Response from the Attorney General of Canada
to my notice of motion to Intervene at the Federal Court of Appeal re Trudeau's illegal Prorogation of Parliament.
I attempted to intervene at the Federal Court of Appeal regarding the enforcement of the Emergencies Act but was procedurally denied by this gatekeeping device loophole by the Attorney General. I hadnt read the Rules in sufficient detail to know I only had 4 days to respond, and not sufficiently legally orientated to know that I was required to dispute their position.
I adapted. Besides that the message was somewhat the same but with the Emergencies Act it was merely an assertion that the Minister of Justice enforced the Emergencies Act upon Canadians knowing that his personal integrity and that of the legal system were under constitutional examination and that he had made false and misleading statements as to his duties in order to avoid doing them. Protect the public. Ensure that the administration is in compliance with the law. He was protecting judges protecting lawyers committing fraud and refusing to respond to the enforcement procedure of the Charter s 24(1) seeking accountability in Parliament, the only court of competent jurisdiction to provide the constitutional remedy required, the removal of a judge and/or legislation to fix the problem.
At the time of the prorogation of Parliament I had begun to increase the communications to Members of Parliament and had asserted that I would be serving them all individually with the enforcement procedure of the Charter unless they resolved the situation without forcing me to take that constitutional step. All of the Opposition leaders had announced their intention to vote non-confidence at the soonest opportunity but had not done so on previous occasions.
The Opposition Minister of Justice Larry Brock presented argument to hold the Minister of Justice Arif Virani in contempt of Parliament for his failure to provide the legal decision for enforcing the Emergencies Act.
January 6, 2025 Justin Trudeau advised and requested the Governor General prorogue Parliament and allow time for a new Liberal leader to be appointed to replace him, rather than allow a new government be formed through the non-confidence motion.
The Court had never been asked to check the legality of a decision to prorogue Parliament before so the first thing the Federal Court had to determine was whether it was justiciable or a political decision which would be outside their jurisdiction. But if the prorogation was conducted unlawfully then that is a matter for the Court. And my evidence suggests very firmly that the Prime Minister prorogued Parliament to prevent debate on the constitutionality of judges claiming that they could legitimately reject the transcript and prefer the recollection of the Plaintiff to protect her lawyer committing fraud on a court order.
So the evidence is pretty damning and naturally implicates the Attorney General of Canada as they are improperly protecting judges and in a constitutional violation in that conduct and of course, the Judiciary are implicated in unconstitutional conduct by protecting unfair and corrupt trials instead of the constitutional requirement for fair and impartial trials. I plead for the Court to judge the conduct of Justin Trudeau as part of their constitutional duty knowing that it can only help restore the public trust.
But first the Attorney General of Canada writes and tells me that I am not wanted, needed and my evidence cannot be presented to court and to dismiss my motion for leave to intervene. They did something similar at the Emergencies Act and I thought that it was plain and obvious that they were wrong and I was right but that’s not quite how the legal system works…
From my previous experience I knew that I had to respond formally and had to look at every word of every allegation and reference every judicial decision back to a rule, a statute or the constitution to support my position. But the AG had set up a maze.
The first assertion that they made was essentially, I am irrelevant. He is complaining about lawyers and judges and other things unrelated to prorogation. Essentially a plea to the judiciary for institutional protection over protecting the individual.
I responded,
“5. My objective in seeking to intervene is to provide the Court the important perspective of a member of the public attempting to communicate with Members of Parliament to check the conduct of the Prime Minister regarding a constitutional failure by the Attorney General of Canada to respond to the Enforcement Procedure of the Charter which sought accountability for the conduct of the Canadian Judicial Council in Parliament and the failure of the Prime Minister to properly take these matters into account in his decision to advise and request prorogation from the Governor General.”
“Second, Mr. Holsworth’s proposed submissions will not meet the determinative criterion that they be useful in determining the issues in the appeal.4 Mr. Holsworth seeks to add new evidence to the record, which he cannot do, especially on appeal.5 He also seeks to raise a new issue or allegation—that the recommendation to prorogue would have been an obstruction of justice because it was made with the goal of preventing a “check” on the judiciary by Parliament6—which he also cannot do.7”
A lot of “cannot do” which was pretty daunting particularly when I examined the caselaw referenced in the footnotes. Everything was fine until I reached footnote 5.
That didn’t look good. If I couldn’t present evidence I couldn’t really prove anything…so I examined the decision at Teksavvy but that didnt really help much until I remembered the important rule when dealing with lawyers. How can you tell when they are lying? When their lips are moving.
I knew what they were saying didnt make sense but their argument seemed supported, as designed. And then I remembered another important aspect of the rule of law. Every decision of a judge or any other official must be able to be referenced back to a rule, a statute or the constitution. So I went back to the Federal Court Rules.
Well, that didnt seem to help much…but I stopped and read it through carefully. “No evidence shall be heard on an appeal unless…” and then the criteria listed a), b) and c) so that all elements have to be established. Well, the evidence was not admissible before the Federal Court because I was not an Intervener nor a Party. AND I believe it is relevant and credible so I’ll swear an affidavit to that and presented my argument for c)
8 Teksavvy Solutions Inc. v. Bell Media Inc., 2020 FCA 108 at para 22, notes that improper efforts to insert evidence that does not fit the test in Federal Court Rule 312 will be rejected
Then there is the elusive, “interests of justice…” and the AG are again desperately attempting to prevent the evidence from being presented because it wouldnt be just, fast or cheap.
but the claim that my submissions, “do not expose this Court to a perspective that is both missing and needed” clearly demonstrates the respect the AG have for the “public interest” in Justice. We rule. You obey. You do not complain. We are not interested in your perspective. Go Away. Didn’t we throw you in Jail…
16. The constitutional principles at stake are neither peripheral nor speculative. Avoiding these issues undermines the public's confidence in the rule of law. The Court's duty is not to shield institutions from scrutiny, but to resolve constitutional matters when properly raised. This motion offers the Court that opportunity.
and then lay it on the line,
18. The judiciary’s legitimacy depends not only on independence but on a demonstrated willingness to engage with allegations of constitutional failure, even when they concern its own institutions. Granting intervention is not an act of institutional vulnerability but of constitutional strength. It affirms the Court’s role as an impartial forum for accountability, and re-affirms to the public that nobody stands above constitutional scrutiny. In a moment of declining trust and rising institutional opacity, the path to restoring confidence lies not in avoidance, but in principled engagement. The Proposed Intervener submits that this motion offers the Court an opportunity to uphold that duty.
For the technical details I included the footnotes supporting that paragraph,
and remembered to ask so that you shall receive.
But I wasn’t terribly impressed with the conduct of the Attorney General but they are breaching the Charter themselves so what can we expect. I had warned them not to respond similarly as they had during my Emergencies Act submission.
So I provided some of my unique perspective which will bring out details and arguments not presented by the other Parties.
The Attorney General of Canada occupies a dual role—as both the chief legal advisor to the Prime Minister and the official representative of the Crown in litigation. In this case, that duality creates a structural conflict of interest: the Attorney General may have advised the Prime Minister on the legality of proroguing Parliament while now defending that same decision in court as a respondent. This raises a serious concern that the Attorney General is not in a position to independently assess or advocate for the public interest in the constitutionality of the Prime Minister’s action, particularly where the prorogation may have precluded parliamentary scrutiny of unresolved constitutional failures involving the judiciary and the Attorney General's own office. In such circumstances, impartial public representation may require independent intervention, as the appearance of objectivity by the Crown is compromised.
But the statistics are grim…
And now you know why.
I attempt to go through the Intervener application and highlight some portions. It’s still an hour long, so you can imagine how much time I spent on all of this…
Here is a link to my substack on the notice of motion for leave to intervene
I did take it all to the court and asked for a miscarriage of justice and abuse of process in the enforcement of child support which obviously I dont have too much capacity to dispute in the legal system since the mother increased it from $200 to $2600. The Judge ignored it all.
June 17, 2025
So I had a pretty hilarious day in court yesterday. Prior to incarcerating me for failing to comply with a court order to pay child support the judiciary must make a declaration that there have been no miscarriages of justice so I wanted to pre-emptively ask that question whilst still complying with the order. Refused. I presented written documented evidence of
1. failure to legally serve followed by a lie by the sheriff's superior claiming it was legal which induced me to attend court and then refusal to comply with FOI and Open Court principles to provide evidence of those interactions.
2. Bad faith mediation and weaponization of the family law system for retaliation, blaming me for conduct of the government...nothing to do with the children or income.
3. Two lawyers failing to advise of the availability of a statutory remedy of a stay of proceedings totally appropriate in this case but of course that calls into question the integrity of a lawyer.
4. I provided communication with the BC Ombudsperson's Office that indicated that they are investigating the BC Law Society for protecting lawyers committing fraud and refusing to comply with their statutory requirement to provide written reasons justifying their decision.
5. I read out from the transcript at the BCCA where the judge who labels my allegations, a "conspiracy", and asserts that it "does not reflect reality" also asserts that judges can protect lawyers committing fraud on court orders.
6. The lawyer that was previously representing FMEP quit work and quit working as a lawyer when the judge accepted her sophisticated argument that it "was a narrow issue" and so the Charter shouldnt apply, and the judge agreed with her.
7. The Chief Justice of the Provincial Court has refused to respond to the judicial conduct complaint regarding the judge.
8. A judge did not show up to Court on Feb 14, 2022 to deliver a decision on a writ of mandamus on MOJ, an order for an official to do their duty, and Lametti enforced the Emergencies Act knowing that his personal and institutional integrity were being questioned.
9. My submission as an intervener at the FCA on Emergencies Act which includes evidence of the MOJ making false and misleading statements as to his duties in order to avoid doing them and the RCMP threatening to destroy evidence.
10. Attempts to access the Registry denied and evidence provided to the court twice, but ignored. Another Registry is refusing to comply with a court order to produce court audio because they disclose a judge protecting a lawyer committing fraud by asking the plaintiff for her recollection and preferring that to the transcript that I provided. AND evidence that a transcript was altered removing evidence of a judge losing control over a hearing prior to submission to the CJC.
11. The evidence of my application to the FCA regarding prorogation which includes communication with every appropriate body to resolve this issue and a refusal to respond by everyone because nobody can justify it and the Prime Minister proroguing Parliament to prevent debate into the constitutionality of the federal judiciary. Denied. Come back in September. Pay more. We dont care. remember we have the discretion to reject all your evidence and the Canadian Judicial Council has approved of that conduct. You are fucked. It's only fair. This is Pakistan now, or China.