Podcasts about constitution act

Episode 21 - The Protection of Treaty with Margo Auger part 2 What - In Canada, treaty rights are constitutionally protected under Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, recognizing and affirming the rights of Indigenous peoples. This protection ensures that treaties, including modern treaties, are given the force of law. Join Keepers of the Water as we pick up where Margo left off as she continues to discuss the protection of theses treaties. Who - In episode 20 we hear from Margo Auger, a Nehiyaw Iskew from Bigstone Cree Nation.She is a wife and mother to three beautiful children and Kokum to one handsome grandson.She is a working professional with over 26 years of experience. Her background is in First Nation Governance and Leadership, Executive Management, Chief Administration Leadership, and as a Certified Land Use Planner and Project Manager. She has worked in Municipal Government and the Energy Sector (oilsands companies) as Managing Growth Consultant, for the Alberta Government, and currently Treaty 8 First Nations. Music - 'Meanwhile' by Scott Buckley - released under CC-BY 4.0. www.scottbuckley.com.au

Episode 20 - The Protection of Treaty with Margo Auger part 1 What - In Canada, treaty rights are constitutionally protected under Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, recognizing and affirming the rights of Indigenous peoples. This protection ensures that treaties, including modern treaties, are given the force of law. Join Keepers of the Water and discuss the protection of theses treaties with Margo Auger of Treaty 8. Who - In episode 20 we hear from Margo Auger, a Nehiyaw Iskew from Bigstone Cree Nation.She is a wife and mother to three beautiful children and Kokum to one handsome grandson.She is a working professional with over 26 years of experience. Her background is in First Nation Governance and Leadership, Executive Management, Chief Administration Leadership, and as a Certified Land Use Planner and Project Manager. She has worked in Municipal Government and the Energy Sector (oilsands companies) as Managing Growth Consultant, for the Alberta Government, and currently Treaty 8 First Nations. Music - 'Shadows and Dust' by Scott Buckley - released under CC-BY 4.0. www.scottbuckley.com.au

A Former Treaty Negotiations Minister believes taking the Treaty Principals Bill to a referendum is a prescription for disaster. Parliament has voted down the contentious bill spearheaded by David Seymour - only Act voting in favour. Seymour says the party will take another strategy to pursue its agenda. Former Minister Chris Finlayson told Andrew Dickens Act's principals could go into a Constitution Act or something similar. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The appellants, the Attorney General of Quebec and His Majesty the King, obtained leave to appeal to the Supreme Court from the declaration of unconstitutionality made by the Quebec Court of Appeal pursuant to s. 52(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982 with respect to the mandatory minimum sentences of 12 months' imprisonment provided for in s. 163.1(4)(a) and (4.1)(a) of the Criminal Code. According to the majority of the Court of Appeal, these provisions violate s. 12 of the Canadian Charter, namely, the guarantee provided against cruel and unusual punishment, and cannot be justified in a free and democratic society under s. 1 of the Canadian Charter. That declaration of unconstitutionality resulted from appeals filed notably in respect of two decisions rendered by the Court of Québec regarding the sentences to be imposed on the respondents, Mr. Naud and Mr. Senneville. Mr. Naud was convicted of two counts relating to possession and distribution of child pornography. Sentences of 9 months' imprisonment for possession and 11 months' imprisonment for distribution pursuant to s. 163.1(4)(a) and (3) of the Criminal Code were imposed on him, along with various consequential orders. Mr. Senneville was convicted of two counts relating to possessing and accessing child pornography. Sentences of 90 days' imprisonment to be served intermittently for possession and 90 days' imprisonment to be served intermittently for accessing child pornography pursuant to s. 163.1(4)(a) and (4.1)(a) of the Criminal Code were imposed on him, also along with various consequential orders. Argued Date 2025-01-20 Keywords Charter of Rights — Cruel and unusual treatment or punishment — One-year minimum sentences — Child pornography — Counts relating to possessing and accessing child pornography — Whether s. 163.1(4)(a) of Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, violates s. 12 of Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms — If it does, whether it is reasonable limit prescribed by law that can be demonstrably justified in free and democratic society under s. 1 of Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms — Whether s. 163.1(4.1)(a) of Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, violates s. 12 of Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms — If it does, whether it is reasonable limit prescribed by law that can be demonstrably justified in free and democratic society under s. 1 of Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms — Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, ss. 12 and 1 — Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, s. 163.1(4)(a) and (4.1)(a). Notes (Quebec) (Criminal) (By Leave) Language English Audio Disclaimers This podcast is created as a public service to promote public access and awareness of the workings of Canada's highest court. It is not affiliated with or endorsed by the Court. The original version of this hearing may be found on the Supreme Court of Canada's website. The above case summary was prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch).

Can a province truly bypass judicial processes in the name of housing development? Join us as we tackle this question with Michael Mulligan of Mulligan Defence Lawyers, providing his expert insights into a legal storm brewing over a proposed 12-story housing project in Vancouver's Kitsilano neighbourhood. This episode uncovers constitutional tensions as the provincial government attempts to circumvent judicial review, sparking a broader discussion about the limits of provincial power and the essential role of superior courts as outlined in section 96 of the Constitution Act 1867. Listen closely as we dissect the court's stance on rezoning requirements and the implications for due process.In another compelling narrative, we follow the legal fight for a young woman in foster care, spotlighting her struggle for adequate lifelong support against the backdrop of government-imposed financial caps. Delve into the province's contentious plan to offset compensation with potential aid from Community Living BC. At the same time, we introduce the novel "Peter's Promise" concept from the UK that challenges conventional compensation frameworks. Through this analysis, we emphasize the dignity and autonomy of individuals affected by legal decisions whilst navigating the uncertainties of relying on government support. Michael Mulligan's expertise brings clarity to these intricate issues, making this episode a must-listen for anyone interested in the dynamic interplay between law, community, and individual rights.Follow this link for a transcript of the show and links to the cases discussed.

For over 157 years, the Canadian federation has derived its legitimacy from a written constitution made up of 31 documents, the majority of which have no legal force in the French language, among them the foundational Constitution Act of 1867, formerly referred to as the British North America Act. While the Constitution Act of 1982 was written and adopted in both official languages, the remaining 71% of the documents, though translated, have yet to be promulgated. 42 years and counting. How did we get here? And what are the consequences of a 71% unilingual constitution? Professor François Larocque, holder of the first Canadian Francophonie Research Chair in Language Rights since 2018, is one of Canada's top experts on language rights and is currently involved in litigation aimed at solving this issue once and for all.The French version of this episode is available here: Canadian Bar Association - Juriste branché (cba.org).Constitution bilingue / Bilingual Constitution (youtube.com)

This week, Kate delves into the pages of the Haliburton Echo from July 30, 1953 to bring us stories about the local efforts of the Rotary Club. Plus, Paul talks about the Constitution Act of 1791 - one of the steps in the long evolution of Canada from being a colony to an independent country. Under the Constitution Act Britain split the former colony of New France into Upper and Lower Canada. The good intentions of the Act ended up with the Family Compact and Clergy Land Reserves. These in turn built up tensions that led to separate rebellions in Upper and Lower Canada in 1837/38. The British response to the rebellions moved Canada one step closer to Confederation. Kate Butler is the Director of the Haliburton Highlands Museum. Paul Vorvis is the host of the Your Haliburton Morning Show 7 - 9 a.m. Fridays on Canoe FM 100.9 and streaming on your devices. Haliburton County is in cottage country about 2 1/2 hours north of Toronto. You can contact us at timewarp@canoefm.com

On Episode 41, we discuss why Newfoundland is suing the federal government over equalization; we explain the debate over whether mandatory union dues violate conscience rights; and we tell you about the latest loss in the fight against COVID-19 gathering limits. Stories and cases discussed in this week's episode:Anti-masker loses bid to have pandemic ticket turfed Winnipegger loses court fight to quash ticket for attending People's Party rally amid pandemic restrictionsPremier Brian Pallister speaks out against racism but won't attend Winnipeg rallySection 36 of the Constitution Act, 1982Sask. to join Newfoundland and Labrador in court challenge over equalization formulaCCF Victory: charges dropped against lone protestor in KingstonBrian Dijkema: It's time for freedom of conscience to stop union dues from going to Hamas sympathizers John Ivison: CUPE is being held to account for its obsessive anti-Israel vitriolNot Reserving Judgment is a podcast about Canadian constitutional law hosted by Josh Dehaas, Joanna Baron, and Christine Van Geyn.The show is brought to you by the Canadian Constitution Foundation, a non-partisan legal charity dedicated to defending rights and freedoms. To support our work, visit theccf.ca/donate.

In 2018, the Province of British Columbia (hereafter, “BC”) enacted the Opioid Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act (the “ORA”). The ORA allows BC to recover health care costs caused or contributed to by “opioid-related wrongs” committed by manufacturers and distributors of opioid drugs. Section 11 of the ORA applies to proceedings relating to opioid-related wrongs that were ongoing as of the date that it came into force; such proceedings are continued in accordance with the ORA. Section 11(1)(b) states that for the purposes of s. 4 of the Class Proceedings Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 50 (the “CPA”), BC may “bring an action” on behalf of a class consisting of one or more of the governments of Canada and the provinces or territories of Canada (a so-called “multi-Crown” proceeding). Section 11(2) preserves the right of those governments to opt out of the proceeding in accordance with s. 16 of the CPA. Appellants Sanis Health Inc., Shoppers Drug Mart Inc., Sandoz Canada Inc., and McKesson Canada Corporation (collectively, “Sanis”), are named as defendants in the proposed “multi-Crown” class proceeding which underlies this appeal. The underlying proceeding was commenced before s. 11 of the ORA came into force, and it is the only proceeding to which s. 11 applies. Sanis sought, by way of summary trial, an order striking s. 11 as ultra vires the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia and therefore of no force or effect pursuant to s. 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982. The summary trial judge held that the s. 11 was within the legislature's authority, and dismissed Sanis' applications for a declaration of constitutional invalidity. A unanimous Court of Appeal held that the summary trial judge did not err in upholding the constitutional validity of s. 11 of the ORA, and dismissed Sanis' appeal. Argued Date 2024-05-23 Keywords Constitutional law — Division of powers — Civil procedure — Class actions — Multi-Crown proceedings — Provincial legislation providing province may bring an action on behalf of a class consisting of governments of Canada and the provinces and territories of Canada — Whether s. 11 of the Opioid Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act, S.B.C. 2018, c. 35 is ultra vires the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia and of no force or effect pursuant to s. 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982 — Opioid Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act, S.B.C. 2018, c. 35, s. 11 Notes (British Columbia) (Civil) (By Leave) Language English Audio Disclaimers This podcast is created as a public service to promote public access and awareness of the workings of Canada's highest court. It is not affiliated with or endorsed by the Court. The original version of this hearing may be found on the Supreme Court of Canada's website. The above case summary was prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch).

In 2018, the Province of British Columbia (hereafter, “BC”) enacted the Opioid Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act (the “ORA”). The ORA allows BC to recover health care costs caused or contributed to by “opioid-related wrongs” committed by manufacturers and distributors of opioid drugs. Section 11 of the ORA applies to proceedings relating to opioid-related wrongs that were ongoing as of the date that it came into force; such proceedings are continued in accordance with the ORA. Section 11(1)(b) states that for the purposes of s. 4 of the Class Proceedings Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 50 (the “CPA”), BC may “bring an action” on behalf of a class consisting of one or more of the governments of Canada and the provinces or territories of Canada (a so-called “multi-Crown” proceeding). Section 11(2) preserves the right of those governments to opt out of the proceeding in accordance with s. 16 of the CPA. Appellants Sanis Health Inc., Shoppers Drug Mart Inc., Sandoz Canada Inc., and McKesson Canada Corporation (collectively, “Sanis”), are named as defendants in the proposed “multi-Crown” class proceeding which underlies this appeal. The underlying proceeding was commenced before s. 11 of the ORA came into force, and it is the only proceeding to which s. 11 applies. Sanis sought, by way of summary trial, an order striking s. 11 as ultra vires the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia and therefore of no force or effect pursuant to s. 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982. The summary trial judge held that the s. 11 was within the legislature's authority, and dismissed Sanis' applications for a declaration of constitutional invalidity. A unanimous Court of Appeal held that the summary trial judge did not err in upholding the constitutional validity of s. 11 of the ORA, and dismissed Sanis' appeal. Argued Date 2024-05-24 Keywords Constitutional law — Division of powers — Civil procedure — Class actions — Multi-Crown proceedings — Provincial legislation providing province may bring an action on behalf of a class consisting of governments of Canada and the provinces and territories of Canada — Whether s. 11 of the Opioid Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act, S.B.C. 2018, c. 35 is ultra vires the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia and of no force or effect pursuant to s. 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982 — Opioid Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act, S.B.C. 2018, c. 35, s. 11 Notes (British Columbia) (Civil) (By Leave) Language English Audio Disclaimers This podcast is created as a public service to promote public access and awareness of the workings of Canada's highest court. It is not affiliated with or endorsed by the Court. The original version of this hearing may be found on the Supreme Court of Canada's website. The above case summary was prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch).

In this episode I'm looking into a particular issue of government waste. Specifically I'd like to dig into the funding of religious schools in Ontario. Is this a good investment for society, or a ruinous subsidy to a single religious minority? This is a polarizing issue in Ontario that has been too hot to handle for politicians.  The last time a political party in Ontario sought to propose a change to the system (John Tory's conservative party proposed in the 2007 election to fund all religious schools) their party was hung out to dry by the voters.  Proponents of the special status for Catholic schools note that funding of their particular religion is enshrined in Canada's constitution. Section 93 of the Constitution Act, 1867, protects the Catholic school system. Opponents note that Ontario is the only province that funds just one type of religious school.  Let's get the facts. My guest today has published articles calling for the Abolition of publicly funded Catholic school system in Ontario. David Moscrop is a columnist and the author of Too Dumb for Democracy? Why We Make Bad Political Decisions and How We Can Make Better Ones. He is a political commentator for television, radio, and print media. He is also the host of Open To Debate, a current affairs podcast, and Left Looking In with CUPE Local 416. He holds a PhD in political science from the University of British Columbia. Support the podcast at patron.podbean.com/TheRationalView Give me your feedback on Facebook @TheRationalView

This Day in Legal History: Canada CreatedOn March 29, 1867, a pivotal moment in legal and political history unfolded as the British Parliament passed the British North America Act, laying the groundwork for a united and independent Dominion of Canada. This act was a monumental step, not just for the territories involved, but for the concept of nation-building and governance in the 19th century. It provided a structured constitution for Canada, which at the time, united the provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and the Canada province (which was subsequently divided into Ontario and Quebec) under a single federal government. This legislative move was pivotal in defining Canada's national identity and sovereignty.The British North America Act, also known as the Constitution Act of 1867, is celebrated for introducing a federal system of government, allocating specific powers to the provinces and others to the federal government, a structure that has endured and evolved. It also established the bicameral legislature comprising the House of Commons and the Senate, adopting a parliamentary system modelled after that of the United Kingdom. This act not only marked the legal birth of Canada but also set a precedent for the peaceful transition of power and the creation of new nations through legislative means.The passage of this act was the culmination of a series of conferences and negotiations among the leaders of the British North American colonies, reflecting a mature and collaborative approach to nationhood. It addressed the pressing need for a united front in the face of external threats and internal discord, particularly the Fenian raids and the threat of American expansionism. When the act took effect on July 1, 1867, it did not merely create a new country; it established a framework for democracy, rights, and governance that Canadians continue to build upon. This legislation stands as a testament to the enduring values of unity, cooperation, and self-governance, marking March 29 as a day of significant legal and historical importance in the creation of the Dominion of Canada.The U.S. is facing a growing legal dispute over nuclear waste storage, likely headed for the Supreme Court, following conflicting appellate court decisions regarding the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) authority to license two proposed storage facilities. The most recent decision from the Fifth Circuit Court vacated a license for Holtec International to store spent nuclear fuel in New Mexico, similar to an earlier ruling against a Texas facility by Interim Storage Partners (ISP). These decisions oppose a prior ruling from the District of Columbia Circuit, which approved the ISP facility's license, highlighting a significant legal split.Holtec and ISP, along with government support, are expected to challenge the Fifth Circuit's decisions, suggesting a Supreme Court review could overturn them. This legal stalemate underscores the challenges of finding a solution for the 86,000 metric tons of nuclear waste stored across 33 states. Efforts to establish a permanent site have been stalled, notably with the withdrawal from the Yucca Mountain project, leading to temporary storage proposals. The Supreme Court's potential involvement could resolve the legal impasse and address the broader issue of nuclear waste management in the U.S.US Efforts to Store Nuclear Waste Poised for High Court ReviewSam Bankman-Fried, the founder of the now-defunct FTX cryptocurrency exchange, was sentenced to 25 years in prison for a fraud involving $8 billion stolen from customers, marking a significant moment in his rapid fall from grace. U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan in Manhattan imposed the sentence after finding Bankman-Fried guilty of seven fraud and conspiracy charges related to FTX's 2022 collapse, rejecting the defense's claims that customers did not lose money and deeming Bankman-Fried unremorseful. Despite apologizing for the impact on customers and colleagues, Bankman-Fried did not admit to criminal actions and plans to appeal both his conviction and sentence.The sentencing reflects the severe consequences of defrauding investors and customers in the financial industry, underscoring the message from U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland about the accountability awaiting those who commit financial crimes. Kaplan highlighted the significant losses incurred by FTX customers, equity investors, and lenders to the Alameda Research hedge fund, founded by Bankman-Fried, totaling over $11 billion in losses. This led to an $11 billion forfeiture order to compensate the victims.Prosecutors had requested a sentence ranging from 40 to 50 years, while Bankman-Fried's defense argued for a significantly shorter term, portraying him as an awkward but non-malicious figure who attempted to recover customer funds post-collapse. Despite efforts to distance Bankman-Fried from infamous fraudsters and emphasize his mathematical decision-making, the court remained focused on the extensive harm caused by his actions.Bankman-Fried's status as a prominent political donor and figure in the cryptocurrency space, known for his commitment to effective altruism and significant contributions to political causes, was also scrutinized. His detention since August 2023, due to concerns over witness tampering, and the judge's recommendation for his incarceration near San Francisco, highlight the gravity of his offenses and the legal system's response to financial malfeasance in the emerging cryptocurrency market.Bankman-Fried sentenced to 25 years for multi-billion dollar FTX fraud | ReutersTexas Attorney General Ken Paxton has initiated an investigation into Spirit AeroSystems Holdings Inc, a key supplier of parts for Boeing, due to ongoing issues with some of these parts. This inquiry comes in the wake of Boeing CEO Dave Calhoun's announcement of his departure by year's end, following a series of concerns raised by regulators and airline customers, notably after a panel detached from a 737 MAX 9 jet in January.Texas attorney general opens investigation into parts supplier for Boeing | ReutersDetails have emerged regarding Facebook's extensive history of spying on its users' encrypted communications across various apps and services, highlighting a broader issue of online privacy exploitation by numerous entities. In 2018, Facebook was discovered using a "privacy protecting VPN" called Onavo as spyware to monitor user activity on other platforms, an operation that had been sanctioned by CEO Mark Zuckerberg under "Project Ghostbusters." This project aimed to intercept and decrypt encrypted app traffic from users of Snapchat, YouTube, and Amazon, effectively conducting a large-scale "man in the middle attack" to spy on users. The strategy involved developing spyware capable of accessing data before encryption, utilizing the Onavo VPN, acquired by Facebook in 2013 and repurposed for espionage without clear disclosure to users.Internal documents from a lawsuit against Facebook's parent company, Meta, reveal that high-ranking Facebook executives were aware of the ethical and security issues posed by such surveillance but proceeded regardless. This revelation is part of a class action lawsuit filed in 2020, accusing Facebook of spying on users and lying about it. The case underscores the lax consumer privacy protections in the U.S. and the vast, loosely regulated ecosystem of data surveillance that compromises personal information for profit, often under the guise of anonymization. Despite numerous privacy scandals, there has been little meaningful action from Congress to address these concerns, particularly when lobbyists for companies like Facebook aim to eliminate competitors like TikTok. The situation raises alarms about the potential for future scandals that could finally prompt legislative action on privacy.Details Emerge Of Facebook's Long History Of Spying On Encrypted User Communications Across Different Apps And Service | TechdirtJoseph Haydn (1732-1809), was a towering figure in the Classical period of Western music, and holds a foundational place in the history of symphonic and chamber music. Born in Rohrau, Austria, Haydn's musical journey began at a young age, leading him to become a choirboy at St. Stephen's Cathedral in Vienna. Despite a challenging start, Haydn's undeniable talent and relentless work ethic propelled him into the circles of the Esterházy family, one of the most influential patrons of the arts in Austria, where he spent much of his career as a court musician.Haydn's contributions to music are monumental, having composed over 100 symphonies, numerous operas, string quartets, piano sonatas, and two celebrated oratorios, "The Creation" and "The Seasons." His work laid the groundwork for future generations, earning him the titles "Father of the Symphony" and "Father of the String Quartet." Through his innovative structures, development of musical motifs, and the exploration of dynamic contrasts, Haydn shaped the Classical style, influencing contemporaries and successors alike, including Mozart and Beethoven.Haydn's legacy is not just in his compositions but in his approach to music as a vibrant, living art form. His ability to infuse his works with wit, humor, and deep emotion speaks to his profound understanding of the human experience, making his music timeless and universally admired.Featured Piece: Symphony No. 77 in B flat major, IV. Allegro spiritosoThis week, we feature the exhilarating final movement, "Allegro spiritoso," from Joseph Haydn's Symphony No. 77 in B flat major. Composed during the zenith of Haydn's career in the late 18th century, this symphony exemplifies Haydn's mastery in orchestrating dynamic contrasts and his flair for thematic development.The Symphony No. 77 is part of Haydn's middle-period works, where he experimented with form and harmony to expand the expressive capabilities of the symphony. The "Allegro spiritoso" movement, in particular, showcases Haydn's skill in creating engaging musical narratives that are both intellectually satisfying and emotionally compelling. This movement is characterized by its spirited tempo and the lively, joyful themes that dance throughout the piece, providing a fitting conclusion to the symphony.Listeners will appreciate the movement's clever use of dynamics, the interplay between the orchestral sections, and the seamless transitions that propel the music forward. It's a testament to Haydn's ability to compose music that feels fresh and invigorating, demonstrating why he remains a central figure in the classical music canon.As we explore "Allegro spiritoso," let us appreciate the genius of Haydn, whose music continues to inspire and delight audiences around the world. Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

The appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada originates from Court Martial Appeal Court (CMAC). Prior to the appeal being filed, multiple decisions came out by military judges which held that there is a lack of institutional independence because of their risk of prosecution under the military's code of Service Discipline. It leaves military judges at risk of being influenced by a senior member of the Canadian Armed Forces. The separate roles is a fundamental postulate of the rule of law. Therefore, judicial independence must not only exist in fact, but it must also be seen to exist to a reasonable person. The appellants are members of the Canadian Armed forces who had various charges laid against them. The appeals focus on whether the role and status of military judges as military officers in the chain of command compromises their institutional independence, denying the appellants their right to a hearing under s.11 (d) of the Charter. The question in issue before the Supreme Court of Canada are the following: 1) Since Genereux, do military judges deciding cases still raise a reasonable apprehension of bias? 2) Has there been significant societal change which dissipates this court's concern that a trial before a military judge is a matter of practical necessity? 3) If so, does the military status of judges, prescribed under the National Defence Act's legislative scheme, lead an informed person, viewing the matter realistically and practically, to conclude that there is an apprehension of bias contrary to s.11 (d) of the Charter? 4) If so is this violation saved under s 1 of the Charter? 5) If not, what is the appropriate constitutional remedy under s 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982?

  Watch the video of the interview on Rumble View Here Actor and filmmaker Rob Reiner's new podcast on the JFK assassination Who Killed JFK? (Spotify) How Rob Reiner got interested in the case FREE Borrowable Ebook: Rush to Judgement (1967) by Mark Lane FREE Borrowable Ebook: The Man Who Knew Too Much (Richard Case Nagell) (revised) by Dick Russell James Angleton and Allen Dulles The podcast has been created in a way that makes it very easy for beginners to understand Operation Northwoods (PDF) George Joannides's role with the HSCA There maybe a book released in the near future based on the podcast Part B: Ray McGinnis; beginning at 30:13 Federal Court released findings in its Judicial Review and declared Cabinet invocation of the Emergencies Act was illegal and in contravention of i) the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, ii) the Constitution Act of 1982, and sections of the Emergencies Act Court ruling justly slams Trudeau's use of Emergencies Act Trial of Tamara Lich and Chris Barber: Day 27, Day 34 Article: Court Documents Reveal Canada's Travel Ban Had No Scientific Basis by Rupa Subramanya Article: Health Canada's contract with Pfizer exposes their liberal use of the word "safe" Video: Viva Frei - Interview with Keith Wilson - Brian Peckford's Charter The latest legal breakdown Justice for Josh Alexander Renfrew board upholds Josh Alexander's suspension Catholic High School Student Suspended Over Gender Beliefs Loses Appeal Ottawa Police Detective Helen Grus Not Allowed Any Defense Witnesses Ottawa Police Prosecutor Vanessa Stewart Likens Detective Helen Grus to Serial Rapist-Murderer Russell Williams Ontario Teen Suspended for Gender Views Seeks Judicial Review of 'Secret' School Board Decision Video: Jordan Peterson: "I Can FINALLY Tell Y  

Shane Jones says he's going to be taking Te Pati Māori's recent actions to the new Speaker.   Te Pati Māori MPs defied tradition at Parliament's opening ceremony yesterday by swearing allegiance to both Te Tiriti and their mokopuna, as well as King Charles III.  The New Zealand First MP told Mike Hosking that if it's good enough for Winston Peters and himself to follow the letter of the law and swear allegiance to the King, its good enough for Te Pati Māori.   Jones believes they've contravened section 11 of the Constitution Act, and he will be speaking to Gerry Brownlee.  He says he's also unhappy with the imagery the party used to organise recent protests.  LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

(PUBLICATION BAN IN CASE) The appellants are members of the Canadian Armed Forces who had various charges laid against them. They each filed a preliminary application in the Court Martial seeking a stay of proceedings because of an alleged infringement of their constitutional right to be tried by an independent and impartial tribunal guaranteed by s. 11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. They argued that their right was infringed by an order by the Chief of Defence Staff dated October 2, 2019 regarding the designation of a commanding officer for purposes of considering disciplinary matters for military judges (“impugned order”). Captain Crépeau, in her application, also asked the tribunal to declare ss. 12, 18 and 60 of the National Defence Act to be of no force or effect, alleging that their combined effect was to allow the Chief of Defence Staff to issue an order, like the impugned order, relating directly to discipline for military judges and thus to permit the military hierarchy to exert pressure on a military judge presiding at a court martial. In a series of decisions, military judges concluded that there was an infringement of the accused's right guaranteed by s. 11(d) of the Charter. In each of the proceedings, they made a similar declaration to the effect that the impugned order was an infringement of the right set out in s. 11(d) of the Charter. They also stayed the proceedings under s. 24(1) of the Charter. The Court Martial Appeal Court of Canada allowed the Crown's appeals, ruling that no informed person would conclude that there was an apprehension of bias or that the independence of courts martial was compromised. It dismissed Captain Crépeau's cross-appeal. This appeal will be heard jointly with the appeals in files 39822, 40046, 40065 and 40103. Argued Date 2023-10-16 Keywords Canadian charter (Criminal) - Constitutional law, Judicial independence, Armed Forces, Military offences - Charter of Rights — Right to be tried by independent and impartial tribunal — Constitutional law — Judicial independence — Courts martial — Armed forces — Military offences — Since R. v. Généreux, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 259, does the military status of military judges still raise a reasonable apprehension of bias? — Since Généreux, has there been significant societal change which dissipates this Court's concern that the military status of military judges is a matter of practical necessity? — If so, does the military status of military judges, prescribed under the National Defence Act's legislative scheme, lead an informed person, viewing the matter realistically and practically, to conclude that there is an apprehension of bias contrary to s. 11(d) of the Charter? — If so, is this violation justified under s. 1 of the Charter? — If not, what is the appropriate constitutional remedy under s. 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982? — Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s. 11(d) — National Defence Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. N-5, s. 165.21(1) . Notes (Federal) (Criminal) (By Leave) Disclaimers This podcast is created as a public service to promote public access and awareness of the workings of Canada's highest court. It is not affiliated with or endorsed by the Court. The original version of this hearing may be found on the Supreme Court of Canada's website. The above case summary was prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch).

In our recent podcast episode, we delved deep into the complexities of the British Columbia (BC) Constitution Act, focusing on the potential reasons a member of the legislative assembly (MLA) could forfeit their seat. These reasons can range from absenteeism and allegiance to foreign powers to dual citizenship and serious criminal convictions.The subject has become a hot topic following recent upheaval over a Victoria city councillor's controversial letter. However, the BC Constitution Act goes beyond merely providing a framework for government operation; it also lays the groundwork for political accountability. Understanding the Act's intricacies allows us to better comprehend the checks and balances in place to ensure public officeholders adhere to expected conduct.We also explored two notable legal cases that have recently made the news. The first case involved an injury-at-work incident that resulted in a $10,000 award under the human rights code. Despite the employer's best efforts to appeal, the decision was upheld, shedding light on the complexities of the human rights code in workplace situations.The second case revolved around a property tax predicament. A couple faced a heavy 20% tax on their house purchase because one of them was not a permanent resident or citizen. This case highlighted the government's role in court cases and the importance of judicial independence.Overall, these discussions underscore the government's significant role in court cases and the judicial system's critical independence. As citizens, it's essential to understand how these legal mechanisms work, not only to protect our rights but also to ensure we remain informed and active participants in our democracy.The BC Constitution Act and the various legal cases we discussed underscore the vital interplay between politics and law. Whether it's the forfeiture of a political seat or the interpretation of human rights in a workplace injury case, these legal provisions and judgments shape our society's functioning. As such, understanding them is not just a matter of academic interest but of practical significance to every citizen.Ultimately, this episode left us pondering the government's role in court cases and the critical significance of judicial independence. By dissecting these legal intricacies, we hope to provide our listeners with a deeper understanding of the BC Constitution Act and its impacts on both political careers and broader societal issues.Follow this link for links to the cases discussed. 

On September 22, 1877, the Blackfoot Confederacy and the Crown executed Treaty 7, which established Reserve No. 148, the largest reserve in Canada. It is the home of the Kainai, or Blood Tribe. Under the Treaty, the size of the reserve was to be established through a formula promising “one square mile for each family of five persons, or in that proportion for larger and smaller families”. The Blood Tribe has long claimed that the actual size of its reserve did not accord with that promised by the Treaty and, in 1980, commenced an action in the Federal Court. For decades the action sat in abeyance. In 2016, the court held phase I of the trial of the action, for the purpose of receiving oral history evidence from aging members of the Blood Tribe. Phase II commenced in 2018 to hear fact and expert witness evidence, and to make a determination on liability. At the completion of phase II, the trial judge found that the Blood Tribe's claims were discoverable more than six years before the action was commenced in 1980 and, with the exception of a claim for breach of treaty, were therefore time-barred through the operation of The Limitation of Actions Act, R.S.A. 1970, c. 209 and s. 39 of the Federal Courts Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7. The trial judge held that an action for breach of a treaty commitment could not be pursued in a Canadian court prior to the advent of s. 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. Therefore, for the purposes of the limitations statute, time for a breach of treaty claim only began to run in 1982. The trial judge found that Canada was in breach of its treaty commitment, and that the size of the Reserve was understated by 162.5 square miles. The Crown appealed. The Federal Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and varied the Federal Court's judgment to state that all claims of the Blood Tribe were time-barred. Argued Date 2023-10-12 Keywords Aboriginal law - Treaty rights, Limitation of actions - Aboriginal law — Treaty rights — Treaty 7 — Limitation of actions — Breach of treaty as cause of action —Whether breach of treaty was actionable in Canadian courts prior to the coming into force of s. 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 — Whether limitation periods for breach of treaty claims began to run prior to the passage of s. 35 — Limitation of Actions Act, R.S.A. 1970, c. 209; Federal Courts Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7 . Notes (Federal) (Civil) (By Leave) Disclaimers This podcast is created as a public service to promote public access and awareness of the workings of Canada's highest court. It is not affiliated with or endorsed by the Court. The original version of this hearing may be found on the Supreme Court of Canada's website. The above case summary was prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch).

Markham interviews Professor Shaun Fluker of the University of Calgary faculty of law about Sections 91 and 92 of the Constitution Act, 1867 that sets out the powers of the provincial and federal governments.

Collège de FranceLaurence Boisson de ChazournesAvenir Commun Durable (2022-2023)Colloque - Le droit international de l'environnement face au défi de l'effectivitéSession 2 – Protection de l'environnement et droits de la personne humaine : quelle(s) alliance(s) ?Realizing Environmental Protection through Indigenous Laws: Lessons for International Environmental Law from the Canadian ExperienceRésuméInternational environmental law has long recognized the importance of ensuring that Indigenous peoples play an active role in environmental management. The 2022 Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework explicitly acknowledges Indigenous peoples as custodians and partners in biodiversity conservation as well as restoration and sustainable use, and that the rights, values and knowledge of Indigenous peoples must be respected. In settler colonial states such as Canada, respect for the rights of Indigenous peoples is essential and intertwined with environment law. While Canada initially voted against the 2007 United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), the federal government has since endorsed it and is actively seeking to implement UNDRIP as a response to the 2015 Calls to Action of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC). The TRC Calls to Action point to the need to educate lawyers about UNDRIP, Aboriginal law (s35 of the 1982 Constitution Act and judicial decisions) and Indigenous law (law emanating from the legal orders of individual Indigenous nations). Respect for Indigenous law in Canada informs the establishment of terrestrial and marine Indigenous protected and conserved areas, and the assessment of cumulative effects in resource development. It also has profound implications for international environmental law.Sara SeckAssociate Professor Sara L. Seck is the Yogis & Keddy Chair in Human Rights Law at the Schulich School of Law and Marine & Environmental Law Institute, Dalhousie University in Canada. An active member of the International Law Association (ILA), she participated in the drafting of the white paper on International Law in the Anthropocene (2022). Recent research contributions include as coeditor of the Research Handbook on Climate Change Law and Loss & Damage (2021), co-editor of the Cambridge Handbook of Environmental Justice and Sustainable Development (2021) and, from Volume 36, co-editor of the Ocean Yearbook.

The Government of Alberta sought the Court of Appeal of Alberta's opinion on the constitutionality of the Impact Assessment Act, S.C. 2019, c. 28, s. 1 (“IAA”) (found in Part 1 of Bill C 69, entitled An Act to enact the Impact Assessment Act and the Canadian Energy Regulator Act, to amend the Navigation Protection Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, S.C. 2019, c. 28) and one of its associated regulations, the Physical Activities Regulations, SOR/2019 285 (“Regulations”). The questions posed via Order in Council 160/2019 were as follows: 1. Is Part 1 of An Act to enact the Impact Assessment Act and the Canadian Energy Regulator Act, to amend the Navigation Protection Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, S.C. 2019, c. 28, unconstitutional in whole or in part, as being beyond the legislative authority of the Parliament of Canada under the Constitution of Canada? 2. Is the Physical Activities Regulations, SOR/2019 285, unconstitutional in whole or in part by virtue of purporting to apply to certain activities listed in Schedule 2 thereof that relate to matters entirely within the legislative authority of the Provinces under the Constitution of Canada? The majority of the Court of Appeal of Alberta was of the opinion that the IAA is ultra vires Parliament, and that the IAA and Regulations are unconstitutional. Greckol J.A., dissenting, was of the opinion that the IAA and Regulations are a valid exercise of Parliament's authority to legislate on the matter of the environment. Argued Date 2023-03-21 Keywords Constitutional law - Division of powers, Environmental law - Constitutional law — Division of powers — Environment — Whether Part 1 of An Act to enact the Impact Assessment Act and the Canadian Energy Regulator Act, to amend the Navigation Protection Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, S.C. 2019, c. 28 (“IAA”), is intra vires the legislative authority of the Parliament of Canada under the Constitution Act, 1867 — Whether the Physical Activities Regulations, SOR/2019 285 (“Regulations”), are intra vires the legislative authority of the Parliament of Canada under the Constitution Act, 1867 — Whether the Court of Appeal of Alberta erred in its characterization of the pith and substance of the IAA and Regulations — Whether the Court of Appeal of Alberta erred in its classification of the IAA and Regulations — Whether the Court of Appeal of Alberta erred in its application of the doctrine of interjurisdictional immunity to disapply the IAA and Regulations. Notes (Alberta) (Civil) (As of Right) Disclaimers This podcast is created as a public service to promote public access and awareness of the workings of Canada's highest court. It is not affiliated with or endorsed by the Court. The original version of this hearing may be found on the Supreme Court of Canada's website. The above case summary was prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch).

The Government of Alberta sought the Court of Appeal of Alberta's opinion on the constitutionality of the Impact Assessment Act, S.C. 2019, c. 28, s. 1 (“IAA”) (found in Part 1 of Bill C 69, entitled An Act to enact the Impact Assessment Act and the Canadian Energy Regulator Act, to amend the Navigation Protection Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, S.C. 2019, c. 28) and one of its associated regulations, the Physical Activities Regulations, SOR/2019 285 (“Regulations”). The questions posed via Order in Council 160/2019 were as follows: 1. Is Part 1 of An Act to enact the Impact Assessment Act and the Canadian Energy Regulator Act, to amend the Navigation Protection Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, S.C. 2019, c. 28, unconstitutional in whole or in part, as being beyond the legislative authority of the Parliament of Canada under the Constitution of Canada? 2. Is the Physical Activities Regulations, SOR/2019 285, unconstitutional in whole or in part by virtue of purporting to apply to certain activities listed in Schedule 2 thereof that relate to matters entirely within the legislative authority of the Provinces under the Constitution of Canada? The majority of the Court of Appeal of Alberta was of the opinion that the IAA is ultra vires Parliament, and that the IAA and Regulations are unconstitutional. Greckol J.A., dissenting, was of the opinion that the IAA and Regulations are a valid exercise of Parliament's authority to legislate on the matter of the environment. Argued Date 2023-03-22 Keywords Constitutional law - Division of powers, Environmental law - Constitutional law — Division of powers — Environment — Whether Part 1 of An Act to enact the Impact Assessment Act and the Canadian Energy Regulator Act, to amend the Navigation Protection Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, S.C. 2019, c. 28 (“IAA”), is intra vires the legislative authority of the Parliament of Canada under the Constitution Act, 1867 — Whether the Physical Activities Regulations, SOR/2019 285 (“Regulations”), are intra vires the legislative authority of the Parliament of Canada under the Constitution Act, 1867 — Whether the Court of Appeal of Alberta erred in its characterization of the pith and substance of the IAA and Regulations — Whether the Court of Appeal of Alberta erred in its classification of the IAA and Regulations — Whether the Court of Appeal of Alberta erred in its application of the doctrine of interjurisdictional immunity to disapply the IAA and Regulations. Notes (Alberta) (Civil) (As of Right) Disclaimers This podcast is created as a public service to promote public access and awareness of the workings of Canada's highest court. It is not affiliated with or endorsed by the Court. The original version of this hearing may be found on the Supreme Court of Canada's website. The above case summary was prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch).

The appellant, Cindy Dickson, is a member of the respondent Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation (“VGFN”) in the Yukon Territory; she resides in Whitehorse, instead of the VGFN's Settlement Lands, approximately 800km away, for family medical reasons and other socio-economic reasons. Ms. Dickson sought to stand for election to the Council of the VGFN. However, the VGFN constitution specifies that any Councillor must reside on the Settlement Land (the “residency requirement”); it also states that if an eligible candidate for Chief or Councillor does not reside on Settlement Lands during the election, and wins their desired seat, they must relocate to the Settlement Lands within 14 days of election day. Given that Ms. Dickson was unwilling to move to the Settlement Lands, the VGFN Council declined to remove the residency requirement from the constitution, and rejected Ms. Dickson's candidacy for the position of Councillor. Ms. Dickson then sought a declaration in the Yukon Supreme Court that the residency requirement was inconsistent with her right to equality protected and guaranteed by s. 15(1) of the Charter, could not be justified under s. 1 of the Charter, and was therefore of no force or effect. The chambers judge issued a number of declarations, concluding that while the Charter applies to the VGFN Council and to the residency requirement in the VGFN constitution, the residency requirement at its core does not infringe s. 15(1) of the Charter. However, the time limit for relocation specified in the residency requirement — “within 14 days” — does infringe s. 15(1), and should be severed from the requirement and declared to be of no force and effect pursuant to s. 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982 (the declaration of invalidity was suspended for 18 months). Alternatively, if this was incorrect and the residency requirement does infringe the s. 15(1) equality right, even without the time limit, the chambers judge concluded that s. 25 of the Charter would apply so as to “shield” the residency requirement (albeit with severance of the words “within 14 days”) from a finding of infringement. Argued Date 2023-02-07 Keywords Constitutional law - Canadian charter (Non-criminal), Application (s. 32), Right to equality (s. 15), Aboriginal peoples (s. 35), Treaty rights, Self-government - Constitutional law — Charter of rights — Application — Right to equality — Discrimination based on aboriginality-residence — Aboriginal peoples — Treaty rights — Self-government — First Nation constitution requiring elected Band councillors to relocate to settlement lands within 14 days of election — Appellant's candidacy for councillor rejected for refusing to relocate if elected — Appellant challenging constitutional validity of residency requirement — Various declarations issued, including that Charter applies to First Nation's residency requirement, that time limit in requirement infringes right to equality, but that s. 25 of Charter operates so as to shield requirement from review — Whether scope of “other rights and freedoms” that “pertain to aboriginal peoples of Canada” set out in s. 25 of Charter includes residency requirement — Whether court required to conduct full analysis of Charter right engaged, including s. 1, or whether application of s. 25 means collective rights need not be balanced with other interests — Whether Charter applies to residency requirement in constitution of self-governing First Nation — Whether residency requirement inconsistent with Charter, including whether analogous ground of “aboriginality-residence” rigidly applies in all circumstances of Indigenous governance — Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, ss. 1, 15, 25, 32. Notes (Yukon Territory) (Civil) (By Leave) Disclaimers This podcast is created as a public service to promote public access and awareness of the workings of Canada's highest court. It is not affiliated with or endorsed by the Court. The original version of this hearing may be found on the Supreme Court of Canada's website. The above case summary was prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch).

Reconciliation with Indigenous peoples in Canada requires structural transformation. One essential site of institutional reform is the country's legal systems. In 2015, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada released 94 calls to action. In call to action #42, the TRC called upon “the federal, provincial, and territorial governments to commit to the recognition and implementation of Aboriginal justice systems in a manner consistent with the Treaty and Aboriginal rights of Aboriginal peoples, the Constitution Act, 1982, and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples endorsed by Canada in November 2012.” To understand what meaningful reform could look like, we ask: How should Canada engage with Indigenous legal traditions?On this episode of Open to Debate, David Moscrop talks with Dr. Val Napoleon, dean, professor, and Law Foundation Chair of Indigenous Justice and Governance at the University of Victoria, and Dr. Hadley Friedland, associate professor in the Faculty of Law at the University of Alberta.

Reconciliation with Indigenous peoples in Canada requires structural transformation. One essential site of institutional reform is the country's legal systems. In 2015, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada released 94 calls to action. In call to action #42, the TRC called upon “the federal, provincial, and territorial governments to commit to the recognition and implementation of Aboriginal justice systems in a manner consistent with the Treaty and Aboriginal rights of Aboriginal peoples, the Constitution Act, 1982, and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples endorsed by Canada in November 2012.” To understand what meaningful reform could look like, we ask: How should Canada engage with Indigenous legal traditions?On this episode of Open to Debate, David Moscrop talks with Dr. Val Napoleon, dean, professor, and Law Foundation Chair of Indigenous Justice and Governance at the University of Victoria, and Dr. Hadley Friedland, associate professor in the Faculty of Law at the University of Alberta.

The Waitangi Tribunal has reported back on one of the largest claims ever heard - a document described as groundbreaking, and pivotal for Maori in Te Tai Tokerau. Some of the evidence was presented at hearings more than a decade ago - and the report is more than 18 hundred pages long. It says the Crown repeatedly overstepped its authority to govern, leading to a widespread erosion of rangatiratanga, warfare, extensive landloss and and severe and lasting prejudice. It also states William Hobson's proclamations of sovereignty, and the Constitution Act, were some of the most severe treaty breaches. And there are now major implications for Ngapuhi's ongoing treaty settlement negotiations with the Crown. Samantha Olley reports

By Order in Council 1288 2019 of December 18, 2019, the Quebec government submitted the following question to the Quebec Court of Appeal: Is An Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families, S.C. 2019, c. 24, ultra vires the Parliament of Canada under the Constitution of Canada? The Court of Appeal answered that the Act, which came into force on January 1, 2020, is constitutional, except for ss. 21 and 22(3), which are not. It found that the pith and substance of the Act is to ensure the well being of Indigenous children by fostering culturally appropriate services that will reduce their over representation in provincial child welfare systems. The well being of Indigenous persons is part of the essence of the federal head of power set out in s. 91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1867, and the national principles stated in general terms in the Act are compatible with Quebec's child welfare legislation. The Court of Appeal also held that the right of self government in relation to child and family services falls within s. 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. Examining the framework established by the Act for circumscribing the exercise of this generic Aboriginal right, the court found that the aim of s. 21 is to make the doctrine of federal paramountcy applicable to Indigenous laws. Because this alters the fundamental architecture of the Constitution, s. 21 is ultra vires. The same is true of s. 22(3), which provides that Indigenous laws prevail over any conflicting or inconsistent provisions of provincial legislation. Section 91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1867 does not authorize Parliament to give absolute priority to an Aboriginal right. Argued Date 2022-12-07 Keywords Constitutional law - Division of powers, Aboriginal peoples (s. 35), Aboriginal rights, Self-government - Constitutional law — Division of powers — Pith and substance — Aboriginal peoples — Aboriginal rights — Self government — Child and family services — Whether An Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families, S.C. 2019, c. 24, is ultra vires Parliament of Canada under Constitution of Canada — Constitution Act, 1867, s. 91(24) — Constitution Act, 1982, s. 35. Notes (Quebec) (Civil) (As of Right) Disclaimers This podcast is created as a public service to promote public access and awareness of the workings of Canada's highest court. It is not affiliated with or endorsed by the Court. The original version of this hearing may be found on the Supreme Court of Canada's website. The above case summary was prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch).

In October 2012, the respondent Mr. Comeau drove from his hometown Tracadie, in New Brunswick, to Pointe-à-la-Croix and the Listuguj First Nation Indian Reserve, in the province of Quebec. He went there to purchase alcoholic beverages. Mr. Comeau was, at the time, under police surveillance as part of an investigation into cross-border liquor transport. His vehicle was intercepted upon his return, in Campbellton, New Brunswick. Mr. Comeau was charged by way of Notice of Prosecution for “hav[ing] or keep[ing] liquor not purchased from the Corporation”, an offence under section 134(b) of the New Brunswick Liquor Control Act, RSNB 1973, c. L-10. The police also seized the alcoholic beverages he had purchased that day, a total of 354 bottles or cans of beer and three bottles of liquor. In his defense, Mr. Comeau claimed that section 134(b) of the Liquor Control Act was an unenforceable provincial law, of no force and effect, as it contravened section 121 of the Constitution Act, 1867. The trial judge declared s. 134(b) of the Liquor Control Act unconstitutional and of no force and effect. He found that s. 134(b) constitutes a trade barrier which violates section 121 of the Constitution Act, 1867. The Attorney General of New-Brunswick brought an application for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal of New-Brunswick pursuant to s. 116(3) of the Provincial Offences Procedure Act, SNB 1987, c. P-22.1. This provision allows an appeal directly to the Court of Appeal on a ground of appeal that involves a question of law alone. The application for leave to appeal was dismissed (R. v Comeau, 2016 CanLII 73665 (NB CA)). Argued Date 2017-12-07 Keywords Constitutional law - Constitutional law - Interpretation - Conflict of laws - Interprovincial trade - Notice of Prosecution for having brought alcoholic beverages into New Brunswick from Quebec - Whether section 121 of the Constitution Act, 1867 is a free trade provision? - Whether s. 121 of the Constitution Act renders unconstitutional s. 134 of the Liquor Control Act, RSNB 1973, c. L-10, which along with s. 3 of the Importation of Intoxicating Liquor Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. I-3, establishes a federal-provincial regulatory scheme in respect of intoxicating liquor? - Constitution Act, 1867, s. 121 - Liquor Control Act, RSNB 1973, c. L-10, s. 134 - Importation of Intoxicating Liquor Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. I-3, s. 3. Notes (New Brunswick) (Civil) (By Leave) Disclaimers This podcast is created as a public service to promote public access and awareness of the workings of Canada's highest court. It is not affiliated with or endorsed by the Court. The original version of this hearing may be found on the Supreme Court of Canada's website. The above case summary was prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch).

In October 2012, the respondent Mr. Comeau drove from his hometown Tracadie, in New Brunswick, to Pointe-à-la-Croix and the Listuguj First Nation Indian Reserve, in the province of Quebec. He went there to purchase alcoholic beverages. Mr. Comeau was, at the time, under police surveillance as part of an investigation into cross-border liquor transport. His vehicle was intercepted upon his return, in Campbellton, New Brunswick. Mr. Comeau was charged by way of Notice of Prosecution for “hav[ing] or keep[ing] liquor not purchased from the Corporation”, an offence under section 134(b) of the New Brunswick Liquor Control Act, RSNB 1973, c. L-10. The police also seized the alcoholic beverages he had purchased that day, a total of 354 bottles or cans of beer and three bottles of liquor. In his defense, Mr. Comeau claimed that section 134(b) of the Liquor Control Act was an unenforceable provincial law, of no force and effect, as it contravened section 121 of the Constitution Act, 1867. The trial judge declared s. 134(b) of the Liquor Control Act unconstitutional and of no force and effect. He found that s. 134(b) constitutes a trade barrier which violates section 121 of the Constitution Act, 1867. The Attorney General of New-Brunswick brought an application for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal of New-Brunswick pursuant to s. 116(3) of the Provincial Offences Procedure Act, SNB 1987, c. P-22.1. This provision allows an appeal directly to the Court of Appeal on a ground of appeal that involves a question of law alone. The application for leave to appeal was dismissed (R. v Comeau, 2016 CanLII 73665 (NB CA)). Argued Date 2017-12-06 Keywords Constitutional law - Constitutional law - Interpretation - Conflict of laws - Interprovincial trade - Notice of Prosecution for having brought alcoholic beverages into New Brunswick from Quebec - Whether section 121 of the Constitution Act, 1867 is a free trade provision? - Whether s. 121 of the Constitution Act renders unconstitutional s. 134 of the Liquor Control Act, RSNB 1973, c. L-10, which along with s. 3 of the Importation of Intoxicating Liquor Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. I-3, establishes a federal-provincial regulatory scheme in respect of intoxicating liquor? - Constitution Act, 1867, s. 121 - Liquor Control Act, RSNB 1973, c. L-10, s. 134 - Importation of Intoxicating Liquor Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. I-3, s. 3. Notes (New Brunswick) (Civil) (By Leave) Disclaimers This podcast is created as a public service to promote public access and awareness of the workings of Canada's highest court. It is not affiliated with or endorsed by the Court. The original version of this hearing may be found on the Supreme Court of Canada's website. The above case summary was prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch).

My special guest this week is the Honourable A. Brian Peckford, P.C., former Premier of Newfoundland and the last living First Minister who helped frame Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms through the Constitution Act of 1982. On May 28, 2022, Mr. Peckford, speaking on the steps of the B.C. Legislature, at the Reclaim Canada Conference, delivered a detailed plan to save Canada's democracy. He calls it a Magna Carta for Canada. We discuss several of its important tenets in this interview.Read the entire text of Brian's speech and watch it being delivered on Brian's blog (May 29 and May 30 entries): https://peckford42.wordpress.comBrian is also fighting a very important court battle regarding the right of Canadian citizens to travel by air or by train without being coerced into taking the experimental mRNA gene therapy. Please learn more about his case and consider contributing to to cover his expenses at the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms:https://www.jccf.ca

An interview with the only living signatory of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. What an honour and privilege to speak with The Honourable A. Brian Peckford P.C., on the current state of Canada. It's a long one, but worth every minute. Brian was born August 27, 1942 in Whitbourne, Newfoundland. He graduated from Lewisporte High School in 1960. In 1966 he graduated with a BA in Education from Memorial University of Newfoundland. He later did post graduate work in English Literature and Education Psychology. He taught high school in Sprindgale, Newfoundland, and in 1972 he entered Provincial Politics. In March 1972 Brian was elected the first Progressive Conservative MHA in the history of the riding at age 29. Later that year he became Special and Parliamentary Assistant to the then Premier, Frank Moores. In 1974 he was appointed Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing and in 1976 Minister of Mines and Energy. While Minister of Mines and Energy, he also served for some time as Minister of Rural Development and Northern Affairs. In March 1979 Brian won the Progressive Conservative leadership convention and became the third Premier of the Province since Confederation. He was at 36 the youngest first minister of Newfoundland since the First Prime Minister, Philip Little in 1855. Brian became a strong advocate of Provincial Rights as manifested in his efforts to gain some control and revenues from the newly developing offshore oil and gas resources culminating in The Atlantic Accord. This groundbreaking Agreement brought revenues to the Province as if the resources were on land, around $30 Billion to date, and a say in the management of the resource. Brian was involved in the Constitutional Patriation Process of the early 1980's leading to the Constitution Act of 1982. It was Newfoundland's proposal presented at the Conference that led to the breakthrough. Brian is the only living First Minister of that Constitutional Process. Mr. Peckford retired from politics in March 1989 and began a consulting company, with his wife Carol, assisting companies in Europe and North America. He has written two books, the last, ‘Some Day The Sun Will Shine And Have Not Will Be No More,' a Globe and Mail best seller in 2012. He has received awards as an Outstanding Young Canadian and the Outstanding Contribution Award from the Newfoundland Ocean Industries Association. He was sworn to the Privy Council by Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth in 1982. Brian has conducted inquires on behalf of the British Columbia Government and the Government of Canada. Stay in touch with Brian at https://peckford42.wordpress.com/ He retired in 2001 and presently lives with his wife, Carol, in Parksville, British Columbia.

In this podcast episode, Greg Marchildon interviews David R. Cameron. The book is The Daily Plebiscite: Federalism, Nationalism, and Canada and is a collection of his essays written over the past four decades. The book is edited by Cameron’s colleague, Robert C. Vipond, and published by the University of Toronto Press. These essays focus on the constitutional and political turmoil experience in Canada from the Quiet Revolution in Quebec of the 1960s until the second Quebec referendum of 1995 and the subsequent Quebec secession reference in the Supreme Court of Canada and the Clarity Act of 1999. David Cameron is currently Special Advisor to the President of the University of Toronto and a professor in the Department of Political Science. For many years before this, he was Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Science at the University of Toronto. He worked for the federal government during the period of the first Quebec referendum, the negotiations that led to the Constitution Act 182, as Deputy Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs for the Government of Ontario during the Meech Lake Accord, and after as special constitutional advisor to the Premier of Ontario for the Charlottetown Accord and the second Quebec referendum. If you like our work, please consider supporting it: https://bit.ly/support_WTY. Your support contributes to the Champlain Society’s mission of opening new windows to directly explore and experience Canada’s past.

The Council of Canadians with Disabilities and two plaintiffs commenced an action claiming that provisions of mental health legislation in British Columbia infringe s. 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982 and ss. 1, 7 and 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The two individual plaintiffs discontinued their claims and withdrew from the litigation. The Council of Canadians with Disabilities filed an amended statement of claim removing the particulars pleaded by the individual plaintiffs and setting out generalized allegations of constitutional infringements. The Attorney General of British Columbia applied for summary judgment dismissing the action. The application judge granted summary judgment and dismissed the action on the basis that the Council of Canadians with Disabilities lacks public interest standing to pursue the claim on its own. The Court of Appeal allowed an appeal, set aside the summary judgment, and remitted the matter of public interest standing for reconsideration. Argued Date 2022-01-12 Keywords Civil procedure - Parties, Standing - Civil procedure - Parties - Standing - Public interest standing - Public interest group and individual plaintiffs commence action claiming mental health legislation infringes Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Individual plaintiffs discontinue their claims - Public interest group seeks standing to continue without co-plaintiffs - Whether legality and access to justice components of the test for public interest standing are key components that must be accorded particular weight - Whether factual context is sufficient to grant public interest standing. Notes (British Columbia) (Civil) (By Leave) Disclaimers This podcast is created as a public service to promote public access and awareness of the workings of Canada's highest court. It is not affiliated with or endorsed by the Court. The original version of this hearing may be found on the Supreme Court of Canada's website. The above case summary was prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch).

Rod speaks with the Honourable A. Brian Peckford, former Premier of Newfoundland and the last living First Minister who helped frame Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms through the Constitution Act of 1982. Mr. Peckford explains in detail the provisions of the Charter that are being shamefully violated by both federal and provincial governments and issues a strong call to citizens to get involved and work to retain the rights and freedoms that are at risk today. Follow Brian's blog: https://peckford42.wordpress.com

Mr. Sullivan attempted suicide by ingesting a prescription drug known to cause psychosis as a side effect. In a psychotic state, he stabbed his mother. Mr. Chan consumed magic mushrooms. In a psychotic state, he fatally stabbed his father and then he stabbed his father's partner. At their trials, each accused sought to raise non-mental disorder automatism as a defence but the trial judges applied s. 33.1 of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, which sets out conditions in which the defence is not available. In Mr. Chan's case, the trial judge also held that s. 33.1 infringes ss. 7 and s. 11(d) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms but it is not unconstitutional because the infringements are justified under s. 1 of the Charter. Mr. Sullivan was convicted of aggravated assault and assault with a weapon. Mr. Chan was convicted of manslaughter and aggravated assault. The Court of Appeal allowed appeals. It found s. 33.1 unconstitutional. It acquitted Mr. Sullivan on both counts and ordered a new trial for Mr. Chan. Keywords Constitutional law - Constitutional law - Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Fundamental justice - Presumption of innocence - Assaults occurring during states of psychosis caused by ingesting intoxicants - Accused raising defence of non-mental disorder automatism - Defence not available if accused's state of psychosis caused by self-induced intoxication pursuant to s. 33.1 of Criminal Code - Whether s. 33.1 infringes ss. 7 or 11(d) of the Charter - If s. 33.1 infringes ss. 7 or 11(d) of the Charter, is the infringement justified under s. 1 of the Charter - Whether normal rules of stare decisis apply to declarations of invalidity made by superior court judges pursuant to s. 52(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982?. Notes (Ontario) (Criminal) (By Leave) Disclaimers This podcast is created as a public service to promote public access and awareness of the workings of Canada's highest court. It is not affiliated with or endorsed by the Court. The original version of this hearing may be found on the Supreme Court of Canada's website. The above case summary was prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch).

In addition to the municipal and Senate candidate elections, two referendum questions were added by the Alberta Government to the 2021 Municipal Elections: (1) Should section 36(2) of the Constitution Act, 1982 – Parliament and the government of Canada's commitment to the principle of making equalization payments – be removed from the constitution? (2) Do you want Alberta to adopt year-round Daylight-Saving Time, which is summer hours, eliminating the need to change our clocks twice a year?  The first question can arguably be considered partisan in nature given the rhetoric around equalization provided by the governing UCP party and it may have enabled an altered focus of people running and voting on local issues. Besides that, what did the vote on equalization actually mean? Similarly, the vote for Senate appointments among the 13 candidates running may have been a futile exercise.    Lethbridge added two extra questions on their ballot (1) Do you support using a ward system to elect City Councilors (other than the Mayor) starting with the 2025 municipal election? (2) Do you agree that city council should approve plans to construct a 3rd bridge prior to 2030 as a municipal capital project priority? These questions were front and center during election forums and will no doubt be hot items for Lethbridge City Council to wrestle with going forward. Typically, partisan politics play a rather small role in municipal politics & the speaker will recount his extensive experiences and concerns. He will also estimate what the election results could mean for Alberta & speculate on the wisdom of allowing Political Action Committees (PAC's) & more money into municipal politics.     Speaker:  Barry Morishita             A long serving councilor and Mayor in the City of Brooks, Barry Morishita is well known in municipal government across the province having spent 7 years on the Board and Executive of the Alberta Urban Municipalities Association becoming the associations longest serving President. His experiences traveling throughout the Province in this capacity & his passion for building communities earned him the Honorary Lifetime Membership from the AUMA. He retired from municipal politics in 2021 & has moved into the provincial arena as the Leader of the Alberta Party. Barry is a proud Canadian of Japanese descent, married with two children & two grandchildren living in the City of 100 Hello's, Brooks, Alberta.

Alberta has spoken! On October 18, as Albertans voted in municipal elections, there were two additional questions on the ballot. One was fairly inconsequential and asked people if they preferred doing away with daylight savings. It was narrowly rejected, with just 50.2 per cent of the vote. The second was more weighty and could end up changing the Canadian Constitution. Albertans were asked if section 36(2) of the Constitution Act, concerning equalization payments, should be removed from the Constitution. To that question, they said “YES,” with 62 per cent of the vote. But what on earth is equalization!? And what happens now? Will Alberta be able to convince other provinces to get on board? And will the federal government entertain the idea of a constitutional change? To answer these questions, we speak with two professors in Alberta. First up is Trevor Tombe, professor of economics at the University of Calgary and research fellow at the School of Public Policy. His research focuses on international trade, macroeconomics and fiscal federalism. He will explain what equalization is, and talk about the flaws in the program. Then we speak with political science professor Lisa Young, also at the University of Calgary. She researches Canadian political parties, women's participation in politics, interest groups and social movements, and the regulation of electoral finance. She will discuss what this vote might mean for Alberta and for the rest of the country.

On Monday, Albertans headed to the ballot box to cast their votes on a number of things: municipal leaders, the merits of daylight savings and whether the country should get rid of the mention of equalization from the Constitution Act of 1982. But there's a problem with that last one: Alberta alone can't actually make any changes to the country's Constitution.So what was the point of this referendum? Globe columnist and reporter Kelly Cryderman thinks this was more about politics than policy and says that this vote couldn't have happened at a worst time for people, like Alberta Premier Jason Kenney, who want to see Ottawa renegotiate the equalization program.

This week on Legally Speaking with Michael Mulligan:After accepting $40,000 for expenses, a surrogate mother is asking to be declared the mother of a four-year-old, and obtain access to the child, on the basis that she claims to have become pregnant as a result of an affair with the child's father, rather than through the use of a home artificial insemination kit. For his part, the father has admitted to having an affair with the surrogate mother but alleges that this occurred only after the birth of the child. The surrogate mother has presented records of having terminated two pregnancies, prior to becoming pregnant as a surrogate, where she listed the father of the four-year-old as an emergency contact. She claims that these pregnancies were a result of an affair with the father. For the first two years of the child's life, her parents permitted the surrogate mother to spend time with her. This relationship between the parties faltered when the surrogate mother demanded $100,000 and a fixed visitation schedule. A trial to determine if the surrogate mother should be listed as a parent of the child, and obtain access to her, is scheduled for later in the year. While awaiting trial, the surrogate mother applied for interim access to the child. This application was denied by a judge following an assessment of the best interests of the child. The judge concluded that the child's best interests were served by stability, pending the outcome of the trial. Also on the show, the destruction of churches, a Captain Cook statue, and a totem pole and how these could relate to sections 21 and 718.2 of the Criminal Code. Section 21 of the Criminal Code is concerned with parties to an offence. Anyone who does or omits to do anything for the purpose of aiding any person to commit an offence or abets any person in committing an offence is a party to an offence. Section 718.2 (a) (i) makes it an aggravating factor on sentencing that an offence was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity or expression, or on any other similar factor.Finally, section 96 of the Constitution Act 1867 provides for the federal appointment of Superior Court Judges.Superior Court judges can only be removed from office by the Governor General on address of the Senate and House of Commons.This prevents Superior Court Judges from being fired for making decisions the government doesn't like.The independence that this provides could be undermined if the government could transfer the jurisdiction of Superior Court judges to different kinds of judges it could fire or otherwise control. A recent Supreme Court of Canada decision concluded that, for this reason, the province of Quebec was not permitted to transfer jurisdiction over claims up to $85,000 to Quebec's provincial court. This decision is likely to have implications for British Columbia's effort to transfer jurisdiction over claims relating to the new ICBC no-fault system to the Civil Resolution Tribunal. Adjudicators who make decisions in the Civil Resolution Tribunal are on short-term government contracts and could be fired, or not have their contracts renewed if the government was unhappy with decisions they were making. Follow this link for a transcript of the show and links to the cases discussed. 

This week on Legally Speaking with Michael Mulligan:To ensure their independence, Superior Court Judges hold office on good behavior, until age 75, and can only be removed by the Governor General on address of the Senate and House of Commons. The point of this is that you don’t want judges to be fired when they made decisions that the government doesn’t like.If you have a dispute with the government, you want to know that the judge hearing the case isn’t worried about being fired if they decide in your favour. This protection would not be very meaningful if the government was able to transfer decision-making authorly to people who were not independent. As a result section 96 of the Constitution Act, 1867 has been interpreted so as to restrict the ability of governments to transfer authority over the core jurisdiction of superior courts to other bodies. As part of a plan to move to a mandatory a no-fault automobile insurance system, the province of British Columbia attempted to transfer authority over claims of up to $50,000, as well as the authority to determine if an injury was “minor”, so as to cap compensation, to a body called the Civil Resolution Tribunal. Employees of the Civil Resolution Tribunal work on short-term contracts for the provincial government. They have none of the protections afforded judges and could be fired, or not have their contracts renewed if they made decisions which the government didn’t like. From a fairness perspective, it’s not appropriate to have employees of one of the parties to a dispute making decisions about it. From a legal perspective, Chief Justice Hinkson determined that the attempt to transfer authority over claims up to $50,000, and the power to determine if injuries were “minor” was unconstitutional because of section 96.As a result, people who have a dispute about these matters with ICBC will be able to have a  judge, rather than a Civil Resolution Tribunal employee, decide. Also on the show: an example of where the Civil Resolution Tribunal is an appropriate forum to resolve small disputes between private parties: a family was able to avoid paying $4,998.54 for a return Air Canada flight from India which was canceled due to COVID-19. The adjudicator concluded that the contract with a travel agent was frustrated when the return flight was canceled and could not be rebooked in a reasonable period of time. Finally, the BC Supreme Court dismissed an application for judicial review of a BC Human Rights Tribunal decision which refused to accept a complaint by a Pastafarian and member of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.The Pastafarian wished to wear a pasta colander, or a three-cornered hat known as a pirate’s tricorn, for his driver’s licence photo on the basis that he claimed these to be religious headgear. The BC Human Rights Tribunal refused the complaint on the basis that ICBC was not required to accommodate a practice satirizing religious practices. The Pastafarian argued that the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster was a duly constituted society and in good standing in BC and that neither its constitution nor its bylaws mandate the mocking of religious beliefs or religious practices. Follow this link for links to the cases discussed. 

William and Chris try not to think about the global pandemic by watching a zombie pandemic movie. They explore the roots of their feelings about Blood Quantum, a new movie by Mi'kmaq filmmaker Jeff Barnaby. The talk covers Canada's 1982 Constitution Act, Predator, Dawn of the Dead and District 9.Download this episode here. (40 MB) More information about Blood Quantum on IMDb. Detailed show notes after the break.00:01 A slowly reopening podcast 01:50 VIFF online03:45 Totally Under Control, a documentary by Alex Gibney05:20 Totally Under Control, It's about greed and not compassion06:00 Totally Under Control, History written in the moment06:55 Totally Under Control, 72 million voted for Donald Trump07:35 Totally Under Control, Princess cruise ship08:15 Blood Quantum, a film by Jeff Barnaby09:30 Blood Quantum, It's set in Red Crow, Quebec10:00 the cast of Blood Quantum14:30 the plot of Blood Quantum16:00 Blood Quantum, White people can be infected17:55 Blood Quantum, Quoting an ancient settler proverb18:45 Blood Quantum, Measuring Indigenous ancestry20:30 Blood Quantum theory undercooked in the narrative21:45 Blood Quantum, Why is it set in 1981? Chris doesn't know23:30 Blood Quantum, compared to 28 Days Later24:45 Blood Quantum, That scene is gruesome25:20 Blood Quantum and the Canada Constitution Act, 198227:15 Blood Quantum, Barnaby asked his cast to watch Alanis Obomsawin's film29:00 Blood Quantum, Zombie salmon and zombie dog30:00 Blood Quantum story synopsis on Wikipedia is wrong31:10 Blood Quantum has some thrills and real jeopardy32:30 Blood Quantum and Predator, I ain't got time to bleed34:20 Blood Quantum and that scene from Aliens35:35 Blood Quantum, I appreciate something that I haven't seen before36:20 Blood Quantum displays a lot of value for its $4.5 million37:20 Blood Quantum and Exotica were big budget Canadian films37:45 Blood Quantum, I've had it with white people38:05 Blood Quantum, I like it as much as I like other zombie movies39:15 a superficial way to remember Blood Quantum39:50 Blood Quantum versus the zombie films of George Romero41:20 Blood Quantum, Listuguj and Indigenous activism43:40 Blood Quantum compared to District 944:45 the fantasy of racism and Black Like Vic45:25 our rating of Blood QuantumThank you for listening.

Today we are continuing with Newstalk's 20 x 20 topic, where we are reflecting upon the 20 most influential moments of the last 20 years. The 8th Amendment of the Constitution Act 1983 was an amendment to the Constitution of Ireland which recognised the equal right to life of the pregnant woman and the unborn, while abortion had been subject to criminal penalty in Ireland since 1861. After a referendum campaign in 2018, the 8th amendment was repealed, following 67% voting in favour to 33% voting against. Deirdre joined Andrea on the show to courageously tell her own personal story. Listen and subscribe to Lunchtime Live on Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts and Spotify.      Download, listen and subscribe on the Newstalk App.     You can also listen to Newstalk live on newstalk.com or on Alexa, by adding the Newstalk skill and asking: 'Alexa, play Newstalk'.

B.C. premier sued for breaking election law The group Democracy Watch is suing B.C. NDP Premier John Horgan for calling a snap election thereby breaking the province’s fixed-date election law. “The case is not aimed at stopping the election. Instead, DWatch will only ask the court to declare that the Premier’s action violated the fixed election date measure in B.C.’s Constitution Act and the constitutional convention that has been created by premiers calling elections only on the fixed date in 2005, 2009, 2013 and 2017,” said the group in a release. Democracy Watch said B.C. was the first jurisdiction in... View Article

At the start, Jacques prompts me to say, have a pen and paper ready, stating not to believe all that he says. That he too, is endeavouring to work it all out, through intense research into old records and books on the web etc all about the ‘forgotten past. Saying that we have no understanding or even knowledge of what has come to pass. Because things are not as they are and as a researcher of both historical events as well as new technologies that are released on today's society, we can not necessarily believe the status quo. It starts with Tim mentioning his interview 5 weeks ago of Dan Hermansen - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=guzOgNpZn1k - and the United Tribes flag of 1835 in early NZ, keeping Aotearoa NZ ‘as a free country’ and that King William the lV would have Great Britain protect it. However that flag was cunningly displaced by the Union Jack at the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi, in 1840 - that contrary to what the Maori chiefs were aware of, New Zealand basically became a colony of Great Britain. Hence Hone Heke, the first Maori chief, to sign this Treaty, cut down the flag staff 4 times due to his disgust in which this Treaty was being administered.  That then, in the comments field of Dan’s interview was this - ‘The Auckland City Council is a Corporation listed on Dun and Bradstreet - So Tim did a web search and we find it in Wiki’ - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dun_%26_Bradstreet   Also mentioned early in this interview was the British East India Company because it was an overseas extension of the British Government and was in many cases a ‘law unto itself’ where it cunningly introduced opium into China in 1825 that soon after, the Chinese addiction to opium expanded (to 4-12 million people).  So this opens the question who was this Company and who governed it?  As they had no apparent conscience. Yet, its flag was an ensign that was accepted by the British Government and Admiralty.   Adjusted for inflation, at its height, the company was worth $4.1 trillion. (Oct 17, 2018)  other searches suggest $7.9 trillion. Jacques, says he has worked for the Central Government in South Africa and in Local Government here in NZ and is horrified at what he believes to have found! Stating there are 2 fundamentals that are universal as it relates to the Law; in this case British Law. They are: 1) Contracts & 2) Jurisdictions Fundamentally all law is a contract A contract aims to control the behaviour / actions of two or more parties. Shortly after Jacques was born, the legal system in South Africa impelled his Dad to sign him away as a bonded surety to a ‘bankrupt franchise.’ Note that South Africa was part of the British Commonwealth until 1961 and rejoined again in 1994. Unbeknown to his Father, while he thought he was doing the right thing, apparently registering Jaques birth, and signing the birth certificate, was actually signing a contract; He made Jacques the surety to a bond in the ALL CAPITALS fictional name that the corporation had created to enslave Jacques for the rest of his life. This Corporation?    This will come later … ALL CAPITALS you ask? Yes, they use what is called Dog Latin, which is capitals or block letters. By the way, Dog Latin was used to trick and deceive back in the days when serfs could not understand what the more educated were able to control how Law was administered. Note The Latin alphabet started out as uppercase serifed letters known as Roman square capitals. Ancient Greek started off this way too. And it seems the legacy continues to this day; In the English language all capital writing is not a proper noun; A proper noun is the name of a man or woman, place or physical thing; That all capitalised name is not a proper noun and therefore not a name; For example a name used for an individual person, place, or organisation, spelled with an initial capital letter, e.g. Jane, London, and Greenpeace. Often contrasted with common nouns. Is it a lawful contract? No, because his Dad was never given full disclosure of what he was actually signing; So the birth certificates of everyone are traded on the capital markets and heaps of money is made from them, according to Karen Hudes, former World Bank lawyer.  (do your own research). ‘Everyone includes people who are born in countries like NZ, Australia - and very possibly Canada, and the USA plus UK. Is India and Pakistan? Research it. The Corporation establishes how much tax the child will pay over his or her lifetime and that birth certificate / bond is then traded on the capital markets;   Who is this Corporation and why does it trick parents into doing this? The answer to the why question is easy; control and trillions of dollars; But there is also a sinister reason, which he will come to later. But who is behind the Corporation? His research has shown that there is one massive Corporation; All the others are subdivisions of the main one; The biggest sub-division is the United States The corporation is known by a few names; Triple Crown; Tri-Regnum, Triple Tiara and Three-times Royal The Triple Crown was started as a testamentary trust in 1302 pursuant to the Papal Bull called Unam Sanctam, the Holy Singularity / Sanctified Unity; Pope Boniface VIII announced that he would depose King Philip IV of France if need be and issued the bull Unam Sanctam ('One Holy'), the most famous papal document of the Middle Ages, affirming the authority of the Pope as the heir of Peter and Vicar of Christ over all human authorities, spiritual and temporal.  (Bull = Decree or edict) Underlying the trust, is a global estate. The Pope claimed he owned all land, all flesh and all, wait for it… souls! All being part of the global estate. But surely the Pope had no say over the affairs of England? So did the Pope have control over King William the 4th when he said he would protect the NZ Maori Chiefs Freedoms in 1835? - even though the British were a Protestant country and had the largest seafaring Navy at that time.  Well, this is where things get interesting. So let’s go back to 1215 when King John was forced by the barons to sign the Magna Carta. What happened two years prior to that? Early on the 15 May 1213 King John went to the church of the Templars at Dover and there he knelt before Pandulph, the legate of the Pope, placed his crown in Pandulf's hands and took the oath of fealty to the Pope in Rome. Fealty is a feudal tenant / vassal’s sworn loyalty to a lord, in this case the Pope. King John also handed the legate a document stating that for the atonement of his sins against God and Church that he surrendered into the hands of Pope Innocent and his successors forever, the kingdoms of England and lordship of Ireland, to hold them henceforth as fiefs of the Holy See - the Pope. Many believe that John ceased being King when he laid his crown at the feet of a foreign priest;    So this is how the Pope claims he owns all land, But how does he own all flesh and all souls? Well, the ‘birth certificate’ is a contract remember? It is the commercial vessel which is floated upon the ocean of commerce. We are made to believe that that fictitious ALL CAPS name is our real name and as such we are made surety for the bond. But actually we have nothing to do with it and the so-called birth certificate contract is invalid because no full disclosure was given at the time it was signed or any time thereafter. So they are tricking all of us into believing we have to pay taxes and fines and rates when really it is all deception. But, because we pay it we contract to the Corporation. When we vote, for example, we are contracting with the Corporation and giving it legitimacy. We are given the illusion of a democracy, but there is really no democracy. It is simply another deception. How many believe that the Queen of England has anything to do with assenting to Acts of Parliament? Her title was changed and the Roman numeral of II removed and replaced by Queen Elisabeth 2nd If you don’t believe go and check out the NZ Governor General’s website. If a monarch’s Roman numeral, as appears in Queen Elizabeth II, does not appear in her name, they are no longer referring to her, but some fictitious entity. However, due to the fact that no full disclosure was given to our parents when they signed the birth certificate, the contract can be rescinded, which means the Pope does not lawfully own all flesh and ‘souls.’ The key to remove ourselves from this contract is to understand exactly how it was constructed, so we don’t get ourselves into trouble when we rescind it. The Triple Crown Corporation is made up of: The City of London in the City of London, which holds the land, law and banking and or monetary system. (Kensington and WhiteHall). The Vatican, which deals with the religious side of things and; Washington D.C. which was the completion of the Triple Crown, which is the enforcer / military might behind it. All the established nation-states were trans-migrated into corporations, which are the subdivisions of the Triple Crown. That he believes includes NZ & Australia. This was all supposedly done in the 1700’s - do your own research - it’s a quagmire  Jacques says if you go to the Securities and Exchange Commission website you will find the NZ and Australian governments there, of which he has screenshots. http://www.wakeupkiwi.com/new-zealand-corporate-government.shtml In NZ, most of our ministries, like the Ministry of Justice, NZ Police, Defence Force, Treasury, Ministry of Business Innovation & Employment, etc are all listed on the biggest business website in the world; Dun & Bradstreet as companies, with sales revenue. I have those screenshots too. So New Zealand and Australia seem to be very much part of this greater Triple Crown Corporation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dun_%26_Bradstreet - but do your own research as Wiki has been compromised for years.  Jacques sent an Official Information Act Request to Justice Minister Andrew Little asking if the Ministry of Justice is a company. He has 20 working days to respond. It has been 2 months and still no response from the Minister. Why? He has now referred the matter to the Ombudsman but found out that even the Office of the Ombudsman is listed on the Dun & Bradstreet website as a company with sales revenue of $6m. The reason Jacques is making such a fuss about this is because in our legal courts he is convinced they are not practising Law. He believes they are controlled by the Corporation to monetise we citizens (or the slaves) - because last time he checked the Ministry of Justice sales revenue in one year was $395m. Also if the Ministry is in fact a company, how can they administer justice, when there is a huge conflict of interest? How can a company or corporation be in charge of a country’s Justice system? If the NZ Treasury is a company, how can it control public funds? Our only saving grace, one would think is the old English Common Law but in 1986 the Constitution Act removed most of it. One has to wonder why? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_Act_1986  - But, was this the full account of what happened? And then in 1988 the Imperial Laws Application Act brought it all back. Since then many amendments have been made. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_Laws_Application_Act_1988  - Again this is so messy - what can we believe? As Jacques has not had the time to investigate all of this yet -  He has brought together a few bright minds to assist him - this is ongoing. You see the English Common Law includes Magna Carta which was designed to protect individual rights. But, the Corporation does not want its slaves to have rights. Is that why when one becomes a barrister or lawyer or solicitor one has to swear an oath to the NZ Law Society and at the ceremony all have to bow to the judges? When you bow to someone they become your master. How can a lawyer fight one’s case properly if he is subject to his master. Some believe that lawyers are there to ensure you contract with the court. As soon as you contract - you lose your English Common Law and inalienable rights as man and woman. Then they can do to you as they please. Ask the Ministry of Justice about that and they refuse to comment. If any of your listeners would like to support the work that Jacques is doing, or want to be released from this system, you can contact me on trrassoc@gmail.com So the point that Jacques has been endeavouring to make here, is that a system was created to enslave us for our entire lives; a system which subtly robs us of the life God (or evolution) (or both) - gave you and your inalienable rights. Jacques mentions it is also a system which now believes there are too many people on this Earth and that we need to be culled, through unsafe technology like 5G, vaccines, nano tech, chips that includes  ruining the income of billions. That he has never consented to be controlled by this system and he does not consent now. Nor should you. He is preparing to throw off the shackles and so should you. People Around the World are Waking Up to this Deception. Jacques reminds us, if we don’t stand together the 1% will totally control us, because currently we have no rights. Look at Victoria in Australia. Do they have any rights? Look at how people are being grabbed by their throats. They have caused no harm to anyone, but are being treated worse than animals by the so-called police and no one lifts a finger. So Tim says - “NZers get serious and savvy and start to challenge the authorities on this and similar issues. This is what a participative Democracy is.” We have been conned into looking after the ‘I’ when the ‘WE’ is our safety. The Corporation does everything to isolate us from one another, so they can control the WE, because they fear us. They are after all the 1% and we are the 99%. Jacques says … do yourself a favour and switch off the mainstream media. They spread what they are told to spread and will brainwash you into their narrative every time. If you want to get out of the system, you need to get rid of the propaganda. In South Africa the Zulus refer to Ubuntu. For me it means we are all connected and we all need each other to thrive and survive. We have to stand against those that want to harm us or rob us of Ubuntu. If we don’t we, as the collective will be taken, one by one, like the protesters in Victoria Australia and lose everything our forefathers fought so hard and died, for us to have. In NZ we have Aroha and this too is a major statement of Love and unconditional Love that is the building block of Maoridom.  Other points in this interview: Sovereignty - Australia has ‘Australia Day’ on the 26 January every year - this is when they ‘supposedly broke away from Britain. America has Independence Day - the 4th of July when the became independent of Britain  Where is NZ’s day of independence from Britain? Some say it was sometime in 1947. On 26 September 1907 the United Kingdom granted New Zealand "Dominion" status within the British Empire. New Zealand became known as the Dominion of New Zealand. The date was declared Dominion Day, but never reached any popularity as a day of independence. In 1948 New Zealanders became New Zealand citizens – before that they had been British citizens. New Zealand gained full legal independence when Parliament passed the Constitution Act 1986. In 2003 a new Supreme Court was created, replacing Britain's Privy Council as New Zealand's final court of appeal. June 20, 2012 When is NZ day proclaimed in NZ?  We do not have one … http://www.wakeupkiwi.com/what_is_the_crown-City_of_London.shtml  Gag Orders   - In NZ Local Councils will not let you speak out about certain information. Does this mean that even if you are a Member of Parliament in NZ that you are not allowed Parliamentary Privilege - to raise points that you think are of national importance?  What are Gag orders - do you sign them when entering Parliament? Please look at the back of the NZ Passport - the North Island has printed on it NZ - whilst the South Island has nothing. Maps of NZ for the last 70 plus years have always had an even spread of ‘New Zealand’ across both the North & South Island , but not so on our passport.  Why? NZ IN 1967 changed their money from Pounds - to Dollars - a $100 bill was printed, yet though we have eliminated small coins we have not made a commensurate change by printing a $500 note - because NZers have forgotten that the $100 bill now is only worth $20.00 in 1967. That is an example of how docile and slumberous we have become - the bankers will most probably frog march us into a cashless society - sooner rather than later.   That people are encouraged to research  Jordan Maxwell - Matrix of Power and what is Admiralty Law?   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-cb1P-lZ_4  That so much is happening that it is all hidden in plain sight. Yet, NZ society as a whole - seems blissfully complacent and unaware. In 2003, I (Tim) took my class of language students to see Queen Elisabeth 2nd at the America’s Cup Village in Downtown Auckland. That I then found myself in the middle of a loud beseeching by two middle class men dressed in suits calling and addressing Queen Elisabeth ll of England. They honoured her as the Head of the Church of England and Defender of the Faith. They politely but forcefully asked her to outrightly condemn the Pope in Rome as the Anti Christ and in league with Satan - and that here I was 5 meters from the Queen and 5 metres away from the two men standing on some seats.  (this was more than astounding. Here they were still fighting the war between the Roman Catholics and the Protestants.)   That Treasury here in NZ has a direct line to the US State Department - Why? That Donald Trump has recently taken over the US Federal Reserve - which is a private Corporation - asserting US Independence from the City of London? When Donald and Melania Trump visited London in June 2119 they both broke a major royal protocol rule by shaking hands with members of the royal family instead of curtsying and bowing. To top it off, in a ceremony In London in front of the trooping of the colour and pomp and ceremony Donald Trump walked out in front of the Queen - which signified that he was in command and that the USA under Trump had made a major break with the City of London.  https://www.insider.com/donald-trump-broke-major-royal-protocol-visit-with-the-queen-2019-6  There have been whispers recently that Prince Charles in the last months has been crowned King to replace his Mother Elisabeth 2nd - so there are plenty of assertions flying around at present, that signify huge change is upon us. Also that all the Lord Mayors of London have been Freemasons for something like the last 200 years, until Ken Livingston from the Labour party broke that spell … from 2000 to 2008. What does this portend? When In NZ you receive a traffic infringement it is addressed to you in CAPITAL LETTERS  - why?  See above. The Pope says we individual humans can not have a direct relationship with God - that we have to go through the Catholic Church?  Why? Because this is how the Church funds itself. https://www.ncronline.org/blogs/francis-chronicles/church-essential-faith-there-are-no-free-agents-pope-says https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4svTOrMREA    Where does this leave Protestants? The United States Isn't a Country — It's a Corporation! https://www.serendipity.li/jsmill/us_corporation.htm https://wwwsolutionsempowerment.com   - if you want support against having to comply and have enforced injections against your will. Click This was more than an intriguing interview. It was also a call to waken NZ journalists who have become so distracted by political in fighting that they have become profoundly lost in their own drama. Next Week. What is the soul, why has the soul been such an important part of human endeavour for millennia?

Good evening & welcome back to the podcast where you Sleep... with Josh. In celebration of July 1st, Canada Day, as a proud Canadian, I will be reading the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms from Part 1 of the Constitution Act of 1982. So sit back after the fireworks have died down, close your eyes because you'll get tired... and patriotic... of this podcast... guaranteed.

Stephanie and Craig are back with Philippe Lagassé and special guest Adam Dodek, dean of the Faculty of Law (Common Law Section) at uOttawa. It's time to bring the constitution up to date! In this episode, we focus on the Constitution Act 1982 and its headline components, especially the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, “aboriginal” rights, and how the constitution can be amended through amendment formulas. We discuss the political context that produced this “patriation” package. And we look at what didn't get fixed and where we are now in our messy constitutional evolution. With the stage set, next week we start arguing about national security public law issues, like the scope of the remaining royal prerogative. Fun times ahead!

In Episode 39, I provide a detailed overview, analysis and commentary of the federal party leaders' election platforms and what they offer - or don't offer - Indigenous peoples. It includes the platforms for Liberals, Greens, NDP and Conservatives. This podcast was based in part on an article I wrote for Canadian Dimension Magazine that was also released today: https://canadiandimension.com/articles/view/where-the-parties-stand-on-indigenous-issues I also wrote about the issue of First Nations voting and not voting in Canadian elections in my book: Indigenous Nationhood: Empowering Grassroots Citizens: amzn.to/2PR7NTU Here is a link to a new textbook on "radical politics" where I have a chapter on Indigenous resistance politics which stands in contrast to participation in Canadian politics: amzn.to/2LuacPe In my book, Beyond Blood: Rethinking Indigenous Identity and Belonging, I share my analysis on the Indian Act, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and the Constitution Act, 1982: amzn.to/2XDjTDR If you would like to help me keep my content independent, please consider supporting my work at Patreon: www.patreon.com/join/2144345 Note: The information contained in this podcast is not legal, financial or medical advice, nor should it be relied on as such. If you would like more information about these issues, you can check out my website at: https://www.pampalmater.com Here are links to some other articles I wrote in relation to Election 2019: https://www.chatelaine.com/living/politics/election-2019-canada-leaders-questions/ http://indigenousnationhood.blogspot.com/2019/10/indigenous-issues-slowly-disappear-from.html https://www.macleans.ca/opinion/abolishing-the-indian-act-means-eliminating-first-nations-rights/ https://www.macleans.ca/opinion/the-irony-of-the-first-nations-vote/ https://nowtoronto.com/news/canada-election-2019-andrew-scheer-maxime-bernier/ https://policyoptions.irpp.org/magazines/october-2019/dont-forget-the-racist-canadians-behind-the-racist-systems/ Thank you all for your ongoing support! (Photo credit: Ben Powless taken at AFN Election 2012)

Stephanie and Craig are back with Philippe Lagassé, for the second installment of our special feature: Her Majesty in Right of Pod, a deep-dive on the origins of Canadian public law and constitutional law. In the first chapter, we examined the emergence in the United Kingdom of concepts like the rule of law, parliamentary supremacy, responsible government, and judicial independence. In this chapter, we examine how what happened in England did not stay in England. Here, we talk about the reception of British law into Canada — the law of colonialism, basically. Then we skate through Canadian 19th century history to the Constitution Act 1867 (once known as the British North America Act) and discuss its key qualities for our series. Strap in for Canada's experiment with governance, a worthwhile Canadian initiative. (Stephanie says this episode is more interesting that the first one.)

Aboriginal people have a long and proud history that includes rich cultural and spiritual traditions. Many of these traditions, however, were altered or even taken away upon the arrival of European settlers. The forced introduction of European culture and values to Aboriginal societies, the dispossession of Aboriginal lands, and the imposition of alien modes of governance began a cycle of social, physical and spiritual destruction that has affected generations of people. Some effects include poverty, poor health, violence and substance abuse. Underlying these problems is a loss of identity and a learned helplessness from having their values oppressed and their rights ignored. But hope is emerging as Aboriginal people work to improve their lives and re-discover their tradition customs, language and values. Similarly, non-Aboriginal Canadians are becoming more aware of the injustices that have and are occurring to Aboriginal peoples as well as the richness of Aboriginal cultures. Non-Aboriginal people can further support the healing process by continuing to learn about the experience of Aboriginal people in order to promote mutual understanding and respect. When individuals from differing cultural backgrounds interact, there is often miscommunication, misunderstanding, and frustration. These obstacles can be overcome by making all parties more culturally sensitive. It is important for people to recognize how cultural backgrounds affect individual perceptions and actions; and how cultural awareness can improve the relationship between people from differing cultural backgrounds. Darlene Ritchie is a First Nations member and former Director of Operations for At^lohsa Native Family Healing Services in London Ontario. In this video, Darlene presents a very brief historical perspective of Aboriginal Canadians in order to provide the viewer with an understanding of some of the physical, social and emotional concerns being experienced by native people in Canada today. As a social worker, Darlene speaks first hand regarding the circumstances related to child welfare, family violence and trauma associated with the residential school experience. The video provides information that can help distress and crisis call responders increase their sensitivity to the needs of callers who are of Native heritage. Questions for Further Consideration: 1. Aboriginal groups are working with members of their own communities in order to increase awareness of violence against women. What is being done to help in this area? An Aboriginal prevention and education initiative has been developed to raise awareness about the signs of woman abuse within Native communities, so that people who are close to an at-risk woman or an abusive man can provide support. It educates on the warnings signs of violence and how to create a safety plan with women. They focus on ending isolation for Aboriginal women who are experiencing abuse and emphasize the empowering of Aboriginal men to take responsibility for their actions and to make change. The program centres around the following key messages: As caretakers of the earth we have a responsibility to take care of each other’s spirit, 'Taking care of each other’s spirit' suggests that all community members have a crucial role to play in preventing woman abuse, Engaging abusive men in a traditional approach is critical to ending woman abuse, Abusive behaviour won’t go away on its own, Communities have the assets, strengths and natural leaders to greatly impact change, growth and healing in their own communities, and Any individual can use their influence on others to start positive change. 2. There is a high incidence of violence against native women both inside the reserve and in urban settings. What are the signs of someone who may be at high risk for abuse? The danger of violence or abuse towards a woman may be greater if: She is a victim of Residential School abuses or other historical trauma and has not received help, She fears for her life and for her children’s safety or she cannot see her risk, She is in a custody battle, or has children from a previous relationship, She is involved in another relationship, She has unexplained injuries, She has no access to a phone, She faces other obstacles (e.g. she does not speak English, lives in a remote area), and She has no friends or family. 3. What is the explanation for the increased incidence of abuse among aboriginal women in Canada? How is it related to the residential school experience? The victimization of Aboriginal women accelerated with the introduction after Confederation of residential schools for Aboriginal children. Children were removed from their families and homes at a young age, some to return eight to 10 years later, some never to return. The ability to speak Aboriginal languages and the motivation to do so were severely undermined. Aboriginal students were taught to devalue everything Aboriginal and value anything Euro-Canadian. Many Aboriginal grandparents and parents today are products of the residential school system. The development of parenting skills, normally a significant aspect of their training as children within Aboriginal families, was denied to them by the fact that they were removed from their families and communities, and by the lack of attention paid to the issue by residential schools. Parenting skills neither were observed nor taught in those institutions. Aboriginal children traditionally learned their parenting skills from their parents through example and daily direction. That learning process was denied to several generations of Aboriginal parents. In addition to the physical and sexual abuse that Canadians are now hearing took place in residential schools, emotional abuse was the most prevalent and the most severe. Not only did residential schools not support the development of traditional parental roles among the children, but they taught the children that they were "pagan"—an inferior state of being—and should never use their language or honour their religious beliefs. These messages were imparted to Aboriginal children in a sometimes brutal manner. The residential school experience not only meant children were removed from their families, but they also prevented any closeness, even contact, from occurring between siblings and relatives at the same school. The damage done by residential schools is evident today as Aboriginal people, long deprived of parenting skills, struggle with family responsibilities and attempt to recapture cultural practices and beliefs so long denied. Grand Chief Dave Courchene Sr. put the experience succinctly: ‘Residential schools taught self-hate. That is child abuse . . . Too many of our people got the message and passed it on.’ It is their younger generations that now appear before the court.’ We believe the breakdown of Aboriginal cultural values and the abuse suffered by Aboriginal children in the schools contributed to family breakdown. This began a cycle of abuse in Aboriginal communities, with women and children being the primary victims.’ Reference: ABORIGINAL WOMEN Glossary: Aboriginal peoples: Aboriginal peoples of Canada are defined in the Constitution Act, 1982, Section 35 (2) as including the Indian, Inuit and Métis peoples of Canada. First Nations people: The First Nations people are the various Aboriginal peoples in Canada who are neither Inuit nor Métis. There are currently over 630 recognized First Nations governments or bands spread across Canada, roughly half of which are in the provinces of Ontario and BritishColumbia. Indigenous people: are those groups especially protected in international or national legislation as having a set of specific rights based on their historical ties to a particular territory and their cultural or historical distinctiveness from other populations. The legislation is based on the conclusion that certain indigenous people are vulnerable to exploitation, marginalization and oppression by nation states formed from colonizing populations or by politically dominant, different ethnic groups. A defining characteristic for an indigenous group is that it has preserved traditional ways of living, such as present or historical reliance upon subsistence-based production (based on pastoral, horticultural and/or hunting and gathering techniques), and a predominantly non-urbanized society. Not all indigenous groups share these characteristics. Zhaawanong Shelter for Abused Women and Children: Zhaawanong means "South" in the Ojibwe language. This direction means warmth, change, nurturance and renewal - qualities promoted in the shelter which is located in London. Operating since June, 1992, the shelter offers a 24 hour emergency shelter for First Nation women and their children who are at high risk of further abuse in the family home. They provide: safety, protection and shelter, (up to 42 days), in a supportive healing environment; intervention and holistic crisis counselling (group or individual), for women and their children; traditional healing circles for women and children; an understanding of the cycle of violence; promotion of health and wellness and prevention of family violence; emergency transportation; and referral and advocacy, while they are in transition. Culture: Culture is the learned, shared, and transmitted values, beliefs, norms, and lifeways of a particular group that guide the group’s thinking, decisions, and actions in patterned ways.

Mike discusses what the Australia Act is, and compares it to the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1901. Did the Australia Act really create a defacto Australian Republic? Why do the politicians ignore us? Are they all really in TREASON? Support the show (https://www.cirnow.com.au/donate/)

This episode explores some of the issues around this referendum, and reflects on the law surrounding access to abortion both North and South of the border. On the 25th May the Republic of Ireland will vote in a referendum on whether or not to Repeal the eighth amendment of the Irish Constitution. The Eighth Amendment of the Constitution Act 1983 amended the Constitution by inserting a subsection recognising the equal right to life of the mother and the unborn. This episode explores some of the issues around this referendum, and reflects on the law surrounding access to abortion both North and South of the border. Participants Danielle Roberts, a PhD candidate from Ulster University, and a member of Alliance for Choice and the Together for Yes campaign, explains the laws around abortion in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. Dr Paula Devine, from Queen's University, discusses her role as the coordinator of the annual Northern Ireland life and times survey, and explores public attitudes towards abortion within Northern Ireland. Students Eimear O'Donaghue and Hanorah Hardy talk about their  involvement in the Project Choice campaign in the Queen's Student Union. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighth_Amendment_of_the_Constitution_of_Ireland   http://www.qubsu.org/change/Campaigns/ProjectChoice/   http://www.ark.ac.uk/nilt/   http://www.alliance4choice.com   https://www.togetherforyes.ie

Queen approves Canadian Bill of Rights. The Canadian Bill of Rights became law under Progressive Conservative Prime Minister John Diefenbaker on August 10, 1960. It protected human rights based on freedom of religion, speech, assembly, association and the press. It also set out protections in criminal matters, such as the right to seek legal counsel and against arbitrary detention. While these kinds of freedoms had never before been put into Canadian law, the new bill was criticized for being a statute rather than part of the constitution. This meant it applied only to federal, not provincial, legislation. Over the years, however, each province expanded protections by creating human rights commissions and eventually the federal and provincial governments decided to enshrine protections in the constitution. In 1982, the Constitution Act was passed to include the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, a document that made human rights protections part of the constitution, and applied to all forms of Canadian governments. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Hello desk deserters, cubicle celebrators, open space sleeper-inners, corner office carousers, home den holidays and coffee shop sabbaticals. My name is Brock Armstrong and I am… not the Workplace Hero. That’s actually you! You see, the goal of this podcast is to make you into a Workplace Hero. I am merely your travel agent on this glorious adventure. I received an email the other day from listener Erin Moline who said “Topic idea: how to handle the backlog of email/missed conf calls/missed trainings and how to catch up without a cortisol surge?” For those of you who don’t know, Cortisol is the hormone that is often associated with stress and panic. So yeah, a avoiding a surge of that is a really good idea. We are about to celebrate Canada Day here in Canada, which celebrates the anniversary of the July 1, 1867, enactment of the Constitution Act which united the three separate colonies of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick into a single Dominion within the British Empire called Canada. Because Canada Day falls on a Saturday, most of us will get Monday off work - giving us a glorious summer time long weekend to revel in what it is to be Canadian… and yes, by that I mean beer. On the Tuesday after that, I bet if you ask a number of folks what they did over the long weekend, some will say that they spent time with family or enjoyed the outdoors. But others will talk about how they used the time to catch up on their work. But if you ask them if they had actually caught up, I can almost guarantee that no one will say “yes”. With the advent of enhanced technology and our 24/7 culture, it is becoming increasingly difficult for employees to ever feel they have all their work done. Today’s work ethic of “more, bigger, faster, busier” creates a trap for many in the global economy. Technology can create efficiencies but it can also overwhelm us and make us feel forever trapped under an enormous pile of busywork. Before we go any further, I want to direct you to workplacehero.me/weightlesswebinar. That’s a program that I am working on with my friend Monica Reinagel (AKA the Nutrition Diva) and over at weightless.me we teach you to stop dieting and start weighing less. Now - if you are hearing this podcast when it first comes out, you are in luck! We are hosting a live webinar on June 24 at 12:00 pm ET where we will share the techniques we use to help our coaching clients to achieve a healthy weight and lifestyle without dieting. And you can sign up for that webinar at workplacehero.me/weightlesswebinar. But even if you missed the webinar, head over to weightless.me to find out more. Ok, now back to some strategies I have used and some that I found in my research that will help you conquer that mountain of work quickly and calmly and also help you reclaim your unused vacation days. 1. Plan ahead. Smart people prepare to take a vacation by planning ahead. This won’t surprise you long time listeners but I like to make a to-do list for all the work projects that need to get done before I leave, and I set up a contact person for any emergencies while I am away. I also make sure to alert all my clients and co-workers that I will be on vacation well ahead of the day. Don’t wait until the day before you leave to spring it on your team. But it is just as important to plan ahead for your return to the office as well. One way to do that, is to build in a vacation day at home. I know that sounds kinda crappy but rather than getting home at 10 p.m. on Sunday night and heading to work bright and early Monday morning, plan on arriving home on Saturday so that you have all day Sunday to buy groceries, wash laundry and get back into your daily routine. You may even want to get a head start on sorting—and more importantly deleting—emails. Giving yourself this transitional day will allow you to tackle your first day back in the office with a little more Zen. 2. Schedule time to catch up on work. The worst thing that you can do is to show up back at work without a plan in place, sit down at your desk as if it’s a normal day and haphazardly start working. Instead you should block out your morning (verbally, on your calendar or even with a sign on your desk) so that you have time to catch up with staff, sort through your inbox, listen to voice mail messages, make a to-do list and respond to urgent work matters. If you don’t block out that time, you will start getting questions and work thrown your way immediately without any way of knowing what is or isn’t a priority. In that same vein, I also wouldn’t schedule meetings the first—or even second day—back in the office. Give yourself time to find out what’s been going down while you were away before closing your eyes and jumping back in head first - eyes closed, head first, can’t lose! 3. Delegate job duties to coworkers and employees. One way to avoid coming back to a crap-tonne of work after a vacation is to empower your employees and delegate some of your responsibilities to co-workers. I seriously don’t know why people avoid delegating work while they are away. I guess it could be that they want the job security of being viewed as irreplaceable so they don’t want anyone else learning and doing their job. Or maybe they have a Type A personality and just don’t want to (or can’t seem to) give up control. Whatever the reason, they are not helping themselves by refusing to delegate work. Think about it. You can come back from vacation and have only 10 items on your to-do list instead of 20 or 30. That will make a huge difference in how quickly you get caught up. No one is suggesting you delegate your entire job or pass off sensitive business matters (plus who else in the office has time for that crap). Instead just choose a few straightforward duties that don’t require your specific set of skills - ala Liam Neeson. 4. Check in with co-workers. Before heading straight to your desk to check your email (I know that is the first thing you will do), try to check in with your colleagues first. Take 10 minutes to find out what has happened while you were away and if there is anything pressing that needs your attention. This will save you time and help you be more efficient. Rather than reading every email to figure out what priorities you should focus on, you will already know what needs your attention and can address those issues right away. 5. Focus on priorities. Not every email in your inbox is a priority or even needs a response. Make sure that you sort and prioritize your emails. Here is a little tip - don’t go down the list answering every email starting with the oldest. Many of those emails will have a bunch of cc-ed individuals on them and the chances are (since you told everyone you were going to be on vacation) that someone has stepped up and handled the task which renders that email thread closed. Start from the newest and work your way back. That way you will prioritize the stuff that is actually waiting for you not the stuff that has already been handled. Also, in terms of prioritizing, focussing on your work projects is crucial, as well. Make a to-do list for your first week back. Focus first on what needs to be done immediately, not so immediately, eventually and simply go down the list. By the end of the week you will be back on track, all caught up and ready to enjoy your weekend. 6. Your out-of-office response is your first line of defense--wield it to your advantage Your out-of -office autoreply needs to be straightforward, helpful, and honest--but not that honest. I also recommend leaving it up through your catch up period; your coworkers will know you're available but it will help stem the tidal wave of outside inquiries, or at least lower the expectation of an immediate response. An out-of-office message directed at external parties should include directions for who to contact according to contingencies. Assess who's going to be emailing you along two or three broad categories and let them know who to reach out to instead or when they might expect a response. Here is one of my favourite tips - It's also ok to suggest people follow up with you after your vacation because you just might not get to their email. Everybody who emails understands the volume problem and that things can get lost when someone is away. It’s not really a shock to anybody—you’re just warning people: 'It may get lost or buried, please feel free to follow up with me when I am back.’ 7. Feeling especially brave? Skip wading through email at all and nuke your inbox. I know, the very thought of losing the contents of your inbox likely sends a chill down your spine, but I argue that a post-vacation email purge can be just the thing you need to get back on track without losing an entire day to email maintenance. If your out of office reply was effective enough, the people who actually still need your or are waiting for a reply will try again AFTER the date you indicated that you would be back. So you don’t have to worry that anything will go unfinished since you have placed the onus on them to contact you when you are not on a beach sipping a margarita. 8. You should try to be indispensable — but realizing that you're not, might make you a better employee. Planning for and returning from a vacation can be a good time for an adjustment of your professional outlook on work and life. We're all striving to be the go-to team member, but believing the company actually can't function without us can not only be incorrect but it is also foolish and potentially a huge source of stress in your life. A friend of mine describes a five-day vacation she once took where she believed WiFi would be readily available and discovered it was not. At that point she realized her only option was to change her outlook on needing to be connected and as the songs says: let it go. In the end she missed a few things, but she just apologized to a few people when she got back and they were honestly more interested in hearing about this amazing and magical destination that has no wifi than they were in giving her a haranguing. Now, your homework! With Canada Day and Independence Day both coming up soon, even though it is merely a long weekend and not a glorious vacation, it is still the perfect time to get your feet wet and put at least some of these suggestions into practice. Perhaps you spend some time crafting your Out Of Office reply or you make sure you have a plan for how you are going to tackle your work when you get back. Or perhaps you can spend the weekend steeling yourself for that moment when you nuke your inbox! Whichever tactic you choose, plan it out and make sure you are ready to wrangle your time and not let this short break turn into a source of stress. Then, when it is time to really take a vacation, you will feel less intimidated and more in control. Remember: learn to plan ahead, rely on your coworkers, and understand that sometimes, it's inevitable that you'll miss out on a last-minute request - but by taking a real vacation, you will much more productive when you return. Now, go make this long weekend count. ** Workplace Hero is researched, written, narrated, and recorded by me Brock Armstrong in Vancouver Canada. Logo by Ken Cunningham. Music is courtesy my old band, The Irregular Heartbeats. Today’s heroic topic suggestion came from Erin Moline. Remember you can suggest topics for future podcasts by emailing podcast@workplacehero.me

In Episode 23, we learn about The Constitution Act, 1982, the Charter and the stamps issued by Canada Post to celebrate this moment in Canadian history. Check out the stamps (and more) discussed in this episode here: https://medium.com/stamp-stories/the-constitution-act-1982-b9f630e938e3

The Empire Club of Canada Presents: The Right Honourable Beverley McLachlin, P.C., Chief Justice of Canada With The First Event of our Sesquicentennial Series: Celebrating Canada's 150th Anniversary Canada's Legal System at 150: Fostering Canadian Democracy Through an Independent Judiciary. An independent judiciary is an essential feature of a free, democratic society. Canada's sesquicentennial presents an opportunity to take stock of this cornerstone of Canadian democracy. Judicial independence has characterized the Canadian constitutional order even as the country evolved from a system of Parliamentary sovereignty under the British North America Act, 1867, to one of constitutional supremacy under the Constitution Act, 1982 and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Through a survey of this evolution, the address will draw attention to current concerns relating to judicial independence in Canada, and to the need to better understand this most fundamental of constitutional principles. Chief Justice McLachlin spent her formative years in Pincher Creek, Alberta and was educated at the University of Alberta, where she received a B.A., Honours, in Philosophy in 1965. She pursued her studies at the University of Alberta and, in 1968, received both an M.A. in Philosophy and an LL.B. She was called to the Alberta Bar in 1969 and to the British Columbia Bar in 1971 and practised law in Alberta and British Columbia. Commencing in 1974, she taught for seven years in the Faculty of Law at the University of British Columbia as a tenured Associate Professor. Her judicial career began in April 1981 when she was appointed to the Vancouver County Court. In September 1981, she was appointed to the Supreme Court of British Columbia. She was elevated to the British Columbia Court of Appeal in December of 1985 and was appointed Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of British Columbia in September 1988. Seven months later, in April 1989, she was sworn in as a Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada. On January 7, 2000, she was appointed Chief Justice of Canada. She is the first woman in Canada to hold this position. In addition to her judicial duties at the Supreme Court, the Chief Justice chairs the Canadian Judicial Council, the Advisory Council of the Order of Canada and the Board of Go Judicial Institute. The Chief Justice is the author of numerous articles and publications. Speaker: The Right Honourable Beverley McLachlin, P.C., Chief Justice of Canada *The content presented is free of charge but please note that the Empire Club of Canada retains copyright. Neither the speeches themselves nor any part of their content may be used for any purpose other than personal interest or research without the explicit permission of the Empire Club of Canada.* *Views and Opinions Expressed Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed by the speakers or panelists are those of the speakers or panelists and do not necessarily reflect or represent the official views and opinions, policy or position held by The Empire Club of Canada.*

In celebration of the 30th anniversary of the patriation of the Constitution of Canada, the Law Journal invites Mary Dawson, C.M., Q.C., to deliver the 2012 Annual Lecture and share her experiences as one of the final drafters of the Constitution Act, 1982 and as the principal legal advisor for the Meech Lake and Charlottetown [...]

In celebration of the 30th anniversary of the patriation of the Constitution of Canada, the Law Journal invites Mary Dawson, C.M., Q.C., to deliver the 2012 Annual Lecture and share her experiences as one of the final drafters of the Constitution Act, 1982 and as the principal legal advisor for the Meech Lake and Charlottetown [...]

Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act

Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act

Act 1: Mike Malloy - A Damning IndictmentAct 2: Dennis Kucinich - Who's Going to Defend the Constitution?Act 3: Randi Rhodes - OMG! WTF? (part1)Act 4: Randi Rhodes - OMG! WTF? (part2)Act 5: Rachel Maddow - Calling the BluffAct 6: The Young Turks - A Real Life HeroAct 7: Randi Rhodes - Too Busy To ImpeachAct 8: Mike Malloy - Open Letter From WexlerAct 9: Olbermann & Maddow - Cheney ImpeachmentAct 10: Tucker Carlson - Kucinich Schools TuckerAct 11: The Real News Network - Roundup of EventsMusic:Patiently Waiting (Instrumental) -50 CentThe Move - Boom BipSpeechless - Kruder & Dorfmeister Candy Shop - 50 CentLose Yourself - UnwrappedHeat Miser - Massive AttackNo Soul - Say AnythingFight to Survive - Israel VibrationRude Boy - Big Red and Daddy MoryProduced By: BillyBaptismThanks for listening! Visit us at www.BestOfTheLeftPodcast.com Contact me directly at HippieSympathizer@gmail.com Leave us comments at www.PodcastAlley.com or Review the show on iTunes. Digg us at www.Digg.com