fbpx
Friday, October 3, 2025

LEVY: Toronto’s homelessness industry profiting off of refugee influx

By
Sue-Ann Levy
-
Source: True North

The numbers say it all.

The city of Toronto’s 2024 budget predicts that 42% of shelter users will be refugee claimants. These claimants will cost the city some 31% of the city’s gross shelter and housing expenditures, topping $787-million in 2024.

The budget notes say that refugees need “specialized services and supports” to serve their distinct needs.

This is over and above the housing and stabilization support given to the homeless who don’t come from distant lands, but, for whatever reason (often drug addiction) have found themselves without a roof over their heads.

If one compares these figures to five and six years ago, it is easy to see how an industry has thrived because politicians have permitted it to, expanding an already bloated system to meet the demand instead of capping the supply to address other huge city issues.

Instead of just saying no to the feds, who have allowed asylum seekers and refugees to enter Canada at a ridiculously rapid rate without any plan in place, politicians continue to absorb the largely unvetted migrants into Canada’s largest city while complaining they need more money to do so.

This year Mayor Olivia Chow has opted to play cat-and-mouse with our prime minister, threatening that if she doesn’t get another $250-million Toronto taxpayers will be on the hook for a 16.5% tax hike.

That’s outrageous enough. But no one wants to admit there is only one taxpayer.

At the City of Toronto, homelessness is an industry with 1,255 city employees now on staff and a host of community groups ready to serve the homeless and refugees – often giving them a handout instead of a hand up.

The employee numbers have surged from 826 in 2018, a  51% increase, and 904 in 2019, a 38% increase.

The number of shelter beds proposed for 2024 is 10,600, even though this was never meant as any more than an emergency measure. This is double the 5,000 emergency beds and 700 respite spaces provided in 2018.

I reported in 2018 that 2,600 shelter spaces were occupied by refugees, or “irregular” migrants, as they flowed across Roxham Road into Quebec. 

City staff said at the time that 18 to 20 were coming to Toronto a day, several put in taxis from Pearson airport bound for the city’s downtown assessment and referral centre.

Many were put in hotels, to the surprise of regular customers. This continued until the hotels were completely booked by the city to house refugees.

In 2019, when the refugees continued to flow into the city, the number of shelter beds jumped to 7,000. 

Instead of simply saying, “No we can’t accommodate any more,” the city begged the feds for money and got it – hiking the budget just to house refugees by $87-million.

The homeless agencies of choice were positively ecstatic as more hotels and an old hydro site opened and they were given lucrative contracts to manage the inflow.

Bear in mind these numbers continue to accumulate in the budget, forcing city officials to scramble each year to find that much money and more.

The city’s own budget documents show that 1,500 refugees were dealt with at Central Intake in September of 2023 compared to 500 in the same timeframe the year before.

Most of those who enter the country in Ontario find their way to Toronto, their documents show.

Many cities in the surrounding GTA and Hamilton send their refugee claimants to Toronto, something the city of Toronto has tried to stop with little success.

Let’s not forget the services don’t stop with shelter beds. These migrants need counselling and help obtaining proper documentation.

The city says in its budget note this year that there are not enough spaces to accommodate the refugees and because of this there are higher levels of homelessness on the streets, in encampments and on the TTC.

No one wants to concede either that the rise in crime is a direct result of this.

Truly it’s nothing short of a runaway train.

But the Trudeau government doesn’t care.

And our city politicians have no political will to stop the flow.

Much like the LGB industry has turned their sights to trans issues to keep themselves thriving and well-funded, the homeless industry is quite happy to broaden their scope and keep themselves afloat with refugees.

We only need to follow the money.

Nationwide uncertainty looms as feds promise to cut back on international study permits

By
Noah Jarvis
-

The Trudeau government’s recent announcement that it will pursue a 35% reduction in international student permits issued in the next two years has left provinces and universities across the country unclear as to the details of the plan and its consequences. 

Immigration Minister Marc Miller announced Monday that starting in 2024, the federal government will be capping international student visas for two years. 

Miller said it is in an attempt to combat “bad actors” in the system and exploitation of international students, and to provide relief to social service providers. 

Some provinces, like Ontario, will see a sharper drop in the number of international students accepted, as the provision will be based on the population of each province. 

True North reached out to several provincial cabinet ministers responsible for the administration of universities as well as several universities themselves to probe whether or not the federal government’s new student visa policy is a welcome change or not. 

Of the respondents to True North’s requests for comment, the general consensus from provincial governments and universities has been a sense of uncertainty about what is coming next and how the federal government’s policy change will affect their institutions.

The most critical of the federal government’s immigration policy change was New Brunswick’s minister of post-secondary education, Arlene Dunn, who expressed scepticism for the benefits of international student reductions.

“These changes announced by the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada have the potential to hurt New Brunswick by wiping out recent enrollment growth at our colleges and universities, shrinking the labour market and reducing the number of provincial immigration nominations,” said Dunn.

New Brunswick has been experiencing declining enrollment in the province’s universities since the early-to-mid 2000’s, as enrollment from the 2003-2004 school year to the 2020-2021 school year had declined 27%.

Furthermore, relative to population size, New Brunswick has the fewest number of international students out of all other provinces. 

Dunn told True North that the federal immigration policy changes will make New Brunswick suffer in order to solve problems present in other parts of the country. 

“While we are still working to fully understand the impact of today’s announcement by the federal government on the province and our institutions, the changes are very concerning for our government, and we are not in favour of this move that unfairly targets all provincial jurisdictions when not all are experiencing the same problems,” said Dunn.

“The problems the federal government are trying to address with these changes are not our issues and New Brunswick is paying the price for the problems that exist in other parts of the country.”

As for the University of New Brunswick, the institution told True North it requires more time to figure out how the federal government’s announcement will affect it.

“We have just received the information so we do not know what the provincial cap in New Brunswick will be or how and if the announcement will impact us. At UNB we are committed to recruiting international students in a responsible and sustainable way,” said university president Paul J. Mazerolle.

Ontario’s minister for colleges and universities, Jill Dunlop, told True North that the province has been working with the federal government to crack down on problems within the international student visa system, although she did not not provide a clear stance on the federal government’s announcement.

“We’ve been engaging with the federal government on ways to crack down on these practices, like predatory recruitment,” said Dunlop.

“We also need to work together to ensure the students coming to Canada receive an education that is responsive to Ontario’s labour needs, especially in the skilled trades. As we do, we have a joint responsibility to ensure the stability of the postsecondary sector and the success of its students.”

British Columbia Post-Secondary Education and Future Skills Minister Selina Robinson gave a similar answer to Ontario’s Dunlop, citing cooperation with the government while not taking a clear stance on the policy.

“We have known about the issues facing international students for some time and we are actively working with the federal government on solving them, and making sure that international students receive the quality education they were promised,” said Robinson. 

“Our approach addresses the federal government’s concerns while acknowledging the uniqueness of B.C.’s education sector and the diversity of communities it serves across the province. We will have more to say early next week.”

Miller told reporters Monday that the federal government has been cooperating with Ontario and British Columbia in reworking Canada’s international student visa program. 

Both the universities of Calgary and British Columbia stated that they will be working with their respective provincial governments in order to best cope with the reduction of international students.

“We are aware of the announcement today by Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Marc Miller. UBC will be working with the provincial government and IRCC over the coming weeks as the details of today’s announcement are clarified,” said University of British Columbia spokesperson Matthew Ramsey.

“The university is aware of the federal government’s decision to place a temporary two-year cap on international student enrollment, and we await details of how this decision will impact Alberta and post-secondary schools in our province,” said a University of Calgary spokesperson.

Law community “absolutely thrilled” with Federal Court’s Emergencies Act decision

By
Isaac Lamoureux
-

Lawyers from across the country rejoiced upon hearing the news that the Emergencies Act was deemed unconstitutional by the Federal Court of Canada. 

This ruling has been met with enthusiasm from Christine Van Geyn, Litigation Director at the Canadian Constitution Foundation (CCF), who played a pivotal role in challenging the government’s use of the Act.

“I’m absolutely thrilled,” said Van Geyn on the Andrew Lawton Show. “My best hope, I think, was surpassed with this because we really won on everything.”

The decision follows an application for judicial review by the CCF, Canadian Civil Liberties Association, Frontline Nurses, and some individuals affected by the emergency measures.

One of the litigants, Edward Cornell, had called on veterans to come to Ottawa for the protest. Cornell is a veteran who had served his country for decades and had his bank account frozen for participating in the Freedom Convoy. Being unable to buy food, fill his vehicle with gas, or pay for anywhere to stay, Cornell said that had it not been for the kindness of others, he’d not have made it back to his home in New Brunswick.

Having joined the military in 1975, five years after the FLQ crisis and the implementation of the War Measures Act, Cornell said that the federal government’s overreach during the convoy showed that it was power drunk and wanted to squash any public dissent.

“They would go to any length to quell people from speaking out,” said Cornell on the Andrew Lawton Show. “I never thought that I could see our government turn on the Canadian people and also turn on veterans who were standing in support of truckers with medals on and be beaten into submission and thrown out like yesterday’s garbage in the middle of nowhere.”

The case argued that the invocation of the Emergencies Act in response to the 2022 Freedom Convoy was unreasonable and ultra vires, meaning outside of the scope of the Act’s authority. The other issue was that the regulations created by the Emergencies Act, such as prohibitions on gatherings, prohibitions on protesting, and financial measures such as freezing Canadians’ bank accounts, were unconstitutional.

“This is big news!” said convoy lawyer Eva Chipiuk. “Do not be afraid to stand up to your government. In fact, it is your job as a citizen in democracy. Your voice matters, don’t let anyone tell you otherwise,” she said. 

The Federal Court found that those measures violated several sections of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. 

“My initial reaction is that this surpassed my expectations,” said Van Geyn, admittedly only 90 pages into the 190-page document at the time. 

“This is a wonderful day for fundamental freedoms in Canada, for the right to protest.”

Van Geyn explained that many Canadians lost their faith in the country’s justice system throughout the pandemic. 

“This is a huge exception, and I think that in the context of the pandemic, the invocation of the Emergencies Act was the most extreme piece of government overreach. And here we have a court slapping down the Trudeau government for having done that.”

“This is an absolute loss for the Trudeau government. They couldn’t have lost worse,” said Van Geyn.  

Chrystia Freeland announced that the federal government plans to appeal the decision.

“I was certain, after a lot of deliberation with colleagues and many others, that we took the right decision. I was certain at the time. I was certain when I testified before Rouleau, and I remain certain today,” said Freeland. 

Convoy lawyer Keith Wilson also told the Andrew Lawton Show that the federal government invoked the Emergencies Act to clear out protest tragically with brutal, tyrannical force against lawful protesting Canadians. 

“But this is a great day for Canada,” he said. 

Upon hearing of Freeland’s intent to appeal the decision, Wilson said that he hadn’t yet read the whole decision but understood the legal arguments and area of law very well.

“They’ll be weak. That’s a sign of desperation,” he said, reacting to the federal government’s intent to appeal. 

Wilson was a part of the truckers’ negotiation with the mayor to de-escalate the pressure on residential portions of the downtown. He said that Ottawa saw his move to de-escalate and take away the justification for the Emergencies Act, which he said is why they rushed it in.

“They rushed it in because the Prime Minister was embarrassed that Canadians had stood up to  his tyrannical behaviour, and he wanted to punish them, and he wanted to hurt them, and he wanted to send a message: that this is the new authoritarian Canada, in my view, and don’t you dare question me.” 

Take Back Alberta founder declares “endless war” on Elections Alberta

By
Isaac Lamoureux
-
Source: YouTube

The founder of an influential political action group in Alberta says an ongoing investigation into its activities by Elections Alberta is just “the left trying to destroy someone.”

In a recent Zoom session posted to Rumble, David Parker, founder of Take Back Alberta rejected suggestions his organization has breached elections law while raising questions about the fairness of the election regulator’s process.

Parker said that Elections Alberta has hired multiple investigators to investigate whether Take Back Alberta has violated election laws. He added that he has been cooperative and feels he has done nothing wrong.

Election Alberta’s first accusation against the organization is that its town hall meetings are allegedly election advertising. Parker defended these meetings, saying he tells stories about his life and has people get up to talk about why they’re involved in politics.

Parker said there is a double standard between how Take Back Alberta and Alberta teachers unions are treated given unions, he said, have NDP literature in their meeting rooms and Alberta Teachers’ Association actively campaigned against the United Conservative Party.

When concerns have been raised, they fall on deaf ears, Parker said.

“Those complaints were never looked into,” said Parker. “However, 24 very minor complaints have been filed about Take Back Alberta, and they have hired seven investigators to look into whether or not we broke any laws.”

In an email to True North, Elections Alberta said that the Election Commissioner may investigate any matter that may constitute an offence. The organization said that its findings and decisions are well-documented and applied consistently to all complaints and investigations. However, in accordance with the Election Act, the regulator said it is unable to comment on allegations or investigations. 

Parker firmly believes Take Back Alberta has not broken any laws. He affirmed that the organization is not a political party but a not-for-profit dedicated to educating people on how their democracy works.

“This is very clearly a textbook example of the left trying to destroy someone through what people call in the industry, in politics, lawfare — using the law for warfare. And their goal is to try to discredit Take Back Alberta and the things we’ve accomplished by smearing it as illegal or breaking the law,” said Parker. “I do not care whether they say what we’re doing is illegal because I know that it should not be illegal.”

Elections Alberta has demanded that Parker hand over the names of everyone who has ever donated to Take Back Alberta. He said he would not comply. He said that he does not trust Elections Alberta or the government with information that could be used to target past donors.

“The media will say I am breaking the law by not giving these names to Elections Alberta. I don’t care,” said Parker. “Because I know that what is right is more important than what the law says, and I am not going to put the people who have donated to this movement at risk just because the government asked me to.”

Alberta lawyer Leighton Grey has reportedly agreed to represent Take Back Alberta in its case with Elections Alberta. Grey had previously sent a letter to Elections Alberta about the integrity of Alberta’s elections.

Parker threatened to seek the removal of everyone currently employed by Elections Alberta.

“If this government agency thinks that they can silence me by fining me, or by putting my name in the media, or claiming that these meetings that we have held together and the things that we’ve done together are illegal, then I declare them an enemy of democracy,” Parker said. “And, if Elections Alberta has become an enemy of democracy, that means that we must remove everyone currently employed there.”

Parker went on to accuse the election regulator of being a “political weapon” that has been “captured by the socialists, particularly NDP supporters.”

Elections Alberta defended its impartiality to True North.

“Elections Alberta is a politically neutral organization and does not support or endorse any political party or candidate at any level of government,” said the organization. 

He also made an unconfirmed allegation that there was “massive voter fraud” during the previous provincial election.

Over the coming weeks, Parker said that he will begin exposing some of the corruption through his profile on X. He warned that this would result in an escalation of attacks on himself and Take Back Alberta.

“What I ask is that you read carefully, that you pay attention, and that you understand is that what we’re trying to do here is take down a corrupt system.”

Elections Alberta is claiming that Parker enriched himself with Take Back Alberta, he claimed. Over the next few months, he said that he will be showing how much money he’s lost, which he described as a substantial amount.

Despite the investigation and accusations, Parker said he will not stop doing what he’s doing.

“I will not stop teaching you how your democracy works. I will not stop going to meetings, and I will not stop advocating for more people being involved in politics,” he said. “I will, however, now declare an endless war on Elections Alberta until every single employee there has been fired. I believe that Elections Alberta has been corrupted. I believe the evidence is even more clear in this final point.” 

Editor’s Note: David Parker is married to a True North journalist, who did not contribute to this story.

Government will appeal Federal Court’s Emergencies Act decision, Freeland says

By
Cosmin Dzsurdzsa
-

Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland has announced the government’s intention to appeal Tuesday’s Federal Court ruling that deemed the use of the Emergencies Act, used to disperse Freedom Convoy protestors, unconstitutional. 

In a landmark ruling, the Federal Court found that the issuance of the Proclamation and associated Regulations and Order under the Emergencies Act was unreasonable and exceeded the act’s intended scope. 

The court highlighted violations of Charter rights, specifically encroaching upon freedom of thought, opinion, and expression, along with an infringement on the right to security against unreasonable search or seizure.

When asked about the ruling on Tuesday, Freeland insisted that her government was correct in its use of emergency powers to quash protesters.

“So we are aware of the court decision. We have discussed it with the Prime Minister, with Cabinet colleagues, with senior federal government officials and experts. We respect very much Canada’s independent judiciary. However, we do not agree with this decision. And respectfully, we will be appealing it,” said Freeland. 

“When we took that decision, the public safety of Canadians was under threat or national security, which includes our national economic security was under threat. It was a hard decision to take. We took it very seriously. After a lot of hard work, after a lot of careful deliberation. We were convinced at the time – I was convinced at the time – it was the right thing to do.”

The Canadian Constitution Foundation and other applicants initiated a judicial review application in 2022, expressing concerns about what they perceived as government overreach and civil liberties violations.

Canadian Constitution Foundation litigation director Christine Van Geyn has since asserted the organization’s commitment to fighting the federal government’s appeal.

Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre also addressed the ruling, accusing Prime Minister Justin Trudeau of breaking “the highest law in the land” by resorting to emergency powers.

“He caused the crisis by dividing people. Then he violated Charter rights to illegally suppress citizens. As PM, I will unite our country for freedom,” posted Poilievre on X. 

The Federal Court decision also touched upon special economic measures taken by the Trudeau government to freeze the bank accounts of Freedom Convoy organizers and protesters. Justice Richard Mosley rejected the government’s claim that freezing the accounts represented minimum impairment under the Economic Measures.

“I was convinced at the time, it was the right thing to do. It was the necessary thing to do. I remain and we remain convinced of that,” Freeland re-iterated when asked about the special economic measures. 

Conservative MP Andrew Scheer also criticized the government’s handling of the protests, saying that the Prime Minister had no right to lecture others about Charter rights. 

Conservative MP and democratic reform critic Michael Cooper referred to the use of the Emergencies Act as a “massive abuse of power” as evidenced by the Federal Court’s decision. 

“We are coming to liberate Canada,” Tucker Carlson tells Trudeau in voicemail

By
Isaac Lamoureux
-

American media personality Tucker Carlson says he’s coming to “liberate” Canada – and he delivered the message right to Justin Trudeau’s office.

On Monday evening, Tucker Carlson posted a video to his Instagram of him calling the Prime Minister’s Office media line.

The response was an automated voice message in both official languages, but Carlson made sure to leave a message.

“It’s Tucker Carlson calling from the United States, and I’d be grateful if you pass a message on to the Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau: We are coming to liberate Canada. We are coming to liberate Canada. And we’ll be there soon. Merci,” said Carlson.

Carlson’s video had amassed millions of views by Tuesday morning and was subsequently shared by Jordan Peterson.

“See you there,” Peterson said, tagging Carlson, Alberta Premier Danielle Smith, and Conrad Black, all of whom are expected to speak at one of Tucker’s upcoming shows in Alberta.

Smith’s office confirmed that she will be attending the event in Calgary.

“The premier participates in a variety of public and private events and does interviews with dozens of reporters, broadcasters, and podcasters from across the political spectrum,” said press secretary Sam Blackett in a statement to CTV.

“Obviously, she does not subscribe to every view of every interviewer or reporter she speaks with, whether that’s the CBC, the Toronto Star, or Tucker Carlson,” said Blackett. “The Premier aims to share Alberta’s message with as many people as possible whether they’re from Alberta, Canada, or around the world.”

Alberta’s NDP leader, Rachel Notley, who’s since announced her resignation, spoke out against Smith’s attendance.

“The fact that our premier believes it’s appropriate to normalize the things this person would say by appearing on a stage with him demonstrates a profound lack of judgment on her part,” she said.

Notley had called on Smith to cancel her appearance, saying that Albertans deserve better from their leadership.

Smith said that Carlson has the largest podcast audience in the world, giving an opportunity to tell Alberta’s story.

“I don’t agree with everyone who interviews me,” she said.

Replying to convoy lawyer Keith Wilson, Tamara Lich weighed in.

“The PM is likely mobilizing our military to hurl tampons (plastic applicator free of course) and foul language at Tucker et al.,” she said.

Lich asked whether anyone had checked on Trudeau to ensure he hadn’t been exposed to Covid and was forced to go into isolation.

The Prime Minister is currently at a cabinet retreat in Montreal.

The former Fox News host is scheduled to speak in Calgary on Wednesday at noon. He is also speaking in Edmonton on the same day at 7:30pm.

Tickets for the show in Calgary are sold out on Ticketmaster. The show in Edmonton has a handful of tickets on the floor and in the lower bowl remaining.

“See you soon, Canada,” Carlson wrote in the caption of his video.

Bill requiring age verification for online porn bill stalled over privacy concerns

By
Quinn Patrick
-

A private members’ bill seeking to prevent minors from accessing online pornography has been stalled in Parliament as the federal government continues to oppose the legislation. 

Liberal-appointed Senator Julie Miville-Dechêne, the author of the Bill S-210, claimed that Canada is lagging behind other countries on this issue, saying she is confused as to the reason for Liberals’ stance on the matter.   

“The Liberal government’s opposition to Bill S-210 is puzzling, considering the bill is supported by all other parties in the House,” she said on Thursday. “It also contradicts earlier signals from the government. Most objections to S-210 are based on fear mongering and fallacies, and the issues of privacy and data security can be thoroughly addressed in regulations.”

“The Canadian government is going against the tide of countries and jurisdictions that are legislating to protect children from exposure to online pornography, including the European Union, the U.K., France, Germany, Spain,” Miville-Dechêne told the Canadian Press.

A total of 15 Liberal MPs broke ranks with the government and voted in favour of the bill alongside the Conservatives, NDP and Bloc Québécois last month.

The bill, also known as the Protecting Young Persons From Exposure to Pornography Act, had been pushed towards its final stages in the Commons but the Liberals have withheld support. 

According to the Heritage Minister’s office, the government plans to continue withholding support for the bill, citing privacy concerns.

Bill S-210 would require commercial websites that offer pornography to require users to verify that they are over the age of 18 years old to have access to the material. 

The bill does now specify how this would be reliably accomplished however, leaving plans to make additional regulations in the future open to the government. 

Critics of the bill warn that the age verification process could compromise user privacy, especially if it requires personal information, like photo identification. 

The Trudeau government has hinted that such preventative regulations may be included in its forthcoming online safety bill, but no draft has yet been made public. 

Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez said he plans to introduce measures to bar children from access to pornography, telling the El Pais newspaper that children are being negatively impacted by sexually explicit material online. 

Officials in Germany said that they are preparing to call on their country’s internet providers to block Pornhub and similar websites operated by Aylo, a Canadian owned online pornography company due to its failure to comply with age verification laws there, according to the Globe and Mail.

Aylo has moved to challenge German regulators in court.  

Bill S-210 has cleared the Senate and second reading in the House of Commons, it now will go to a Commons committee. 

Liberal MP John McKay is among those who voted in favour of the bill, breaking ranks with their party, as well as NDP MP Lisa Marie Barron.

Ariane Joazard-Belizaire, a spokesperson for Heritage Minister Pascale St-Onge, alleges that the bill creates privacy issues, but said that the government remains interested in enacting measures to protect children from harmful content online.

“What’s most important for us is protecting minors and the duty to protect children who are spending more and more time online,” she said in a statement. “We are listening to the experts and Bill S-210 is fundamentally flawed as drafted. We’ve looked to better and effective approaches. Our approach will be responsible and keep minors safer online, while protecting the privacy, security, and free expression of all Canadians.”

Executive director of the Canadian Centre for Child Protection Lianna McDonald said it’s far too easy for children to access pornography online.

“In Canada, recent surveys show over 30% of kids aged 9 to 13 have encountered pornography online without seeking it,” wrote McDonald in an email.

“Given that online service providers have no requirements to gatekeep who accesses harmful or explicit content to Canadians, we are glad to see the Senate is drawing a line in the sand on upholding values aimed at keeping children safe online in the same way we do offline.”

Meanwhile, Aylo has said that the company does support the concept of an age verification process, however it argues that the process should take place on the device being used to access explicit materials, not on the websites themselves and that the government must ensure user privacy. 

Aylo’s statement goes on to say that it believes users’ will just visit other websites that do not comply with any age verification process as a way to avoid giving out any personal information. 

University of Ottawa’s Canada Research Chair in internet law Michael Geist called Bill S-210 a threat to privacy and freedom of expression and one that would mandate the blocking of websites. 

Geist noted that age verification processes frequently involve facial scanning, or uploading government-issued identity documents to services which are based in foreign countries, not Canada.

“The bill as drafted is wildly overbroad, capturing general social media and search sites. Other jurisdictions have narrowed to sites where a ‘substantial portion’ of the content is sexually explicit,” said Geist.

Federal Court declares Trudeau’s use of Emergencies Act unconstitutional

By
Cosmin Dzsurdzsa
-

In a long-awaited decision, the Federal Court has ruled that the measures Prime Minister Justin Trudeau invoked under the Emergencies Act were unreasonable and unconstitutional.

The decision follows an application for judicial review launched by the Canadian Constitution Foundation, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, and several other applicants in 2022 after the emergency measures were used to end the Freedom Convoy protests in Ottawa.

The measures controversially allowed the government to freeze the bank accounts of protesters, conscript tow truck drivers, and arrest people for participating in assemblies the government deemed illegal.

The court declared that the decision to issue the Proclamation and associated Regulations and Order was unreasonable and beyond the scope of the Emergencies Act.

The court order highlighted that the government’s regulations had violated Charter rights, specifically encroaching upon freedom of thought, opinion, and expression. Additionally, the Emergencies Act order was found to infringe on the right to security against unreasonable search or seizure.

“It is declared that the decision to issue the Proclamation and the association Regulations and Order was unreasonable and ultra vires the Emergencies Act,” the Federal Court ruled.  

“It is declared that the decision that the Regulations infringed section 2 (b) of the Charter and declared that the Order infringed section 8 of the Charter and that neither infringement was justified under section 1.”

Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre addresses the ruling on X, accusing the Prime Minister of breaking “the highest law in the land” by resorting to emergency powers.

The Canadian Constitution Foundation had initiated the judicial review, expressing concerns over what they deemed as a severe example of government overreach and violations of civil liberties during the pandemic.

“The Trudeau government’s use of this extraordinary law may be the most severe example of overreach and violations of civil liberties that was seen during the pandemic,” said Van Geyn at the time. 

“The use of this powerful law was unauthorized because the legal threshold to use the law was not met. The Emergencies Act contains a last resort clause: it can only be used when there is a national emergency and there are no other laws at the federal, provincial and/or municipal levels which can address the situation. Parliament cannot use the Emergencies Act as a tool of convenience, as it did in this case.”

In his ruling Justice Richard Mosley emphasized that the Emergencies Act should be viewed as a last resort, deployed only when all other options have been exhausted. He found that the evidence indicated most provinces were capable of managing the situation using existing laws, such as the Criminal Code, as argued by Alberta.

The government contended that the ongoing protests created a national crisis requiring the Emergencies Act, asserting that alternative laws were insufficient. However, the court disagreed, acknowledging the gravity of the situation but maintaining that existing laws, as demonstrated in Alberta, could have been effective

In essence, the court concluded that the government failed to demonstrate the absolute necessity of invoking the Emergencies Act, emphasizing the importance of exhausting other available tools before resorting to it.

Part of the decision also addressed the special economic measures taken by the Trudeau government to freeze the bank accounts of Freedom Convoy organizers and protestors. Justice Mosley rejected the Liberal government’s claim that freezing bank accounts related to the Freedom Convoy under the Economic Measures represented minimum impairment.

Despite recognizing the government’s goal to disperse blockades, the judge argued that the freezing of accounts was far from minimally impairing, impacting individuals nationwide, even in regions without illegal protests.

The judge recommended a more restricted scope for the measures in the ruling, expressing concerns about the lack of clear standards for targeting individuals and the absence of a proper process for challenging such decisions. The unintended consequences of the account suspensions, affecting joint account holders and family members with issued credit cards, were emphasized.

Ultimately, the judge concluded that the violations of Charter sections 2(b) and 8 were not minimally impairing and were not justified under section 1 of the Emergencies Act.

The Andrew Lawton Show | Federal Court declares use of Emergencies Act UNREASONABLE

By
Andrew Lawton
-

It’s the two-year anniversary of the first leg of the Freedom Convoy setting out for Ottawa from Delta, British Columbia. Today, the Federal Court ruled that Justin Trudeau’s use of the Emergencies Act was unreasonable and outside the parameters of the act. True North’s Andrew Lawton discusses what this means for Canada.

Plus, the Liberals are still trying to make their misguided firearms “buyback” happen. Canadian Coalition for Firearm Rights CEO Rod Giltaca joins to discuss the latest.

SUBSCRIBE TO THE ANDREW LAWTON SHOW

The Daily Brief | Dana White stands up for free speech

By
Cosmin Dzsurdzsa
-

UFC President Dana White wiped the floor with a Canadian journalist after the reporter tried to ask him to control his fighter’s opinions.

And BC MLA and former BC Liberal leadership candidate Ellis Ross will be leaving provincial politics to pursue election under the federal Conservative banner.

Plus, Trudeau’s Immigration Minister Marc Miller has admitted that the international student visa system is “out of control.”

Tune into The Daily Brief with Cosmin Dzsurdzsa and Noah Jarvis!

SUBSCRIBE TO THE DAILY BRIEF

1...351352353...1,460Page 352 of 1,460

Related stories

© 2025 True North | Privacy Policy