Glenn Bogue - Fearless Sovereign Lawyer

Moderator: Burnaby49

User avatar
notorial dissent
A Balthazar of Quatloosian Truth
Posts: 10911
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 8:17 pm

Re: Glenn Bogue - Fearless Sovereign Lawyer

Postby notorial dissent » Tue Jun 13, 2017 8:57 pm

Oh, say it ain't so!!!! :snicker: :haha: :haha:
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

Burnaby49
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Posts: 5829
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 3:45 am
Location: The Evergreen Playground

Re: Glenn Bogue - Fearless Sovereign Lawyer

Postby Burnaby49 » Thu Nov 16, 2017 7:20 am

A victory for Glenn! The Upper Canada Law Society didn't disbar him!! At least not yet. They have some concerns about his mental condition so they want him to go for a psychiatric examination. Specifically;

[1] Murray Walter Chitra (for the panel):– The Law Society has brought a motion under s. 39(1) of the Law Society Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. L.8 (“Act”) for an order requiring that Glenn Patrick Bogue (“Lawyer”) be examined by a forensic psychiatrist to assess whether he is incapacitated, any prognosis, and any appropriate terms and conditions in light of his medical condition.

[2] For the reasons that follow, we are satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the Lawyer might be, or might have been, incapacitated and that the proposed examination would provide significant assistance in deciding the issue.

[3] After considering recommendations from both parties on the physicians to be specified, we will issue the order set out at conclusion of this decision.


What could have triggered such animosity towards a level-headed guy like Glenn? Nothing more than Glenn's innovative tactics that apparently alarmed the stullified old fossils at the Law Society;

[19] The evidence disclosed that the Lawyer has brought a number of proceedings or motions on behalf of individuals before the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Divisional Court, the Ontario Court of Appeal, Supreme Court of British Columbia, the Federal Court and Supreme Court of Canada.

[20] The defendants or responding parties have included Children’s Aid Societies and their employees, federal and provincial governments, judges and lawyers in their personal capacity, law firms, the Queen personally, the Governor General personally, the Prime Minister personally, Parliament and the Bank of Canada.

[21] It is the assertion of the Law Society that these lawsuits are based on bizarre international conspiracy theories. It was argued that these are articulated in rambling arguments that demonstrate a clear misunderstanding of Canadian law and raise reasonable concerns that the Lawyer may be delusional.

[22] A number of examples of this were offered. In one e-mail to opposing counsel dated February 18, 2016 the Lawyer wrote:

In the big picture, the Vatican (bank) pushed its Feidal [sic] system across the English channel in 1066. It then combined with King Philip to kill the Templar Knights and steal their International bank which today is the IMF/BIS World Bank.

This is the force behind Canada’s big 5 private banks, who successfully placed Ontario $300 Billion in debt, owed by every lawyer, judge, doctor. Millionaire in Ontario. YOU will pay this debt as the other 99% of Ontarians are buried in debt.

The Vatican bank via Beijing will shortly foreclose on Canada as the Tar Sands are failing and our dollar sinks to U.S. $, 60, and USA defaults, which is a mathematical certainty.

Through its Corporate Crown shell (Canada and Ontario), the Bank of England has undertaken the Cultural Genocide of Canadian Aboriginals simply because they still hold Allodial title to our land, as opposed to Fee Simple Feudal Use Title that Ontario lawyers (unwittingly) defend for the Queen.

[23] In another e-mail dated May 18, 2016 the Lawyer wrote to opposing counsel:

You now have our Amended Motion.

Given its massive scope, I am writing to summarize its content …

The Queen’s legitimacy to sit as Monarch is also today questioned by:

1) the illegitimacy of Edward IV,

2) her conviction for murder via Canadian eye witnesses in a Common Law Court, and

3) her Oath to the Pope to obtain Vatican gold to back her illegal, fiat currency banks …

You will note we seek to add Justin Trudeau for his secret Oath to a power foreign to our Aboriginal roots.

You will also note the Pope has dissolved all corporations which glean their existance [sic] from any insurance bonds backed by Vatican gold. This may affect your firm’s legitimacy to practice law.

[24] The material before us disclosed other examples of similar thinking. The Lawyer:

• has claimed that Canada is part of the United States and subject to the U.S. Constitution;

• advised opposing counsel that he would be appealing a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada to a fictional tribunal;

• sought damages in the amount of $30 million against Ontario and Alberta judges and lawyers for crimes against humanity;

• in pleadings filed with Federal Court, alleged that the “HSBC funneled the money that enabled Italy’s criminal syndicate Mdrangheta to run a Ninth Circle Satanic Child Sacrifice Cult between the Vatican and Montreal. Former Prime Minister Harper and several Cabinet Ministers are alleged to be involved”;

• in a reply factum in the same litigation, argued “Our birth certificates are BONDS complete with 2 UPC codes that allow the Crown to pledge the bonds to Private Banks to be traded globally on the bond market, backed by human labor (and the gold of the Private Vatican Bank), which is tantamount to a continuation of the slave trade and feudal system by elite European supremacist families.”

• pled that “The Privy Council is the inner Circle of the secret Order of the Garter, headed by The Vatican and The Queen, which controls all secret societies throughout the world” and sought from the Court a monetary award of $3 quadrillion “which amount equals the global sub-prime real estate debt”; and

• in a criminal proceeding in British Columbia, argued that Canada is a Crown Corporation registered on the New York Stock exchange and “as such is merely a subsidiary corporation of United States Inc., which in turn is subsequent corporation to the East Indian Trading Company, all of whom have headquarters in Washington, D.C.”

[25] The Law Society suggests that these and many other statements and actions on the part of the Lawyer raise reasonable concerns that he is or may have been incapacitated. In the absence of medical information, the Law Society argues that an assessment would provide significant assistance in making such a determination and how to proceed with ongoing investigations.


Misspell feudal and they're all over your ass. Glenn of course put up his usual brilliant defense;

[26] The Lawyer provided a 65-page unsworn statement supported by 50 exhibits. As well, he testified at some length.

[27] Mr. Bogue stated that he had always been polite and co-operative with the Law Society. He denied initiating any litigation based on bizarre conspiracy theories. Rather he asserts that he has taken a cogent, co-ordinated approach to bring new or novel approaches to his cases, and that this has greatly reduced litigation costs.

[28] Mr. Bogue stated that he had made certain jurisdictional arguments at the direction of specific clients who wished to make Canada a better place. He stressed that these arguments are not his theories and should not be taken as a reflection of his personal beliefs.

[29] Nevertheless, the Lawyer offered material to us in support of many of these positions, including newspaper reports, press releases, e-mails and excerpts from articles on a range of subjects including:

• how Pierre Trudeau turned us into debt slaves;

• why the whole banking system is a scam;

• how the Vatican Bank stands accused of the 1978 murder of Pope John Paul I;

• Saudi Arabian money-laundering; and

• Vatican complicity in genocide in fascist Croatia.

[30] The Lawyer suggested such arguments can be supported by experts. He asserted that the Law Society’s investigations to date in the complaints against him have not been thorough and provide no foundation for any of the conclusions being advanced at this motion.

[31] He challenged the expertise of the Law Society to comment on a range of subjects including his health. He noted that he has a Masters degree in History and has recognized knowledge in this area. As well, he has studied and written extensively on matters such as banking and international finance.

[32] The Lawyer provided affidavits and letters from clients speaking positively of his skills as their lawyer and his successful results. He provided documentation that he states confirms that he has successfully secured a significant 2016 arbitration judgment on behalf of a client thus demonstrating his unique competence as an advocate.

[33] Mr. Bogue testified that he had never been diagnosed or treated for mental illness. He asserted that there is no evidence to support any suggestion of incapacity. He acknowledged that one of his potential lawyers had indicated that an assessment could be helpful. However, he was not willing to agree to such as assessment at this time..


Having been at one of Glenn's hearings I can attest to this one;

[26] The Lawyer provided a 65-page unsworn statement supported by 50 exhibits. As well, he testified at some length.


This is what Glenn is facing;

[51] We make the following order:

1. Pursuant to s. 39(1) of the Law Society Act, the Lawyer shall be examined by Dr. Hy Bloom for the purpose of determining:

a. whether the Lawyer is or has been incapacitated;

b. the extent of any incapacity and prognosis for recovery; and

c. any other issue that may assist in determining the issues in the application.

2. The Lawyer shall answer Dr. Bloom’s questions and co-operate with the examination process, including participating in any relevant medical or psychological testing as required by Dr. Bloom and providing Dr. Bloom with any requested information from health records or authorization to obtain information from the Lawyer’s health practitioners.

3. The Lawyer shall be examined at Dr. Bloom’s office in Toronto or, at Dr. Bloom’s discretion, at another medical centre or physician’s office in Toronto. The Lawyer must attend for up to three sessions of up to eight hours each.

4. In the event that Dr. Bloom would like to conduct more than three sessions, change the duration or location of the meetings, or consult with or obtain the assistance of another expert, then a motion may be brought in writing before this panel to vary this order, if the parties are unable to agree.

5. A copy of Dr. Bloom’s report shall be provided to the Lawyer and Law Society, following the examination process.

6. No costs are awarded on this motion.[/quote]

So it doesn't look like Glenn will be back in court anytime soon.

Law Society of Upper Canada v. Bogue
2017 ONLSTH 215
http://canlii.ca/t/hnb5s

This is the Law Society Tribunal, a quasi-court that appears to be able to force Glenn to get his head shrunk, at least if he wants to continue practicing his own unique understanding of law. But what chance does he have with the Queen and Pope after him?

https://lawsocietytribunal.ca/
"Yes Burnaby49, I do in fact believe all process servers are peace officers. I've good reason to believe so." Robert Menard in his May 28, 2015 video "Process Servers".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XeI-J2PhdGs

User avatar
notorial dissent
A Balthazar of Quatloosian Truth
Posts: 10911
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 8:17 pm

Re: Glenn Bogue - Fearless Sovereign Lawyer

Postby notorial dissent » Thu Nov 16, 2017 7:55 am

And the Law Society "thinks" he might need a Psych Eval?????? Cautious you Canadians. I think he's barking mad, but then what do I know.
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

User avatar
The Observer
Further Moderator
Posts: 6653
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2003 12:48 am
Location: Virgin Islands Gunsmith

Re: Glenn Bogue - Fearless Sovereign Lawyer

Postby The Observer » Thu Nov 16, 2017 4:36 pm

Burnaby49 wrote:This is the Law Society Tribunal, a quasi-court that appears to be able to force Glenn to get his head shrunk, at least if he wants to continue practicing his own unique understanding of law.


Certainly sounds like a Canadian version of the Star Chamber to me. Just more methods of stomping the poor sovruns and Freemen out there, like a giant game of Whack-A-Mole. But if they successfully shrink Glenn's head, I doubt that it will mean that he practices law the way he used to.
"I could be dead wrong on this" - Irwin Schiff

"Do you realize I may even be delusional with respect to my income tax beliefs? " - Irwin Schiff

Burnaby49
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Posts: 5829
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 3:45 am
Location: The Evergreen Playground

Re: Glenn Bogue - Fearless Sovereign Lawyer

Postby Burnaby49 » Thu Nov 16, 2017 10:56 pm

The Observer wrote:
Burnaby49 wrote:This is the Law Society Tribunal, a quasi-court that appears to be able to force Glenn to get his head shrunk, at least if he wants to continue practicing his own unique understanding of law.


Certainly sounds like a Canadian version of the Star Chamber to me. Just more methods of stomping the poor sovruns and Freemen out there, like a giant game of Whack-A-Mole. But if they successfully shrink Glenn's head, I doubt that it will mean that he practices law the way he used to.


Star Chamber? Please; the Upper Canada Law Society is one of the most caring, concerned organizations in Canada which probably means almost anywhere in the world with the possible exception of the the Nordic zone. They are currently in an uproar about a vitally necessary name change. They've been called the Law Society of Upper Canada since 1797 but now they've realized what a sexist, racist, or whatever "ist" name it actually is! Apparently, putting the word "Canada" in the name of a Canadian legal society is so offensive to sensitive types that they are changing it to one more "inclusive", The Law Society of Ontario.

The Law Society of Upper Canada will change its name because a majority of its elected benchers, 38-11, agreed with an internal report that the term for the former British colony is non-inclusive, offensive, elitist, out of date and out of touch.

Upper Canada was geographically much smaller than Ontario is today, and the term itself is “a non-inclusive phrase, which is also offensive to some,” and as an “anachronism,” the name is “inconsistent with the image the Law Society wishes to portray of a modern and inclusive regulator.”


Note that they apparently weren't responding to complaints but to their own masochistic agonized breast-beating. But that has turned into a raging battle with a faction that wants the name changed to The Ontario Law Society rather than the Law Society of Ontario. I've managed to procure a photo of the elected Benchers tasked with the momentous decision of picking between the two names;

Image

They take their importance in the world very seriously. Apparently we are supposed to view them with a sense of wonder!

“But that gives us a teachable moment,” he wrote. “It gives us the chance to tell the story … of how the rule of law in English Canada was not plopped down fully formed from Mount Olympus but rather evolved in our own unique way. And it might be a source of wonder to those who might assume that all we do as lawyers is slavishly imitate what they do in England, that Ontario’s Law Society is actually older than the English one.”


http://nationalpost.com/news/canada/law-society-to-drop-upper-canada

They are so committed to equality, diversity and inclusion that they are requiring that all member abjectly grovel enthusiastically endorse the Society's leadership in these fields, both in public and private life, with mandatory written vows.

Earlier this fall, Ontario’s legal regulator, the Law Society of Upper Canada, notified its members — everyone permitted to practise law in Ontario — that they would be required “to create and abide by an individual Statement of Principles that acknowledges your obligation to promote equality, diversity, and inclusion generally.” The law society has said there would be no sanctions for any lawyer who refused to sign the pledge… for the first year.

The statement has proved incredibly controversial, although not because anyone (seemingly) takes issue with the values articulated in it. People are concerned, rather, that the law society has exceeded the limits of its own statutory jurisdiction, and trampled on lawyers’ constitutionally protected freedoms of conscience and expression. Surprising missteps for a body of lawyers!

Certainly, the law society — and professional bodies generally — has a responsibility to regulate the conduct of its members in the practice of their profession. But the statement appears to do more than this. First, it requires lawyers to conduct themselves in a certain way in their private affairs, which the law society has no business regulating. Second, it requires lawyers to not merely comply with law society rules, but to also affirm that they agree with them, which is a form of compelled speech.


http://nationalpost.com/opinion/np-view-law-societys-controversial-statement-of-principles-should-be-struck-down

Who would disagree with such noble goals? Those damn reactionary white men!

Toronto lawyer Renatta Austin has followed this issue closely and points to what she says is a misunderstanding "in terms of what the law society is actually doing here."

"When someone seeks to join the legal profession in Ontario, we're already required to make declarations when we're called to the bar about our values and how we will conduct ourselves in our professional and personal lives."

Austin argues that the statement of principles isn't about the Law Society "trying to control our thoughts and tell us what to believe."

"It's a statement of principles acknowledging existing obligations."

Upholding human rights laws is already required, Austin tells Tremonti, and says principles enshrined within human rights include diversity and inclusion.

"The resistance that we are getting from this is coming from, quite frankly, white males who may not experience the same kind of discrimination that some of us in the profession who are racialized, who are members of different minority groups, experience," Austin explains.


http://www.cbc.ca/radio/thecurrent/the-current-for-october-12-2017-1.4349930/law-society-s-diversity-policy-most-egregious-violation-of-freedom-of-speech-professor-1.4350233

The Law Society broke new ground in 2014 by barring fully capable new lawyers from practicing in Ontario by refusing to accredit the law school they graduated from because it supported religious beliefs abhorant to the menbers of the society. What are these abhorent unacceptable beliefs? Marriage and fidelity.

In a case pitting equality against religious freedom, the Law Society of Upper Canada has made the unprecedented decision to vote down a controversial evangelical Christian law school.

Society benchers (directors) voted 28-21 Thursday against accrediting B.C.’s Trinity Western University, thereby prohibiting graduates from applying to the Ontario bar. There was one abstention.

It marks the first time the Law Society has refused to accredit a school and the first time law societies across the country haven’t come to a consensus. Trinity Western was accredited by the Law Society of British Columbia.


https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2014/04/24/christian_university_asks_law_society_of_upper_canada_to_accredit_law_school.html

There are two schools of opinions on this. One, the law society's, is that they are moral arbitrators who can ban lawyers for religious beliefs of which the society doesn't approve. The other is that they should be required to accept qualified lawyers with unblemished records who hold what are essentially mainstream, but not progressive, religious beliefs. This has generated controversy across Canada with some provincial societies accepting Trinity graduates and others refusing to admit them to the bar. But Ontario led the way. Lawsuits have gone either way with some provincial courts supporting the law societies others Trinity University. The Supreme Court of Canada has agreed to sort the whole mess out by accepting leave to appeal for the various provincial cases.
"Yes Burnaby49, I do in fact believe all process servers are peace officers. I've good reason to believe so." Robert Menard in his May 28, 2015 video "Process Servers".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XeI-J2PhdGs

Hercule Parrot
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 1528
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2014 10:58 pm

Re: Glenn Bogue - Fearless Sovereign Lawyer

Postby Hercule Parrot » Sat Nov 18, 2017 1:23 am

Burnaby49 wrote:https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2014/04/24/christian_university_asks_law_society_of_upper_canada_to_accredit_law_school.html

There are two schools of opinions on this. One, the law society's, is that they are moral arbitrators who can ban lawyers for religious beliefs of which the society doesn't approve. The other is that they should be required to accept qualified lawyers with unblemished records who hold what are essentially mainstream, but not progressive, religious beliefs. This has generated controversy across Canada with some provincial societies accepting Trinity graduates and others refusing to admit them to the bar. But Ontario led the way. Lawsuits have gone either way with some provincial courts supporting the law societies others Trinity University. The Supreme Court of Canada has agreed to sort the whole mess out by accepting leave to appeal for the various provincial cases.


That's ridiculous. We're all in favour of social progress, but to bar qualified professionals from their trade on the grounds of religious belief is a step in the wrong direction. And they would never dare to bar entrants who had attended a Jewish or Muslim university, so this censorious bullying is reserved for Christians.

(I grind no axe here, I regard the concept of any 'God' as childlike nonsense. But it isn't fair to bend over backwards to accommodate the beliefs of every other religion whilst denigrating Christian values as uniquely oppressive.)

(apols if pushing the 'no religion' rule too far, but sharp-eyed Mods will note that I am only criticising the secular PC idiocy of the Law Society of Upper Canada. :) )
"don't be hubris ever..." Steve Mccrae, noted legal ExpertInFuckAll.

Burnaby49
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Posts: 5829
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 3:45 am
Location: The Evergreen Playground

Re: Glenn Bogue - Fearless Sovereign Lawyer

Postby Burnaby49 » Sat Nov 18, 2017 2:55 am

apols if pushing the 'no religion' rule too far, but sharp-eyed Mods will note that I am only criticising the secular PC idiocy of the Law Society of Upper Canada.


As I did in posting it. This is a very important case, not just on religious freedom, but on how much regulatory bodies can impose their moral views on individuals and organizations with legitimate but differing views. If Trinity Western loses it means that fully qualified individuals who have graduated from an entirely legitimate qualified law school can be barred from practicing for reasons totally unrelated to their capabilities and personal merits. You might have noted in the newspaper article that British Columbia had approved Trinity Western's accreditation. They'd approved it, against their inclination, because they were told they were legally required to do so;

[35] On February 28, 2014, the Benchers determined that they would vote at a meeting scheduled for April 11, 2014 on a motion (the “April Motion”) stating:

Pursuant to Law Society Rule 2-27(4.1), the Benchers declare that, notwithstanding the preliminary approval granted to Trinity Western University on December 16, 2013 by the Federation of Law Societies’ Canadian Common Law Program Approval Committee, the proposed Faculty of Law at Trinity Western University is not an approved faculty of law.

[36] In preparation for the April 11, 2014 meeting, the LSBC sought and obtained an opinion on Rule 2-27(4.1) from Mr. Geoff Gomery, Q.C., a barrister and solicitor and member of the LSBC. In his opinion dated March 15, 2014, Mr. Gomery advised that “Rule 2-27(4.1) does not contemplate the Benchers disapproving a faculty of law... on a ground that is unrelated to the question of academic qualification”.

[37] On April 11, 2014, the Benchers considered the April Motion, and ultimately voted to defeat the motion. Following the vote, the President of the LSBC stated that the LSBC had “decided to approve” the academic qualifications of TWU graduates.


Well, they approved until they didn't. Pressure from their members resulted in the Law Society of British Columbia revoking the approval it had already given regardless of whatever their legal duties might be. It was, in my opinion, decided in an idiotic manner. The Benchers are a panel that judges on accreditation. It's their duty to do so according to the law. Instead they punted the issue to a vote of the members of the Law Society.

[44] The second motion (the “September Motion”) resolved to hold a referendum of LSBC members, to be “conducted as soon as possible”, on implementing the following resolution:

Resolved that the Benchers implement the resolution of the members passed at the special general meeting of the Law Society held on June 10, 2014, and declare that the proposed law school at Trinity Western University is not an approved faculty of law for the purpose of the Law Society's admissions program.

(the “Referendum Question”).

[45] The September Motion also stated the referendum results would be binding on and be implemented by the Benchers if at least one-third of LSBC members voted and two-thirds of members voted in favour of the resolution, and also stated that “[t]he Benchers hereby determine that implementation of the Resolution does not constitute a breach of their statutory duties, regardless of the results of the Referendum.”

[46] The Benchers passed the September Motion by a vote of 20-1. A third motion that would have delayed further action until the courts had ruled on matters pertaining to the proposed faculty of law was then withdrawn.

[47] The referendum was then held among LSBC members pursuant to LSBC Rule 1-37 (the “October Referendum”). The October Referendum was conducted by mail-in ballot throughout the month of October. The LSBC released the results of the October Referendum on October 30, 2014. 5,951 (74%) members of the LSBC voted in favour of the Referendum Question and 2,088 (26%) voted against it.

[48] At a meeting held on October 31, 2014, without any substantive debate or discussion, the Benchers treated the October Referendum as binding and voted 25-1, with four abstentions, to implement the SGM Resolution based solely on the results of the October Referendum (the “Decision”), reversing their earlier approval of the law school and refusing to approve TWU’s JD degrees pursuant to LSBC Rule 2-27(4.1).


So Trinity Western took them to court and won;

Trinity Western University v. The Law Society of British Columbia
2015 BCSC 2326
http://canlii.ca/t/gmh9k

The government of Canada intervened on behalf of Trinity Western. Not because it supported their religious beliefs but because the refusal to accredit on reigious grounds was an important Constitutional issue;

[8] The Attorney General of Canada has intervened in these proceedings pursuant to the Constitutional Question Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 68. The Attorney General of Canada argues that the LSBC’s decision, which declares that the proposed law school at TWU is not an approved faculty of law for the purposes of the LSBC’s admission program, is ultra vires the authority conferred to the LSBC under the LPA, and is unconstitutional because it unjustifiably infringes s. 2(a) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982, c. 11 [Charter].


The interveners supporting Trinity Western were;

[9] The following parties supporting the petitioners were granted intervener standing in these proceedings, and permitted to file written submissions:

• Attorney General of Canada;
• The Association For Reformed Political Action (“ARPA”) Canada;
• Canadian Council of Christian Charities;
• Christian Legal Fellowship;
• Evangelical Fellowship of Canada;
• Christian Higher Education Canada;
• Justice Centre For Constitutional Freedoms;
• The Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Vancouver;
• The Catholic Civil Rights League;
• The Faith and Freedom Alliance; and
• Seventh-Day Adventist Church in Canada.


The interveners supporting the law Society were;

[19] The following parties supporting the respondent were granted intervener standing in these proceedings, and permitted to file written submissions:

• West Coast Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund;
• OUTlaws UBC;
• OUTlaws UVIC;
• OUTlaws TRU; and
• Qmunity.

[20] West Coast Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund (“West Coast LEAF”) was created in 1985 and is an incorporated not-for-profit society in British Columbia. West Coast LEAF’s mission is to achieve equality by changing historic patterns of systemic discrimination against women through three main program areas: equality rights litigation, law reform, and public legal education.

[21] OUTlaws Canada describes itself as an organization of queer law student associations in Canada. There are OUTlaws chapters at 15 Canadian law schools, including at the University of British Columbia (“UBC”), the University of Victoria (“UVic”), and Thompson Rivers University (“TRU”). OUTlaws chapters hold events at law schools to promote a supportive community for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered and queer (“LGBTQ”) law students and awareness of LGBTQ issues.

[22] Qmunity was founded in 1979 and is a charitable, not-for-profit, community-based organization. Its mission is “to make queer lives better by proactively supporting [their] peers and strengthening [their] communities as [they] move equality forward.


The Law Society has not accepted this defeat and is part of the group heading to the Supreme Court.

The other Law Societies who declined to accept Trinity Western graduates were;

[67] The Nova Scotia Barristers’ Society (“NSBS”) and the Law Society of Upper Canada (“LSUC”) each determined that they would not recognize graduates of TWU’s proposed faculty of law for the purposes of admission to the bars of Nova Scotia or Ontario. TWU sought judicial review of both law societies’ decisions.


The Nova Scotia Barrister's Society got the shit kicked out of them in this decision, precisely to point;

Trinity Western University v. Nova Scotia Barristers’ Society
2015 NSSC 25
http://canlii.ca/t/gg386

c. Proportionate Effects

[268] On one side is a statement of principle. On the other a right to religious expression that is directly impaired.

[269] The action by the NSBS does nothing to prevent a single person in Nova Scotia from being the subject of any discriminatory action in relation to the legal profession. No lawyer will be less likely to discriminate and no person will be less likely to be discriminated against because of it. There is no evidence to support the contention that reasonably informed LGBT people will be more or less likely to find the profession a welcoming one as a result of this particular action. It will not prevent the NSBS from being perceived as hypocritical. It will do nothing whatsoever to improve the status of LGBT people in this province.

[270] The impact on the religious expression would be to require it to be undertaken in a way that significantly diminishes its value. TWU’s character as an Evangelical Christian University where behavioural standards are required to be observed by everyone would be changed. Replacing a mandatory code with a voluntary one would mean that students who wanted to be assured that they could study in a strictly Evangelical Christian environment would have to look elsewhere if they want to practice in Nova Scotia. That impact is direct.

The NSBS resolution and regulation infringe on the freedom of religion of TWU and its students in a way that cannot be justified. The rights, Charter values and regulatory objectives were reasonably balanced within a margin of appreciation.

8. Conclusion

[271] For many people in a secular society religious freedom is worse than inconsequential. It actually gets in the way. It’s the dead hand of the superstitious past reaching out to restrain more important secular values like equality from becoming real equality. A more progressive society, on that view, would not permit any incursions by religion into public life or would at least limit those incursions to those by religions that have belief systems and practices that are more consonant with mainstream morality. The discomforting truth is that religions with views that many Canadians find incomprehensible or offensive abound in a liberal and multicultural society. The law protects them and must carve out a place not only where they can exist but flourish.

[272] The NSBS position speaks on one level about equality as a value. It is a reflection of a moral matrix that privileges that value. It speaks in the language of that value. And it makes it entirely possible to say, “A law school that discriminates is just wrong. There is nothing to debate here.”

[273] The other moral matrix speaks in the language of sanctity and privileges that value. It makes it entirely possible to say, “Homosexual acts are a sin. That is the word of God. There is nothing to debate here.”

[274] Both are moral judgments. It has been said that morality binds groups together. It also blinds.

[127] The values of the other are easily seen as merely prejudices.

[275] Tolerance, the ambiguous and paradoxical concept that it is, acts not so much as a boundary as the synthesis of the dialectic of competing values referenced by Chief Justice McLachlin. Unless tolerance engages the incomprehensible, the contemptible or the detestable, it is nothing much more than indifference. It isn’t a line. It’s a process. And it’s one that invites and almost requires a level of discomfort.

[276] If the parties are unable to agree on costs I will hear them on that matter.


However the Ontario provincial court took the oposite position and agreed that the Law Society of Upper Canada could refuse to accredit Trinity Western graduates for no better reason than that they are morally offended.

Trinity Western University v. The Law Society of Upper Canada
2015 ONSC 4250
http://canlii.ca/t/gjxpw

This created an intolerable situation where various courts were making conflicting decisions on exactly the same legal issue. Everybody made leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada and the court granted leave. It will be heard in a few weeks.

1. The hearing of these appeals, previously set down for one day, will occupy two days. The hearing is tentatively scheduled for November 30 and December 1, 2017.


http://www.scc-csc.ca/case-dossier/info/dock-regi-eng.aspx?cas=37318

Everybody and their dog wants to be an intervener;

Decision on the motion for leave to intervene, Wa, UPON APPLICATIONS by the Canadian Council of Christian Charities; the Association for Reformed Political Action (ARPA) Canada; the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops; the Canadian Association of University Teachers; The Advocates’ Society; the Canadian Bar Association; the Christian Legal Fellowship; the Law Students’ Society of Ontario; the Seventh-day Adventist Church in Canada; the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada and the Christian Higher Education Canada (jointly); the International Coalition of Professors of Law; the British Columbia Humanist Association; the Canadian Secular Alliance; the Egale Canada Human Rights Trust; the Faith, Fealty & Creed Society; the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Vancouver, the Catholic Civil Rights League and the Faith and Freedom Alliance (jointly); the World Sikh Organization of Canada; and the National Coalition of Catholic School Trustees' for leave to intervene in the above appeals;

AND UPON APPLICATIONS by the Lesbians Gays Bisexuals and Trans People of the University of Toronto (LGBTOUT); the Criminal Lawyers’ Association (Ontario); the Canadian Civil Liberties Association; the United Church of Canada; and the Start Proud and OUTlaws (jointly) for leave to intervene in the appeal Trinity Western University and Brayden Volkenant v. Law Society of Upper Canada (37209);

AND UPON APPLICATIONS by the West Coast Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund and the BC LGBTQ Coalition for leave to intervene in the appeal Law Society of British Columbia v. Trinity Western University and Brayden Volkenant (37318);

AND UPON APPLICATION by the Lawyers’ Right Watch Canada for an extension of time to serve their motion for leave to intervene and for leave to intervene in the above appeals;


It's going to be an interesting, and important, decision. I'm guessing that the Supreme Court will decide in Trinity's favour.
"Yes Burnaby49, I do in fact believe all process servers are peace officers. I've good reason to believe so." Robert Menard in his May 28, 2015 video "Process Servers".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XeI-J2PhdGs

Hercule Parrot
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 1528
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2014 10:58 pm

Re: Glenn Bogue - Fearless Sovereign Lawyer

Postby Hercule Parrot » Sat Nov 18, 2017 2:16 pm

Burnaby49 wrote:It's going to be an interesting, and important, decision. I'm guessing that the Supreme Court will decide in Trinity's favour.


Despite being a belligerent opponent of Deism, I hope that is the outcome. It is an astounding contempt of the Canadian Charter to deliberately impose religious discrimination. It surely cannot stand without tearing all rational meaning from the Charter.

My alma mater (Ormskirk Polytechnic & Welding School) served meat in its canteen, so perhaps vegetarians can now have me struck off by my professional regulator? I didn't eat the meat, in fact I never visited the canteen, but my moral character is nonetheless irreparably stained. I am unfit to practice my vocation as an Avine Orthodontist (to be fair, I wasn't getting a lot of work).

Mutter, rant, SMH etc....
"don't be hubris ever..." Steve Mccrae, noted legal ExpertInFuckAll.

ArthurWankspittle
Slavering Minister of Auto-erotic Insinuation
Posts: 2788
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 10:35 am
Location: Quatloos Immigration Control

Re: Glenn Bogue - Fearless Sovereign Lawyer

Postby ArthurWankspittle » Sat Nov 18, 2017 2:53 pm

Do you TIG or MIG avine orthodontic braces?
Going to Tibet now and deleting Facebook you have my email address

Burnaby49
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Posts: 5829
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 3:45 am
Location: The Evergreen Playground

Re: Glenn Bogue - Fearless Sovereign Lawyer

Postby Burnaby49 » Sat Nov 18, 2017 5:23 pm

Despite being a belligerent opponent of Deism, I hope that is the outcome. It is an astounding contempt of the Canadian Charter to deliberately impose religious discrimination. It surely cannot stand without tearing all rational meaning from the Charter.


Which is probably why the Canadian government was an intervener on behalf of Trinity. They couldn't care less about the religion but the principle is important.
"Yes Burnaby49, I do in fact believe all process servers are peace officers. I've good reason to believe so." Robert Menard in his May 28, 2015 video "Process Servers".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XeI-J2PhdGs


Return to “Canada”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest