|
Public Interest Standing Hearing - an Interlocutory Motion hearing of Judicial Review Yar. 510031 CANS et al. v Strang et al.
January 24, 2024 Yarmouth, NS
The day started off with a full Courtroom of quiet but expectant observers from the public. First there were some preliminary matters to deal with. The Judge waved a stack of letters of impact and support that members of the public had mailed to the Court in a show of support for CANS’ assertion of Public Interest Standing. The intention for the letter campaign was to encourage everyone to exercise their “Democratic muscle” by expressing themselves and writing about how the mandates had affected their lives and their families. CANS confirmed with the Judge on the Record that the letters had not been intended to be submitted into evidence; all affidavits or evidence must be submitted at the time of official filing and that had happened a few months prior.
After receiving this confirmation from CANS, the Judge categorized the letters as out of scope for the day’s hearing and we moved on to the next order of the day: the cross examination of Tara Ibrahim, a member of the Board who submitted her affidavit in support of CANS’ assertion of Public Interest Standing. The angle the Respondents took for the cross-examination was an interesting one: question the validity of the Board and organization in terms of expertise and access to resources. The Respondents’ Counsel commented on the “relative infancy” of CANS as an organization and that he considered it unlikely that CANS had established “consistent, reliable funding sources or consistent, reliable professional report resources” to further its goals. What we took from that is the imputation that access to justice is guaranteed so long as the applicant has a healthy bank balance. CANS rejects entirely the respondents' counsel’s “colouring of the Courts as a temple where only the priest may enter and a citizen must pay a heavy indulgence for his prayers to be spoken”.
The Respondents’ Counsel was polite and patient but the strategy appeared to be to discredit the organization so that it was deemed not suitable or worthy of being granted Public Interest Standing. This is not a new pattern as we all know. In fact, it has been a well employed strategy that became visible to many of us in the last 3 years: discredit, demonize, demolish. Such ad hominem tactics can be interpreted as a sign that the opponent can offer no real argument. Tara Ibrahim handled the questions well and made some salient points about our place in the structure of government as responsible owners as well as what public institutions owe to us in terms of accountability and following the rule of law.
The cross examination came across as an exercise in nit picking showing that the Respondents had no substantive legal precedent for why CANS shouldn’t be granted Public Interest Standing.
William Ray, Board member and Agent for CANS, now stood up to make his statements and case: “If we, the citizens, have no right to stand here and have a matter adjudicated on behalf of citizens, then who does?”
William Ray was in great form for Court and spoke at length about case law which supported CANS’ assertion of Public Interest Standing. He spoke about ancient laws such as the duty of protection that parents have for their children and newer-by-comparison laws such as the Magna Carta 1215 where no one shall be proceeded against “except by the lawful judgment of his peers and the law of the land”. William Ray spoke of access to justice and our expectations as Nova Scotians that our public institutions exercise their authorities according to the legislation to which they are bound. He described that by directing the public health order and mandates to “all Nova Scotians” and other persons in the province instead of solely and directly to individuals as the Health Protection Act specifically states, the Respondents made the matter novel and unique to Public Interest Law (at least in contemporary Nova Scotia) because every citizen, every person and every organization/business in the jurisdiction was directly affected by the actions of the administrator which were “the most egregious abrogation of the rights of the citizens of Nova Scotia ever perpetrated by a single individual”.
And all of the above without any evidence of the safety or efficacy of the C19 injections which can be shown simply by putting the facts before the Court: that the manufacturer of these products did not make the assertion that they were either effective or safe in neither their scientific studies, nor in the contract they signed with the government of Canada to purchase said medical products.
William Ray then went on to talk about Bad Faith and the Respondents confirmed that Bad Faith only comes into play if the Chief Medical Officer of Health (CMOH) had prior knowledge of, for example, potential harm or risk of injury from the C19 injections; or that the CMOH knew that there was no evidence of efficacy but still mandated the C19 injections for “all Nova Scotians”. Bad Faith is strongly laced into the actions of not only the CMOH but equally of the Minister of Health and the Attorney General on whom rests the most important duty of safeguarding the Public Interest.
William Ray and Hugh Robichaud (lawyer for CANS’ child co-applicant) spoke further on the intended harm of the mandated Order to children: the administrator in effect without authority, gave minor children the right to make serious medical decisions and coerced this very distinct and vulnerable class into choosing between taking an experimental medical product or losing access to their sports circles, their friends and peers, and any “non-essential” activities which were enforcing C19 policies. And yet minor children cannot file suit in the court of law or take any legal action without a guardian who must be represented by a lawyer at all times. A legal maxim Tara Ibrahim often quotes comes to mind: “what cannot be legally done directly cannot be done indirectly.”
William Ray concluded that the nature of the matter CANS put forward to the court is “the most properly viewed as a matter of Public Interest” and that it should be judged in that manner “so that there is never a repeat of the coercive action taken against citizens by any agent of the province”
The Respondents' Counsel spoke next and expressed doubt around whether an organization which already has Private Interest Standing should also be given Public Interest Standing. There was much time spent on technicalities such as whether one of the healthcare worker affidavits supporting CANS’ assertion to Public Interest Standing should be struck due to improper notarization by the notary (no fault of either the affiant or the Applicant). Interestingly enough, that same struck affidavit contained exhibits showing that third parties are still citing Government-driven mandates around C19 injections as the reason for their on-going policies which was a point of clarification in the cross examination of Tara Ibrahim where the Respondents' Counsel asked if she had proof that the policy attached to her affidavit exhibit 2 is directly connected to or the result of the CMOH's PHOs. This creates a Live Controversy by extension.
The Respondents contended that as of July 6th 2022, the Order mandating C19 injections for Healthcare workers removed any restrictions which would have impacted the public. This is disinformation as many of us know of the harsh barriers that healthcare workers continue to face because of the C19 policies.
The main objections to CANS receiving Public Interest Standing seemed to be around the propriety of mixing Private Interest (which CANS already has) with Public Interest and how that would affect the scope of the Review.
When asked by the Judge for case law or precedence for their position on any of the items brought up by their Counsel, none could be offered. This point is important to note: there is no case law for Applicants that have Private Interest Standing requesting and subsequently being denied Public Interest Standing. This case Yar. 510031 may set precedent in Canadian Common Law. The board of CANS believes the people of Nova Scotia for whom we work, are in good stead.
The day ended on a strong note with a good closing by William Ray. The courtroom crowd was tired but had remained engaged throughout the day as had the online attendees. We are so grateful to everyone for their time and energy. The Judge thanked the courtroom observers for their respectful attitude and reserved his decision till a later date so that he could review everything put before him. We will let everyone know when we hear something.
On the drive back home after Court day, a CBC article on the Court case popped up in our texts. Some of you may have already seen it. While the article itself was not as incendiary as mainstream media has been when it comes to topics such as this, it still contained many inaccuracies which we respond to in a press release below and also go into more detail in the blog post below. The intentions of the article are beyond our scope of power (one cannot force another to consider things from a critical thinking perspective) but we can correct the many non-factual things that the article stated.
|
