The Greatest Divorce In Canada’s History !

Date Line : Ottawa , Canada

‘In a ruling by the Associate Chief Justice of the Federal Court of Canada , Law has formally separated from Justice in the former democratic State called Canada.’ Press Report 

It is not reasonable , according to this Senior Judge , to have a full hearing on whether six million citizens of Canada had their Charter of Rights and Freedoms violated by a travel restriction that was introduced by the Government of Canada, denying these citizens the right to travel across their own country or leave the country unless they had received an experimental , never before used gene related vaccine that this Judge knows or ought to have known causes death and serious injury and for which the Pharmaceutical makers bear no liability?  

The Charter Section 6 

Section 6 says 

  • 6 (1) Every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada.

  • Rights to move and gain livelihood
     Every citizen of Canada and every person who has the status of a permanent resident of Canada has the right
    • (a) to move to and take up residence in any province; and
    • (b) to pursue the gaining of a livelihood in any province.

That this Judge cancels a court proceeding already underway based on the ‘reasoning ‘ that while the alleged travel constitutional violation was live when it happened and when the court actions were begun , it is not ‘ live’ now and so what happened is of no consequence to take up the time of the Court;——that Canadians were unable to care for their sick or dying love ones , —-that Canadians were unable to travel from Province  to Province for their livelihood by air or train ——unless injected with an untested experimental gene related vaccine never before used? 

That this Judge has the gall to refer to a lower court in a Province that refers to Section 1 as justification for being able to override the rights of Canadians when what the wording of that section 1 actually says is different than that quoted by the Judge. 

Its ironic in the extreme to contemplate that legal officers so precise on wording when they want to justify their position is so loose when wanting to argue against a citizen’s rights under the Charter. 

The Judge ‘s words are :

‘In Syndicat des métallos, Justice Mark Phillips of the Quebec Superior Court recently found that the IOs/MO did not breach the plaintiffs section 7 Charter rights and that if they did, the violation would be saved by section 1 of the Charter for being one that is justified in a democratic society. ‘

No , your honour, you would do well to quote the Section in question , not rewrite the words.

Section 1 says

‘1 The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.’

It is ‘ demonstrably justify ‘ and ‘in a free and democratic society .’ —Not ‘ justify in a democratic society .’ 

Sorry your honour , the authors wanted to emphasize the justification and the democracy aspects and you , lawyers , professors, and others in your position are trying to ignore this FACT.  As one who was involved I can vouch that these words ‘demonstrably ‘ and ‘free ‘ are not there by accident .

Where is the the cost benefit analysis and where is the Parliament in all of this to satisfy ‘ demonstrably justify’  and ‘ free and democratic society. There should be full explanation and evidence by the court on these two phrases in order to make the court’s position at least plausible. 

The medieval attitude towards independent Science and reason is astounding and the antithesis to modern thought , as is the new description of information and dis information and free speech. 

And, Your Honour, I shall go ,where few , if any, lawyers, professors and judges wish to go——and by such refusal cause many of these judicial decisions concerning the Charter to be unfinished , incomplete decisions ———


The Charter begins 

‘Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law:’

Any court decision involving the Charter , therefore, would have to first deal with the first principles that introduce and are foundational to any interpretation of the Charter.

This is not what has happened—the Court Decisions that ignored this consideration, I submit, are invalid, incomplete. 

Courts have not the power to ignore certain parts of the Charter as if they were not there in rendering decisions involving the Charter . 

God is not popular , is that it? Its too difficult to consider? The country is now secular? These are not decisions for the courts. 

Courts err —that’s why there are Appeal Courts. The Superior Court of a Province is a lower court and should not influence a full hearing by the Federal Court in whose jurisdiction the alleged constitutional breech occurred!

A full hearing of the travel restrictions case should be heard ——I mean our jurisprudence goes back to The Magna Carta of 1215!!!

Citizens should have the right to a hearing,  redress —without legal contrivance after the fact. The mootness argument almost seems like we have resurrected King John himself. 

The Federal Judge says in her judgement 

‘There is no important public interest or inconsistency in the law that would justify allocating significant judicial resources to hear these moot Applications.’ 

Don’t let the cozy conditions of the Court be disrupted by the rights and freedoms of citizens!!!Six million citizens rights and freedoms curtailed for nine months in this past year or so and this is not in the public interest ???

US Federal Appeal Court Judge Terry Doughty has said recently in a ruling :

The public interest is served by maintaining the constitutional structure and maintaining the liberty of individuals who do not want to take the COVID-19 vaccine. ‘

Even Supreme Courts of a country make mistakes .

Consider the Roe vs Wade decision of the Supreme Court of the USA. 

It stood as the law from 1973 . But was overturned in 2022 .

Our Charter became law in 1982 . 

Peter Hogg, Canadian constitutional authority often quoted by the courts and even the Supreme Court of Canada says in his book on Constitutional Law in Canada on page 99  that when the Privy Council was the final appeal court for Canada it occasionally overruled earlier precedents although it never admitted that it did so.

So , Courts,  you must make ‘law and Justice’ kiss and make up’ and admit you were wrong , restore our Charter and Constitution to its rightful place by reading the words of the Charter as written and refrain from selectively omitting certain concepts central to its meaning and interpretation.

Changing the Constitutional wording is the job of the people through their elected representatives, not the Judiciary!!! Otherwise, where is democracy?

To refuse to do this will betray our Constitutional Principles and render our country to the tyranny of unelected Judges —and eliminate the principles of parliamentary democracy with the certain decline therefore in the concept of , as the Charter says —‘ a free and democratic society. ‘

What then befalls us may not be pretty. 

Honourable A. Brian Peckford P.C. 

Last Surviving First Minister That helped Craft The The Constitution Act 

16 thoughts on “The Greatest Divorce In Canada’s History !

  1. From: Allan MacRae
    Sent: February-23-22 10:02 AM
    To: Brian Peckford

    Judge who denied bail to Freedom Convoy organizer ran for Liberals in 2011 | True North (

    The Ontario judge who denied Freedom Convoy organizer Tamara Lich bail on Tuesday ran as the federal Liberal candidate for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell in 2011. Julie Bourgeois, who was a Crown attorney when she ran, came in second place for the Liberals in the 2011 federal election, losing to former Conservative MP Pierre Lemieux.

    It deeply offends me to see this repulsive partisanship in our judiciary, although it is commonplace and well-known. I think I have written you about this before – our judiciary, especially our federally-appointed justices, are incompetent, corrupt and NOT independent of the PMO. Canada is so deeply and widely corrupted. It cannot be fixed.

    Liked by 5 people

  2. To subjectivists (values are arbitrary whims of tribal “deer leederz” whether secular or supernatural, the difference between human rights and mass slaughter is merely a difference of political opinion. Might makes right. Persuasion using physical force and intimidation. The venal tribal cowardice of conquering and controlling other men, women, and children.

    The problem with appealing to the omnipotent benevolence is, its not real and is Utopian. Its an ancient tradition that attempts moral intimidation. It is impossible to initiate coercion/intimidation in order to “do good”. By appealing to the omnipotent benevolence, we become vulnerable to those who see themselves as such, and will suspend Rights in order to serve the “greater good”.

    The Universe is governed by natural laws. Stable, firm, absolute, and knowable. Natural law is not supernatural law (is not “self-evident”). The fundamental natural law of humanity (the Right to Life) was discovered by attempting to associate the concept of morality with the real physical world after having acquired deep and detailed knowledge of Greco-Roman and Renaissance history and the philosophy that drove it all. It was a discovery that very nearly eradicated all slavery and poverty in the world, and it still can. Its merely a matter of dissemination and comprehension.

    America’s Bill of Rights (enacted in 1791) correctly identified the law abiding individual as the sovereign unit of value, vs the ancient tradition of prioritizing the collective ruled by a sovereign (the underlying premise of the Magna Carta).

    Liked by 3 people

  3. After working with the “Injustice System of Canada” in various provinces throughout my working life, it is now difficult to take it seriously.

    Excuse me while I trot off to the nearest 7/11 convenience shop to pick up a box of Cracker Jack where hopefully, I’ll find a card announcing my appointment to the judicial bench of some Canadian court.

    Liked by 5 people

  4. “Rights to move and gain livelihood
    (2) Every citizen of Canada and every person who has the status of a permanent resident of Canada has the right
    (a) to move to and take up residence in any province; and
    (b) to pursue the gaining of a livelihood in any province.”

    First of all, there is no point to living in Canada as all homes cost too much and secondly earning a livelihood anywhere in Canada would cost employers too much and cause inflation according to governments and financial institutions. Therefore, the above excerpt from the charter of rights is academic and is not yet applicable in the real world. After being in the labor force since 1978 I can speak from experience.
    The clot shot isn’t the only form of genocide this country has committed.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Many people continue to purchase homes in Canada. Earning a living is a bit of a conundrum given people continue to buy homes.

      What is punitive are the income tax rates, I left Canada because the income taxes while in Canada were 130% higher than living in the USA. Reducing all marginal income tax rates by 50% is the single most effective method in creating individual financial security to Canadians.

      Liked by 1 person

      • That and massive deregulation. Any and all laws not relevant to crime or contracting are unethical and ought to be deleted.


  5. Honorable Brian Peckford you make a bulletproof case for supporting the 6 million Canadians whose Charter rights were removed by an out of control born rich child that in name only has found himself making illegal decisions over our country. He has no knowledge of our history, and Charter and continues to bully and lead Canada into a dictatorial administration. He’s going to lose big time over the Truckers issue and his impeachment should be a done deal. Where are federal Liberals that took an oath to protect all Canadians, NOT just to the Liberal party? They have a fiduciary obligation to dump Justin to obscurity and protect Canada from a closet Communist leader.

    The judge in your case should be removed from the bench and Canada should have the SAME referendum act that British Columbia has to FORCE an election of a sitting government mid term. They used it once to have an election and forced the existing government to lose the vote and be replaced.

    Liked by 6 people

      • Yes – over 70% of Canadians were against Trudeau giving the convicted Terrorist $10 million tax free for his visit to a US jail when he was on video teaching others how to make an IED roadside bomb. That video proof would convict Omar in a Canadian court for Canada’s definition of treason that has a mandatory life in prison conviction. He was guilty of trying to kill Canadian troops in a foreign country whether a war was declared or not. That’s treason.

        Liked by 1 person

  6. I appreciate and applaud Brian Peckford’s factual argument, which no thinking or honest judge should ignore or dismiss. Trouble is, ‘Truth and justice have been trampled in the streets’ with alarming increase over the past couple of years. Sadly, comfortable Canadians (that is; those CURRENTLY able to sustain their standard of living and manage their ‘freedoms’ by adhering to ‘measures’) walk on by, oblivious to the army of totalitarianism that marches in the dust toward THEM also.

    Liked by 4 people

  7. The outcome was predetermined/predestined. The elite cabal who want to control you with Digital ID, yourr money with programmable Digital Dollars, carbon footprint, Social Credit Score, have you rent and live in a shoe-box, eat bugs and cull the masses have a far reaching network of tentacles,


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s