Letter to all the Parliamentarians
requesting that they check the powers of the Executive and Judiciary
Member of Parliament
September 9, 2024
Dear [Insert the name of your MP here. I wrote to them all…]
( If you would prefer just to listen you can do that on this video )
I live in Canada in British Columbia, V0G 1S0
The judiciary is claiming they have absolute discretion and their discretion is not to be questioned and nobody has authority over them. The Executive is supporting that unconstitutional role of the Judiciary because they are similarly implicated.
Now that the NDP-Liberal Supply & Confidence Agreement has purportedly been torn up it becomes reasonable to have this conversation in Parliament. I have suggested that it would be necessary to serve Parliament with the enforcement procedure of the Charter to properly check the Judiciary as there appears to be a break down in the formal procedures to accomplish that through the Office of the Minister of Justice but I chose to begin with this Information.
On August 28, 2024 I wrote to all of the British Columbia Members of the Legislative Assembly describing a failure in the rule of law and serious problems in the administration of justice. I attach that letter and many more in the attached PDF: “Evidence for Parliament”, so as not to repeat myself.
I have also been in contact with Parliament on numerous occasions over the last few years attempting to connect with an authority that would listen. I received almost no responses to anything but I am confident that most of the Parliamentarians have been informed through one process or another. I have been attempting to access Parliament to resolve a matter of National Security for Canada, the integrity of its political/legal system. Denial has been the ongoing solution but its causing more problems than it is solving.
The Minister of Justice imposed martial law, enforcing the Emergencies Act upon Canadians, removing the democratic oversight of Parliament from the conduct of the Executive. David Lametti did that knowing that the Ministry of Justice was refusing to respond to a call for accountability through the Enforcement Procedure of the Charter, to bring the matter of Judges through the Canadian Judicial Council claiming absolute and unreviewable power to the attention of Parliament, as the only court of competent jurisdiction to check the Judiciary for Charter compliance.
Furthermore Lametti made false and misleading statements regarding his duties in order to protect his friends, other lawyers and judges instead of doing his duty to protect the public. Accountability was being requested in the Court system of British Columbia through a request for a Writ of Mandamus, a court order for a Minister to do his duty. The claim by the Minister of Justice at the Public Order Emergency Commission that he was conducting himself in “good faith” is disputed by the evidence in my brief to the Federal Court of Appeal but could be conclusively resolved if Parliament were provided the legal opinion that must justify their conduct.
It is of grave importance for Parliament to assert its authority to check the conduct of the Executive in this matter. It's a matter of a guarantee. The Executive is improperly protecting the Judiciary.
1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
The judiciary cannot justify that in a free and democratic society that they should have the discretion to ignore the transcript to protect a lawyer committing fraud on a court order.
7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.
Nobody in Canada is free and secure whilst the Judiciary claim such arbitrary power. The unsupported opinion of the Judiciary cannot over rule the best evidence that any Canadian could provide, to prove a fraud on the court.
The Judges Act enacted by Parliament in June of 2023 has a declared statutory purpose,
Objects of Council
60 (1) The objects of the Council are to promote efficiency and uniformity, and to improve the quality of judicial service, in superior courts.
The Canadian Judicial Council issued this response to my complaint,
“You complain that Justice Shaw accepted the evidence of your former spouse and her lawyer instead of accepting the transcript. You also complain Justice Shaw allowed a lawyer to not comply with a court order.
The admissibility and weighing of evidence is a matter that falls within the ambit of judicial discretion. Chief Justice Pidgeon is of the view that Justice Shaw exercised his judicial discretion when he preferred certain evidence over others. The exercise of judicial discretion is not a matter of conduct. The failure by a party to abide by the order is not either a matter of judicial conduct.”
As I pointed out in the BC Supreme Court on Dec 3, 2021 in my application for a Writ of Mandamus on the Minister of Justice,
“A Judge that cannot determine the priority of evidence when presented with the transcript cannot be trusted with our rights, our finances, our lives, and our children. The Charter of Rights is an empty promise, our right to Appeal is arbitrary, and the foundation of democracy is destroyed.”
Obviously a legal system is very efficient when it ignores all evidence of misconduct by system insiders. That this ruling establishes the uniformity across Canada that Judges may ignore the transcript to protect fraud is disturbing and unconstitutional and does nothing to improve the quality of judicial service except for hiding and protecting the Judiciary in their misconduct and abusing Canadians as a result.
Unfortunately Parliament itself is implicated with responsibility in this matter for allowing a judge that Parliamentarians of all political parties united in their disapproval wanted dismissal but everyone fell into line on Feb 2, 1999 when the Liberal Minister of Justice Anne McLellan pleaded for Parliament to allow the legal system to self-regulate.
It is another decision time to decide which way Canada will fall, to allow the judiciary complete free reign to declare war on Canadians, as Myron Thompson MP of the Reform Party stated on February 2, 1999 after Parliament permitted Judge Shaw to remain on the bench,
“I rise on a point of order. Based on an earlier decision of a vote in the house, may I recommend we close this place and let the lawyers and judges run this country.”
That is tempered by the more recent comment by Member of Parliament, Rheal Fortin, Bloc Quebecois on June 16, 2022 in the House of Commons during debate on Bill C-9,
“We must never forget that the judicial system belongs to the people and must be accountable to the people. We are merely the ones responsible for ensuring the system is effective.”
I would recommend listening very carefully to the independent researchers in the academic field of judicial conduct, such as Richard Devlin who appeared before the House and the Senate debating the Judges Act and provided professional advice, which was ignored and the judicial opinion of what should be in the Act preferred over more impartial opinions. The Minister of Justice David Lametti was quite explicit before the Committee on November 17, 2022,
“It's not only our department but also the judges themselves who worked very hard on this bill”
Canadians are watching Parliament very carefully for compliance with the Constitutional imperative to create Peace, Order and Good Government. The alternative is using force to create order which is bad government because it is not in the public interest and creates zero trust that our government has the consent of the governed and "that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth”.
Or to put it in Canadian Constitutional terms,
“1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.”
There has been no justification provided for the conduct of the Judiciary or the Executive besides claiming that their discretion is unlimited and a refusal for that discretion to be examined.
Parliament normally allows the Judiciary to decide these terms when there is not a conflict of interest but in this case when it is the Judiciary and Executive that are alleged to be not in compliance with the Constitution we know that nobody can be a judge in their own cause and Parliament must resolve the conflict in the public interest.
The lawyers at the Attorney General's Office in British Columbia are now openly declaring that the Executive and the Legislature has no role to play in the judging of judicial conduct.
The Constitution provides Parliament the power
99 (1) Subject to subsection (2) of this section, the judges of the superior courts shall hold office during good behaviour, but shall be removable by the Governor General on address of the Senate and House of Commons.
Parliament expands on the elements required for removal in the Judges Act,
Removal from Office
Justification
80 For the purposes of this Division, the removal from office of a judge is justified only if, for any of the following reasons, the judge’s continuation in office would undermine public confidence in the impartiality, integrity or independence of the judge or of their office to such an extent that it would render the judge incapable of executing the functions of judicial office:
(a) infirmity;
(b) misconduct;
(c) failure in the due execution of judicial office;
(d) the judge is in a position that a reasonable, fair-minded and informed observer would consider to be incompatible with the due execution of judicial office.
The test created by the Judges to judge judicial misconduct was created during the Marshall Inquiry,
“Is the conduct alleged so manifestly and profoundly destructive of the concept of impartiality, integrity and independence of the judicial role, that public confidence would be sufficiently undermined to render the judge incapable of executing the judicial office?”
and that,
“Judicial independence exists for the benefit of the judged, not the judges. It is therefore to be assessed from the perspective of the reasonable observer and in light of the public interests it is meant to serve.”
and more recently affirmed by the Judiciary,
“judicial independence does not require that the conduct of judges be immune from scrutiny by the legislative and executive branches of government. On the contrary, an appropriate regime for the review of judicial conduct is essential to maintain public confidence in the judiciary.”
Cosgrove v Canadian Judicial Council, 2007 FCA 103, [2007] 4 F.C.R. 714 at para 32
The matter was succinctly summarized in the Chief Justice's Annual Report to Canadians,
"justice is not just a service...people need justice. When they recognize that they will not have access to justice, that will jeopardize our democracy and the rule of law. We should not underestimate this possibility. That is why we have to facilitate access to justice."
Chief Justice Richard Wagner, June 3, 2024
Chief Justice Wagner stated on June 13, 2023 that in respect to the judicial discipline process it was "not possible for the public to have trust...and scandalous...and must be changed" but the amendments to the Judges Act made in 2023 do nothing to restore trust, and in conjunction with the evidence before Parliament is a betrayal of the public trust, in itself.
Canada does not have an appropriate regime for the review of judicial conduct. We have an access to justice crisis because the administration is not in compliance with the law and the public is not being protected. Parliament is the last bastion for the protection of the public interest and has the legitimate purpose and authority to check the judiciary for breaches of the Constitution and the Judges Act, their governing documents. The judging of judicial conduct is a matter of national security and should be done fairly and impartially to all parties so that it is constitutional.
The Minister of Justice has a critical role in the judicial conduct process,
“[64] ... the Council has no power to remove a judge from office... If the question of removal is to be put before Parliament, it is the Minister who does so ... Like all acts of an Attorney General, the Minister’s discretion in that regard is constrained by the constitutional obligation to act in good faith, objectively, independently and with a view to safeguarding the public interest.”
Cosgrove v. Canadian Judicial Council
But the Minister of Justice is saying one thing and doing another and clearly not in the public interest,
“We can be confident that this bill strikes the right balance. Canadians can trust that their judges are making independent and impartial decisions and, at the same time, they can rest assured that the judges' conduct remains subject to review. Ultimately, this will improve trust in the administration of justice, both with respect to individual judges and on a broader scale...
It is essential to remember that our system of law exists to serve the public. It operates because we have confidence in its legitimacy, trusting in the capacity of its members and mechanisms to administer justice. This is no accident, but rather the result of sustained and concerted efforts over time. Here in Canada we are fortunate to have a strong foundation upon which to build. This requires ongoing attention, however, by ensuring measures are undertaken to safeguard public trust"
David Lametti Dec 9, 2022 House Of Commons
And the current Minister of Justice, Arif Virani is refusing to provide the legal justification provided to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau for enforcing the Emergencies Act. Senator Carignan has called him to account and compared Canada's conduct in this matter with North Korea. The Minister of Justice could waive solicitor-client privilege but chooses to hide from Canadians a decision which is either legitimate and legal or unlawful and unconstitutional.
(February 27, 2024 Parliamentary Committee on the Declaration of Emergency.)
Combined with the evidence in my brief to the Federal Court of Appeal the Public is left with the conclusion that enforcing the Emergencies Act on Canadians was a decision that was not made in good faith, it was unlawful and cannot be justified.
The Supreme Court of Canada is refusing to hear appeals regarding the enforcement of the Emergencies Act declaring the issue, moot which is clearly not the case. However due to conflicts of interests within that institution and the Judiciary generally Canadians cannot trust the institution because they preemptively sided with the Executive from the start.
The Federal Court of Appeal rejected my participation as an Intervener because of the allegations of lawyer and judicial misconduct but clearly they are central to the issue under debate so how can the Public have trust that the issues will be fairly and impartially resolved if we are being completely ignored and punished for speaking out against corrupt practices.
Ultimately, Parliament too, has a conflict of interest due to the decision in 1999 not to remove a judge, but there is now a chance to correct the mistake. To err is human. But principles are what contain a society.
I remind Parliament that the Public Prosecution Service of Canada withdrew their prosecution of me of s 238(1) of the Income Tax Act, the requirement to file, in the “public interest.”
A restoration of the public trust is required, delay and obfuscation is not helping Canada. Transparency and accountability is required. I have provided some recommendations to consider.
"In a democracy, there is no such thing as absolute unfettered discretion.
It is a contradiction in terms.
Fraud and corruption are always exceptions to the rule."
Constitutional Law by Peter Hogg.
The consequences are very clear,
“In the final analysis who is on the hook if a judge screws up? It is the Prime Minister and the Justice Minister”
Liberal MP, Shaughnessy Cohen quoted by Reform MP, Mr. Paul Forseth Feb 2, 1999
Canadians would welcome the appropriate democratic debate on this matter of National Importance. In fact it would be a constitutional imperative.
Yours sincerely,
Trevor Holsworth
P.S.
"When a single branch creates the statues, administers them, and adjudicates disputes arising from them, arbitrary government results, freedom suffers, and real democracy does not exist."
The Judge in a Democracy by Chief Justice of the High Court of Israel Aharon Barak
“All authorities agree that the right of petitioning parliament for redress of grievances is acknowledged as a fundamental principle of the constitution. It has been uninterruptedly exercised from very early times and has had a profound effect in determining the main forms of parliamentary procedure.”
Speaker Gaspar Fauteux (Debates, June 18, 1947, pp. 4278–9)
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
24 (1) Anyone whose rights or freedoms, as guaranteed by this Charter, have been infringed or denied may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction to obtain such remedy as the court considers appropriate and just in the circumstances.
Evidence for Parliament
CONTENTS
Media
1 - Letter to the Editor Valley Voice July 1, 2021
The website: FundamentalJustice.com
Communication with Canadian Judicial Council (CJC)
2 - CJC Letter dismissing complaint re: Justice Shaw August 28, 2007
4 = Email to CJC complaint re: a member of the Council July 9, 2023
5 - Registered Letter to CJC Counsel, Marc Giroux, March 7, 2024
Communication with Parliamentary Committees
Brief re the Status of Women (on last page of this pdf)
6 - Letter in support of Brief September 20, 2022
8 - Brief re Bill C-9 Judges Act in the Justice and Human Rights Committee Sep 20, 2022
9 - Email to Parliamentary Committee on Public Safety and National Security November 18, 2022
10 - Email to Procedures and House Affairs PROC, March 6, 2023
13 - Brief to support the deliberations of the Parliamentary Committee on Justice and Human Rights on Bill C-40 Miscarriages of Justice
Communication with Members of Parliament
17 - Ms Atwin regarding Parliamentary Petition for judicial accountability April 19, 2021
18 - Email to Mr. Poillevre Leader of the Conservative Party of Canada, October 22, 2022
19 - Email to Mr. Singh Leader of the New Democratic Party, December 29, 2022
20 - Email to my Member of Parliament, Richard Cannings NDP requesting Parliament be petitioned June 21, 2023
21 - Email to Shadow Minister of Justice, Rob Moore October 23, 2022
22 - Email to Shadow Minister of Democratic Reform Michael Cooper July 13, 2023
23 - Email to the Speaker of the House, Anthony Rota Feb 21, 2023
26 - Response of the Speaker of the House March 9, 2023
Senate
27 - Submission to the Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs regarding Judges Act Dec 12, 2022
29 - Proposal for Judicial Reform submitted to the Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs
Governor General
34 - Email to Governor General regarding minority government October 26, 2021
36 - Follow up email to Governor General regarding minority government March 7, 2022
Communication with the Prime Minister's Office
37 - November 16, 2020
39 - March 4, 2022
44 - August 22, 2022
45 - July 28, 2022
46 - February 5, 2023
Public Submissions to Pubic Order Emergency Commission
47 - October 22, 2022
Communication with the MOJ Arif Virani
49 - Email to Minister of Justice Arif Virani Aug 17, 2023
Communication in British Columbia Provincial Jurisdiction
55 - Registered Letter of February 26, 2024 to AG Niki Sharma
53 - Registered Letter of June 14, 2024 to AG Niki Sharma
55 - Registered Letter of November 30, 2022 to Premier David Eby
Court Applications
58 - Supreme Court of Canada Habeas Corpus November 9, 2023
Communications with Federal Public Service
60 - Letter to the Canada Revenue Agency
Late Addition
63 - Communication with the Members of Legislative Assembly of BC
Additional separate PDF's
Court Applications
Federal Court of Appeal
Brief in support of application for Intervener in A-74-24 to Review the circumstances of the enforcement of the Emergencies Act
Includes:
“A” Constitutional Question on MOJ not responding to Enforcement Procedure s 24(1) of the Charter and Income Tax Act s 238(1) Requirement to File
“B” Emails with PMO
“C” Email from MOJ David Lametti
“D” My Email response to MOJ David Lametti
“E” Communications with RCMP National Division
“F” Valley Voice July 1, 2021
“G” Communications with Parliamentary Ethics Commissioner
“H” Excerpts of transcript from Application for a Writ of Mandamus on David Lametti
Application for leave to intervene by the Court, denied
Links
Request for Intervener status at Federal Court of Appeal https://ruleoflawcanada.substack.com/p/request-for-intervener-status-at…
Federal Attorney General Response
https://ruleoflawcanada.substack.com/p/response-from-ag-in-fca-re-emergencies…
Legal argument for evidence to be admitted in public interest https://ruleoflawcanada.substack.com/p/my-written-representations-to-the…
Summary of evidence provided in support of application https://ruleoflawcanada.substack.com/p/evidence-in-support-of-application…
This is the full pdf file of my evidence and argument https://fundamentaljustice.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/INTERVENER-MOTION-ACCEPTED-BY-REGISTRY-4-APRIL-2024.pdf
ᐧ