”, essentially augmenting the case for the defence, which was already found to be protected and immune from consequences is both practicing law from the bench – an unlawful and unprofessional conduct – and a gratuitous reverse-SLAPP to the litigant intended to commit permanent harm. …
“Judge Rosalie Abella’s conduct in pronouncing Ernst a vexatious litigant is a profound error in judgement raising questions as to her competence. It is not within her jurisdiction to even make such a comment revealing her unprofessional attitude and error.Had that matter been put forth by the defendant, it may have been appropriate to rule on that matter. To add that ‘finding’, essentially augmenting the case for the defence, which was already found to be protected and immune from consequences is both practicing law from the bench – an unlawful and unprofessional conduct – and a gratuitous reverse-SLAPP to the litigant intended to commit permanent harm.”
Thanks for this kootzie.
Clearly Justice Abella should have recused herself, since she obviously has a festering chip on her shoulders. Or …