Are Canadian Banks About to be Massively Sued?

Here’s a segment from one of Viva Frei’s recent livestreams. Cutting to the chase, a curious question has arisen: The Emergencies Act never legally came into effect. It was being debated by the Canadian Senate when Dear Leader revoked it. So, before the Act ever came into effect, Canadian banks reportedly took it upon themselves to investigate the bank accounts of private Canadians citizens and then eventually freeze some of them.

Under what legal legislation did employees at these banks do what they did? Given that the forthcoming Emergencies Act invocation, which they believed was coming into effect, but never did, have they not, in fact, committed egregious illegal actions punishable by severe fines and possibly prison sentences? Lawyers specializing in class action lawsuits are undoubtedly rubbing their hands with glee at the prospect of near future lawsuits.

Here are some relevant links:

100 Replies to “Are Canadian Banks About to be Massively Sued?”

  1. How about suing all governments for denying citizens their so-called “guaranteed” rights of freedom for the last two years.

    1. if you could penetrate “sovereign immunity” and make them personally liable, that would make sense….

      on the other hand, if you work in the private sector, you might as well sue yourself, because it’ll be taxpayers like you paying the settlement

      1. JD, you know the world doesn’t work that way. You are suing future generations of taxpayers… or resource royalties.

  2. There is another group that needs their asses kicked…..and that is the executive members of the so-called “College of Physicians and Surgeons” who ordered doctors to not provide vaccine exemptions despite the fact that these executive members have never seen the patients that the doctors were looking after.

    1. And not use ivermectin or HCQ.

      I hope us companies get sued by employees made to take the vax.

      Make the rubble bounce!

      What’s even better the other side loves to quote the law the law the law as Justification for all this. Now it’s time to use it against them.

      1. Yeah….I have talked to some people in supervisor positions who had to determine whether exemptions for their staff were reasonable. I asked them if they were qualified to make that determination of either medical or religious grounds. They seemed to be okay with it. Until I told them they were hanging out a mile because they were unqualified to judge on either. I told them if I were in their shoes, I would approve anybody who came to me with an exemption request…..and if the upper management didn’t like it, THEY could make the determination.

        If I were in the position of one of the employees, I would sue that supervisor personally as well as the company. I think that is the next bullet to hit the bone.

      2. I think that is all on Trudeau given his monopoly over vaccine prices, competition, new vaccine and therapeutics development… on and on. But yes the College should be named and so should Media which knowingly suppressed discussion and information. Ignored the science and paediatricians…

    2. Also these medical associations forbade doctors from providing timely outpatient care with HCQ and Ivermectin, resulting in many more deaths. The criminals responsible for that have blood on their hands.

    3. I concur, and while we are at it demand a hearing into the fact they didn’t ask for treatment protocols and let politicians decide how to treat covid. The medical industry, doctors, and the groups that represent them destroyed the patient doctor relationship, in favor of following political edicts.

    1. I am praying everyone affected goes FULL Covington Catholic on every compliant Leftist Bank. Every. single. one. of. them.

      1. Unfortunately Kenji, this is canaduh where most judges have a political affiliation to the librano government. You could present the most comprehensive argument before the court only for the judge to rule in favour of the defendant. Additionally our abysmal health bureaucracy is held in such high regard it is almost impossible to criticize them, it would probably be described as mischief the new catch-all crime against the always correct librano government.
        Should the plaintiff succeed by some miracle, the determination of damages would never approach anything like the Covington judgement. Most lawyers in canaduh would not take the case it would not be financially beneficial and they are scared of future repercussions from the aforesaid librano judges.
        We truly live in a dictatorship.

        1. How about Americans who both have Canadian assets and donated to the truckers? Can they sue in US courts?

  3. If I were a banker and I got a call from somebody claiming to be a honcho at the RCMP, asking me to declare a customer in default on a loan or to freeze the customer’s account pending further notice from the government, I would take careful notes and then I would call my lawyer. And my lawyer would call about a dozen other lawyers, in-house and at firms on retainer, to render me an opinion that I am in fact going to be held harmless (including the costs of defense against claims by the customer, and the cost of forcing the government to make me whole). And that opinion is in fact going to be pretty worthless: because the powers being claimed here are WAY out of the ordinary course, and the “law” under which they are being exercised consists of a statute almost 40 years old, never before invoked, with very little scholarly attention and, by definition, zero jurisprudence from earlier cases or opinions by the government’s own lawyers. In other words: the opinion will be a fancy way of saying “We’re flying blind here, almost anything could happen.”

    I would then call the RCMP guy back and tell him my problem, I mean, his problem. Which is ultimately the PM’s problem. By what authority can he immunize anyone?

    Pass the popcorn.

    1. His reply (the RMCP guy) would be along the lines of: “No idea, but unless you want your accounts locked, your dog shot, your kids placed in the care of the state and my boot up your ass you will do what I tell you.”

    2. Owen

      Bang, and the turd is going to find he is dispensable, and TurD’Oh fund will not cover the costs when he looses in court

      Honk Honk and pass the popcorn!

    3. “Please provide a court order” is the only correct response that a bankster should give…

      but they don’t want to get in trouble with the government

  4. The latest UK vaccine surveillance report shows that the “fully vaccinated” and “fully vaccinated and boosted” portion of the population accounts for over 88% of all the deaths in the country while the completely unvaccinated account for only 11%. In a country that is 72% vaccinated with “a complete initial protocol”.

    Methinks there are some asses to be kicked at the CDC and Health Canada and other politicized government “health” entities.

    1. The BC numbers are the same. Triple vaxxed are the majority of deaths by far and way over the number of triple jabbers. AND STILL Bonnie Henry keeps lying about the vaccine working and the need for masks and other crap. What we need is her to go away back to Ontario.

    2. Holy shit, Really? Saw something yesterday about 7 out of 10 vaccinated died. To see it in that light is sobering. Like my comment above, there are a lot of suppressors of information who need to be held to account.

        1. Lol. Was looking at Art’s numberz. 7 out of 10 deaths were at leadt dbl or 3. Cant remeber where I saw that. Someone quoting the English one?

  5. Oh, I think the Money Trust have bigger problems than class-action lawsuits right now.

    Much, much bigger.

    A woman they gang-raped for 75 years is at the door. She is grinning from ear to ear.

    And she’s not here to serve the bankers with a lawsuit they can simply ignore.

    She wants globalist blood, not money. And she intends to thoroughly enjoy spilling every drop.

  6. Man, that is a very good point. You’d think that everyone who had their rights violated at any level now has a human rights case against the government. Yes, the Act says banks have immunity while in effect. But it was never formally passed. So. I think the banks have jumped in with both feet before the starting bell and shot themselves in the foot. $$$$$$$$

  7. The Emergencies Act never legally came into effect

    I don’t think that’s quite how it works. My understanding is that upon declaration the Act is in effect but must be ratified within 7 sitting days of parliament. If they fail to ratify it that doesn’t magically rewind time and make everything that was done in those seven days ex post facto illegal.

    Section VI.58(7):

    (7) If a motion for confirmation of a declaration of emergency is negatived by either House of Parliament, the declaration, to the extent that it has not previously expired or been revoked, is revoked effective on the day of the negative vote

    This is ultimately the scary part of the Act: the government has essentially unlimited power for 7 days with no legal consequences.

      1. You got more faith in the Conservatives than I do. From what I’ve seen in the last two years, they’ll change the required 7 day vote to 4 weeks.

    1. If I was a Big Bank VP, I’d be trying to make any accounts I’d frozen whole now and get releases signed.

    2. Well except they don’t have carte blanche. The Emergencies Act is not supposed to override Charter rights. And Prime Minister Al Jolson’s government did exactly that. The Act doe NOT give essentially unlimited power to the government.

      1. The Emergencies Act is not supposed to override Charter rights.

        Charter “rights” are subject to “reasonable limits prescribed by law”. The fact that the Emergencies Act authorizes the government to “direct” people to perform what is deemed an essential service, and to restrict people’s rights to assemble or travel, indicates that Act was intended to override Charter rights.

        Having said that, nothing in the Act authorizes the government to block or seize funds and freeze accounts:
        Emergencies Act 19 (1) the Governor in Council may make such orders or regulations as are necessary for dealing with the emergency:

        (a) the regulation or prohibition of
        (i) any public assembly that may reasonably be expected to lead to a breach of the peace,
        (ii) travel to, from or within any specified area, or
        (iii) the use of specified property;

        (b) the designation and securing of protected places;

        (c) the assumption of the control, and the restoration and maintenance, of public utilities and services;

        (d) the authorization of or direction to any person, or any person of a class of persons, to render essential services of a type that that person, or a person of that class, is competent to provide and the provision of reasonable compensation in respect of services so rendered; and

        (e) the imposition
        (i) on summary conviction, of a fine not exceeding five hundred dollars or imprisonment not exceeding six months or both that fine and imprisonment, or
        (ii) on indictment, of a fine not exceeding five thousand dollars or imprisonment not exceeding five years or both that fine and imprisonment,
        for contravention of any order or regulation made under this section.

        I believe the interference into the financial system and the seizure/freezing of accounts was law enforcement and government bureaucratic overreach, and was illegitimately authorized by the federal cabinet. The government also had no authority to absolve banks from any criminal or civil liabilities for illegitimately authorized acts that are otherwise against the law.

        1. ” The Emergencies Act is not supposed to override Charter rights.

          Charter “rights” are subject to “reasonable limits prescribed by law”. The fact that the Emergencies Act authorizes the government to “direct” people to perform what is deemed an essential service, and to restrict people’s rights to assemble or travel, indicates that Act was intended to override Charter rights.”

          We have no actual Charter ‘rights’. None.

          Illegally obtained evidence can still be used to convict someone if the failure to use it would place “the administration of justice into disrepute” (whatever that means). And the odious “Notwithstanding Clause” invalidates the entire Charter anyway.

          We have nothing but a huge convoluted document designed to make the general public feel secure while keeping politicians, lawyers and judges employed. When every single ‘right’ that I supposedly have can be stripped from me *at any time* if it is deemed politically inconvenient for me to possess that right, I simply don’t have any rights at all. Never did.

          1. Agreed. Hope you are enjoying your stay in Trudeaupia/Trudopia…

        2. “Reasonable limits prescribed by law”…actually the wording is “the limit must be “demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.” And where were those particular actions “demonstrably justified” and by who?

          And you are wrong that the Emergencies Act was “intended to override Charter rights”. In the preamble of the Emergencies Act itself it says:

          “AND WHEREAS the Governor in Council, in taking such special temporary measures, would be subject to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Canadian Bill of Rights and must have regard to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, particularly with respect to those fundamental rights that are not to be limited or abridged even in a national emergency;”

          1. As you well know, the Supreme Court would have the final say in whether Charter rights are limited in certain circumstances or not.

            The court may not choose to “intervene”, but if it does, then the test would be whether the government’s assessment of the emergency, and its nature, severity, and scope, is such that limitations of rights were necessary to protect the safety and security of an otherwise free and democratic country.

            The only explicit powers the Act provides the government while an “emergency” has been proclaimed and in effect, are ALL potential charter violations:
            right to assemble,
            right of movement,
            freedom from involuntary government servitude,
            freedom from expropriation of one’s property without due process

            The preamble of the Act and the substance and provisions of the Act are inconsistent. Courts do not give equal weight to preambles as they do provisions of statutes themselves.

            The preamble was written to assuage public concern over the gross violations of civil rights under the first Trudeau regime, and its use and abuse of the War Measures Act, which the Emergencies Act replaced.

            It is nevertheless a poorly constructed law, and still subject to gross government abuses.

    3. Daniel Ream:

      You beat me to it.
      The act was in effect immediately upon declaration.

      This act needs to be amended. If it’s an emergency the full parliament should sit, debate and vote on Day 1.

      1. “If it’s an emergency the full parliament should sit, debate and vote on Day 1.”

        In my best screechy, nasal, Prog, Karen voice: “If it’s truuuuly an emeeeeeergency, parliament won’t be aaaaable to siiiiiiit.”

        1. In that case, the oh so brave politician should do what needs to be done anyhow–and then present himself for arrest, trial, and if convicted of violating the rights of his citizens, imprisonment or execution. He can sacrifice HIS goddamn career, financial status, and freedom to do what needs doing if he’s so sure he’s right.

  8. It was an illegitimate use of a very bad law.

    The Emergencies Act defined under what circumstances it could be used in an “emergency”, and the government’s use of it was completely unwarranted in the circumstances. To justify the emergency declaration, the government would be forced to lie about everything concerning the protest.

    The Act defines “public order emergency” as:
    “an emergency that arises from threats to the security of Canada and that is so serious as to be a national emergency

    The Act then refers to the definition of “threats to the security of Canada” as:
    (a) espionage or sabotage that is against Canada or is detrimental to the interests of Canada or activities directed toward or in support of such espionage or sabotage,
    (b) foreign influenced activities within or relating to Canada that are detrimental to the interests of Canada and are clandestine or deceptive or involve a threat to any person,
    (c) activities within or relating to Canada directed toward or in support of the threat or use of acts of serious violence against persons or property for the purpose of achieving a political, religious or ideological objective within Canada or a foreign state, and
    (d) activities directed toward undermining by covert unlawful acts, or directed toward or intended ultimately to lead to the destruction or overthrow by violence of, the constitutionally established system of government in Canada, but does not include lawful advocacy, protest or dissent, unless carried on in conjunction with any of the activities referred to in paragraphs (a) to (d).

    All the lawyers employed by the government and elected to the HoC and they think they can get away with such a usurpation of unlawful authority?

    The fact that so many people could happily and vociferously support a lie indicates how sick a society we live in today.

    1. There is no

      You just made Daniel look like a fool, you nailed real good, and a lawyer worth his/her weight will use that. But are there any courts that are not completely corrupt?

      1. But are there any courts that are not completely corrupt?

        Judges are employees of the government. They are carefully selected to be sympathetic to the established order.

        To ensure their success, they spend years in specialized training in order to tell lies that sound like the truth, or failing that, to make pronouncements full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

        1. You had 7 provinces reject the Emergency Act. I believe Saskatchewan cautioned against it prior to it’s invocation. Then you have Jason Kenney trying to be on both sides of the fence.

          How do you justify a national emergency when the majority of the provinces reject the invocation of the act?

          1. How do you justify a national emergency when the majority of the provinces reject the invocation of the act?

            That’s probably why Trudeau claimed, as he announced he was assuming “emergency powers”, that they would be geographically limited, essentially within the province of Ontario. The premier of Ontario either requested or approved federal involvement within his province. As we learned later, of course, the actions the Trudeau Regime wanted to take, (and perhaps still are taking illicitly?), were neither limited by time or space.

            To understand why the Emergencies Act came into being and why it was constructed the way it was, one should consider what Trudeau 1.0 did with the War Measures Act. The Emergencies Act was designed to replace the War Measures Act. So what happened the last time the War Measures Act was used? On his say-so alone, Trudeau activated the military, mobilized them on the streets, dispensed with Habeas Corpus and due process, and summarily overrode the constitutional division of powers between provinces and the federal government. Trudeau’s actions were a gross violation of the principles of constitutional government, never known before in Canada. Knowing this is key.

            The Emergencies Act requires, in contrast to the War Measures Act, that there must be a reasonable assessment with evidence and facts of a threat to national security that is so severe that extraordinary action is warranted. The evidence must be assessed by Parliament, and legislators of both houses must assent to the emergency and proposed actions. The actions are subsequently to be reviewed by several different administrative and legislative authorities. The emergency has a built-in expiry date and further steps must be taken to extend it. Provinces must be “consulted” and theoretically must approve of federal incursion in their exclusive jurisdiction. Finally, as Art has written here more than once, the Act’s preamble indicates that the government’s emergency powers must be adjudicated in light of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. My contention is that the Act envisions or foresees government actions that will necessarily violate Charter rights, under normal circumstances. Accordingly, the Act hopes to provide the Supreme Court with a rule-of-law framework for assessing whether rights violations that do occur are justifiable, given the urgency and gravity of the “threat”, considered along with the “safeguards”, limitations, and Parliamentary authorization and oversight that the Act requires.

            Having said that, the Act does not succeed in what it apparently aspired to achieve. As we have seen, in a broken political system, a bad government will succeed in circumventing constraints to its power. My view is that Trudeau “cancelled” the emergency not because of constraints imposed upon him by the Emergencies Act, or even from pressures within the political system, but rather because of pressure from international financial and monetary markets.

  9. One thing, if not the only thing, that the trucker convoy succeeded in, was that it really stirred the pot the pot beyond all expectations. Governments at all levels are put on notice that the working population, especially in the blue collar fields are PO’d. People, hopefully, are starting to think and ask questions. This isn’t over by a long shot. If the working people who keep the world working decide to be selective who the provide services for that be a harsh reality check. Can you imagine at a Timmies drive thru you’re asked if you get a government pay cheque…if so, keep driving thru…

    1. If the working people who keep the world working decide to be selective who the provide services for that be a harsh reality check.

      Sorry, that’s a total non-starter.

      The government lawyers in the supreme court already informed a privately-owned and operated bakery that it could NOT refuse to bake a cake because it was disgusted by the request.

      The government will COMPEL you to provide a service or sell goods regardless of how you feel about. If you don’t like it, they will destroy you with government lawfare.

      Because, you know, “democracy”.

      1. Yeah, I know it’s a non-starter, but in some circumstances, scheduling could be tight, all booked up, just don’t want to, etc.

        1. “…scheduling could be tight…” Or you might come down with Covid and just can’t get out of bed.

          Havel’s “Power of the Powerless” has resonance here; as does any common-sense appreciation for how human beings work (or don’t). It’s relatively easy to stop people from doing stuff. But it’s very, very hard to force them to do it. They can become very skilled at appearing to cooperate, but tragically the work just doesn’t get done, things break, etc.

          1. It’s relatively easy to stop people from doing stuff. But it’s very, very hard to force them to do it.

            I agree only if everyone refuses to comply at the same time. The whole basis of government as a concept is that most people will comply most of the time, and coercion will not be necessary. And of course, most people do.

            If you are going to be the odd man out, the government will destroy you.

            The government threatened tow truck companies with bankruptcy and imprisonment, the companies threatened their employees, the trucks got towed.

  10. Nobody is going to be suing anyone, and if anyone succeeds in suing anyone it’s going to cost them a lot of money and they will accomplish nothing. The rule of law is dead in Canada. If you need revenge because you were screwed over the only way you are going to get it is through physical violence.

    1. Correct. Judges are empowered to interpret any law and to frame any decision within the parameters of “public policy”. This means they have wide latitude to decide anything in the way they believe the government wants.

      If potential consequences would be onerous to banks and government if the courts declared they acted in violation of a law or Charter, then the justices will simply say, “the government and banks should have acted with more prudence, and let this serve as a warning against such behaviour in future. It would be detrimental to public order and would undermine confidence in government to pursue this matter any further”.

      And that will be that.

    2. That is what the courts and legal system are supposed to be there for; as an alternative to you having to use violence to settle your issues. Unfortunately, the courts in many western countries have become corrupt to the point that they cannot, or will not, perform that basic function.

      Unfortunately, you may be right.

  11. Well, I disagree. I think it came into effect the day it was declared; there was 8 sittng days of parliament to approave it. Apparently it would have failed approval in the Senate so he revoked it within the 8 days, being “no longer necessary”. However, I do agree that the status of the banks actions are up in the air, they maybe jumped the gun a bit.

  12. The difficulty I see here is the idea of when does Emergency Act come into effect. If Russia were to attack Ellesmere Island just as an example and the PM of Canada thought it a significant threat and declared Emergency Measures act was in effect does that kick in immediately and then wait for the house and senate to approve it or does it not take effect until the house and senate approve it? The PM and his cabinet declared the EMA in effect but some banks such as TD were seizing money before the measure was declared. After it was declared all the banks began acting on the government’s behalf. Not sure where the line is drawn.

  13. The courts will decide if his edict was legal, and we all know they always favor the liberal government over people’s human and civil rights. However banks are subjected to regulations and rules, and seizing someone’s account and cancelling their bank cards is actionable because they are customers who agreed to the banks’ terms of service. I am purdy sure when I agreed to the banks terms and conditions of service, banks getting to decide who I can lawfully donate to was not on said terms list. I’d love to see a class action suit against the RCMP and all banks that caved into their demands before the law passed the final stage at the Senate. Daily we’ve watched private industries do the Liberal Party dirty work, from enforcing unethical vaccine mandates, removing people from their businesses for not complying with forced jabbing, we’ve watched as private industries happily carried out the Liberal Party’s fascism simpering we have to comply. No you didn’t, but abusing Canadians was the easy way out for most businesses.

    1. A court is not going to punish the banks for doing what the government told them to do.

      1. Oh really? I guess it depends on the legality of the orders from the government….that is, if they ever got any.

  14. All wrong. Just because the senate did not confirm it, it does not mean it was not in effect. The invocation immediately makes it effective:

    “Once a national emergency is declared, a motion for confirmation of a declaration of emergency must be tabled in the Senate and House of Commons within seven days after a declaration of emergency is made by the Governor in Council.[36] If either chamber is prorogued or in recess, its members must be recalled. If both chambers adopt the motion, the declared emergency remains in place for its original duration, subject to renewal (also subject to parliamentary scrutiny)…”

    The keyword here is that the with the confirmation it REMAINS in place.

  15. May I suggest you demand your MP revise the Emergency Measures Act.

    1. Define that if it is revoked within 7 days, its implementation was null and void.
    2. Any vote on Emergencies Act revocation cannot be a Confidence Vote. The MPs must be allowed to vote their individual consciences.
    3. For such an extraordinary grant of power to the Goverment, a supermajority of 2/3rds or 3/4 is required to prevent the revocation of the Emergencies Act.

    Prevent any future abuse by learning from the mistakes named Justin Trudeau and Chrystia Freeland.

    1. One of the reasons why the Emergencies Act was brought in was to make the legislation compliant to the Charter. The preamble to the Act says

      “AND WHEREAS the Governor in Council, in taking such special temporary measures, WOULD BE SUBJECT TO THE CANADIAN CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS AND THE CANADIAN BILL OF RIGHTS and must have regard to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, particularly with respect to those fundamental rights that are not to be limited or abridged even in a national emergency;”

      The same formula in place to amend the Constitution (with provincial involvement) should be in place for the invocation of the Emergencies Act. If it is TRULY a national emergency, that should be easily obtained.

      This was NOT an emergency under the Act. It was a political ploy. A political emergency for the Liberal Party is not a national emergency.

  16. Whether they jumped the gun or acted within the confines of the act but not the charter. Trudeau with the help of Jagmeet will pass retroactive legislation that will make it okay

  17. I HOPE SO, AND I HOPE A WHOLE SHITSTORM FALLS ON THE FUCKING LIBS AND THEIR SHITHOLE ACTIONS THE LAST MONTH.
    Sorry for the caps but Im yelling as Im writing.

  18. I suspect that if you read the Terms and Conditions of your contract with your bank, you will find that they can suspend your banking facilities for any reason they like – government order or no government order.

      1. I’m not talking about investment portfolios, I’m talking about regular banking facilities. It’s certainly the case here in UK. It’s the case in the US. I doubt Canadian banks are any different.

        Whether they can freeze funds and refuse to release them to you is another matter.

  19. Love to see the CPC establishment shills saying “That’s not how it works! The Turd uttered the words, so its totally legit!”
    Basically, they are trying to get in front of any criticism of PP and the CPC for not supporting the truckers in any substantial way, and not going after the LPC for their hideous usurpation of power.

  20. I’m no banker or lawyer, just someone who looks at the pieces and wonders what they point to when we put them together.

    There’s nothing in the Act that gives the government powers to protect the banks.
    Banks depend on the trust of the public, but they depend equally on the bank regulators who decide whether they are in compliance with the law and regulations.
    And the Libs didn’t issue any written instructions to the banks as to who to go after or what rules should apply.
    The Libs really wanted a big stick to wave, even if in the end they were only going to use a tiny stick.

    So I have to conclude that the banks said to the Libs at the beginning “We can’t do this without hurting our reputation for being trustworthy” and the Libs said “Nice bank you have there, be a shame if it got shut down”. So the banks said, “You gotta give us cover”. And the Libs said “Plausible deniability is what WE need,” and they sawed off with this BS about Banks will lock down suspicious accounts with no criteria in writing but no risk of losing a lawsuit.

    It’s nice and cozy amongst our betters. Those of us who donated and lived with this giant cartoon anvil over our heads for ten days don’t count.

    Heads won’t roll, that’s not how it works. I’m on the hunt for safer ways to protect my property from my betters.

    Justin sure has his father’s style, doesn’t he?

  21. Ok so what was Viva complaining about at the start re: Senator Simons and the story about the Chiliwack Donor? Was Simons saying it wasn’t true or Viva?

    1. Mark Strahl is the MP that Viva was talking about.
      There was a link somewhere in SDA at the time to Strahl’s twitterfeed about Briane, which I looked at. Later there was an update from him that it was a misunderstanding about her password or something to that effect.
      That is my memory of the episode, I don’t have twitter, so I can’t go and reread his twitterfeed very easily. I just looked on DDG for Mark Strahl, but I could only find the initial claim that her account had been frozen, and that he said she was a real person and he had seen the receipt of her donation. I couldn’t find anything about a mixup over her not being able to access her account. It might be on his feed, or I might have been linked to a spoof Mark Strahl account. I did find a quote of Andrew Coyne’s, confirming he is an asshole who isn’t above belittling people who work for a living.
      I remember it, and others must have seen it too, but everyone is still talking just about the original tweet. Someone with better access to twitter might be able to tell you more.

      1. I did not see any update on that, just the original post. In am guessing that many are unaware of an update with further explanation.

  22. Sue the political parties which voted for the Act. Kick them where it hurts. And Liz May as well.

  23. Make them pay.
    George Washington had an account in an English bank all through the Revolution, and it was never touched.
    But, under Davos democracy, there are no rights any government is bound to respect.

    This was a massive civil rights violation by the banks, and as such, there should be heavy fines for each violation, in addition to economic damages.

    The settlement should include the firing of all bank officers who were involved in the illegal taking, and surety bonds purchased by the bank, with depositors who were affected as the obligees.

    This of course would have to be done outside Canada, in a country with a sound legal system, such as Switzerland.

    1. The government is going to fine the banks for doing what the government told them to do?

  24. As a lawyer I am fascinated by the legal issues being debated here: was the Act in effect, what is the meaning of that (what ancillary authorities came into being when it took effect: there must be a boundary, one might have authority to freeze an account or dragoon a tow truck, but one would not have the authority to perform human sacrifice). It’s all great stuff and much hangs in the balance.

    But in reading the fine print about what a bank* might be free to do (as determined after the fact, at great expense and with much uncertainty, through bitter litigation and appeals and more litigation) we should not forget that, outside of legal rights and immunities, there is the practical impact. For me, that’s the big consideration. Why would I ever want to trust a Canadian bank with one thin dime after this goat-rodeo? If there isn’t a run on the banks going on right now, I’d be surprised. How will they ever regain their reputations?

    *By “bank” I mean any financial services institution holding a customer’s property such as a savings, checking, or investment account; any of the entities being directed by Trudeau to tamper with a customer’s contract rights and property interests.

    1. But where else can one keep one’s money other than a bank? An RRSP under your mattress is not practical.

  25. So if PM ‘invokes’ EA, does this mean that it’s automatically in effect? And in 7 days might be turned off by Parliament? But what if PM is a complete moron and doesn’t know 1+1 or paranoic/mentally deranged, and declares EA on a whim? Isn’t in place any mechanism to assess what PM is considering a ‘threat’?

  26. American here, so much I do not understand.My question is that the information on the donors was illegally obtained, so how are the banks not liable for using it?Or did they go back and scan credit cards for donations and then freeze accounts? It is so disturbing on many levels, but the retroactive decree that this donation is/was now illegal was so absolutely chilling.Is there a list of Canadian banks doing business in the US ?Never knew that was allowed. We only use credit Unions for banking but I know family who use banks.

  27. At this point, anyone who still had money in a Canadian bank is pretty much a Nazi collaborator.

    If enough people take their money out of the banks, the bankers will be ringing up their bought-and-paid-for MP’s and demanding that something be done about blackface Vladimir Poutine.

    1. Practically speaking, what is the alternative to a bank? Credit unions have the same requirements. So, literally, what is the alternative?

  28. Reading through the Act, it states that the government may force people to provide essential services, ie tow trucks to remove vehicles, doctors to attend patients, etc. Nowhere does it state that essential services can be denied or assets frozen. Therefore any freezing of bank accounts was illegal. I expect the lawsuits will take forever and a day to settle.

  29. Sooo… if the act never came into effect… doesn’t that make EVERYTHING that happened illegal? Like, the “cops” with covered badges and name tags shit bagging people – it’s simple assault and battery now… forcing people into slave labour is, well, slavery… taking people’s property away is theft… taking a $200,000 truck away is grand theft trucker etc. etc. ??? Calling people racists is inciting mob violence…

  30. Cynically I am amused by the lawyer talk.
    The “National Emergency Act” declared by Emperor Justine,cannot strip you of your Rights and freedoms under The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
    Because those rights do not exist.

    The same as claiming that imposition of “The Act” will not interfer with your right to own Unicorns.For our “Rights” are as real.
    Pure propaganda and social myth.

    “Human Rights and Freedoms” at the bequest of your benevolent Bureaus..

    As Fred from BC says upthread;”We have no actual Charter ‘rights’. None.”
    Until we impose the fear of God,into any who desire to strip of us of our God Given Natural Rights,the theft,abuse and murder will continue.

    All those lovely uniformed thugs,with their Identifications carefully hidden,whaling on peaceful citizens in Ottawa..
    Never mind where they come from,they are all straight from the Bureau of Obedience,their message,as they Assaulted the Bouncy Castle Rebellion…
    “Obey or we will kill you.”

    All perfectly legal..
    Yet bluntly demonstrating,that the citizen has no Rights or Freedoms..
    For such “lawful orders” cannot be made if that Charter of Rights and Freedoms was real.

    But what would you expect?
    These are Political Minions from the Uni-Party of the Confederated Kleptocracy of Can Ahh Duh.
    If their lips are moving,they are lying.
    And imagine how hard life ,for a parasite,would be if you had to respect the taxpayers,instead of looting them?

    So ,under our current Just Us System,Canadian Banks will face zero damages..
    Typical corrupt court and government,will be to find them “presumptuous under the act”,as in acting too quickly,lightly fined and richly rewarded with government subsidy..
    Want this sorted?
    Do it yourself.

    For in Can Ahh Duh.
    Only the tax paying citizen has any benefit or self interest in an honest and ethical government.

Navigation