LYTLE: It's Ottawa's high-handed ways that make the case for leaving Canada

In an earlier life, as a newly appointed member of the National Energy Board, I participated in a conversation about pipeline regulation with citizens affected by pipelines and hence, by their regulation. I was as thrilled by the opportunity, as I was to visit a part of the country new to me.That is when I was educated about two important aspects of the legal process. In the first instance I was familiarized with the term 'ex parte.' According to one internet glossary, ex parte refers to,“…legal proceedings that are conducted without notice to, and outside the presence of other parties affected by the proceeding. Typically, ex parte proceedings are permitted only when a party needs urgent relief that cannot wait until the adverse party is informed of the request and given an opportunity to respond. However, in some jurisdictions, ex parte proceedings require that the adverse party be given minimal notice and an opportunity to respond.”.If there was a current or announced pipeline hearing in the area of my visit, anything I said could be construed as ex parte, even though the meetings did not take place in a courtroom, because the pipeline company would not be present to ensure that information relevant to their application was not discussed. Under such circumstances I would have to recuse myself from participation in the hearing.The other legal principle I learned was,“Not only must justice be done, but it must also be seen to done.”It didn’t matter what I was thinking of my actions, it mattered what outside viewers thought about my actions. .The lessons were brought home when another group of NEB members took part in general explanations about the role of the board in another part of Canada — a part of Canada that was about to have the largest public hearing in Canadian history. When news of the meeting was reported in the press, the discussions were declared ex parte. The affected pipeline company spent a large sum of money to adjust their evidence, egg was on a lot of faces and eventually the pipeline project was canceled. It can be very expensive to correct things when justice is not seen to be done. For me it was “there but for the grace of God go I.”.This incident came back to me when I recently learned about the Action Committee on Court Operations in Response to COVID-19. The highest courts of the land along with the politicians who were responsible for the court system decided to meet secretly (did you know about this imperium?) and determine how the court should handle legal issues arising from COVID-19. Is there such an imperium for cancer or influenza or heart disease? I couldn’t find any references to such bodies of judicial concern.The date of the referenced article, which is an update of previous meetings, is November 2020. Note well: This was prior to the introduction of the two-shot, mandated COVID injections. What did the court know, prior to the mandates?The meetings included government health and justice officials plus judges from across Canada. Do you know who was not represented at this Star Chamber court that correctly anticipated the flurry of legal actions that were about to descend on Canadian courts? Me and you, that’s who. You and I were parties affected by proceedings that we can assume touched on the legal issues around mandates. I say “assumed” because I could not find minutes of the meetings. .Where was our minimal notice? (Go back and read the definition of ex parte.)The Action Committee was to ensure that the “administration of justice was supported by the best available public health information and practices.” But non-government experts with relevant information were excluded from the deliberations. The committee “facilitated information-sharing and communication.” Perhaps to ensure a lockstep response to pending litigation? The Action Committee “respects the responsibility of the provinces and territories for the administration of justice,” yet was chaired by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.From this can we infer why judicial rulings ignored the evidence of clinicians and experts in epidemiology who were not from the government and spoke from other scientific data? Does this help us understand why Brian Peckford, a negotiator and signatory to our Bill of Rights and Freedoms, was not given a hearing in his lawsuit? Does this give an insight into the prolonged trials of participants in the trucker’s convoy in which the process has become the punishment?.I can understand why this legal Star Chamber wanted to educate itself and attempt to fix a problem that was anticipated to occur. Healthcare is not their area, as judges said repeatedly in their decisions, and they wanted to get ahead of things. Fair enough, even if it is kind of the job of judges to weigh competing arguments and evidence in making judgments and rulings in areas outside their specific expertise.What I can’t understand, nor countenance is the apparent ex parte nature of the actions of this committee. Remember justice must not only be done but it must be seen to be done. I don’t know what went on in private meetings between the government and the judges. I suspect that the discussions directly and seriously impacted my life. Justice was not seen to be done.Once again, I have had enough of Canada and its Lords of Easy Governance. It is time to leave.