UPDATE SEPTEMBER 19, 2015: SEE ALSO DISCLAIMER AND LITIGATION UPDATES.
[This post, which began in May and having over 1000 revisions and 2000 comments, is being retired from service and updates. It lived through the success of reaching a total of $500,000 in donations from our kind, dear supporters who had little money to give, the hope and disappointment with the summary trial decision, and the certainty that we are now finally moving on to the Charter trial.]
CANADIAN CHARTER TRIAL UPDATE:
— We have instructed the Arvay team to prepare for the “Constitutional-Charter” trial. This means that our focus now, as it was in the beginning of our lawsuit, is on the Charter trial.
Unless there is a new expense in the future that we have not anticipated, the monies from your donations will be sufficient to take us through the “constitutional-charter” trial in Federal Court. However, to pay other legal bills we will need additional donations from our supporters, and a request for donations will appear on another post soon.
OUR LITIGATION HISTORY:
One year ago, on August 11, 2014, Litigator Joseph Arvay filed a FATCA IGA lawsuit in Canada Federal Court on behalf of Plaintiffs Ginny and Gwen, the Alliance for the Defence of Canadian Sovereignty (en français), and all peoples.
Because of a Government delay we initiated a “summary trial”, using a portion of the arguments, which offered the possibility of preventing private banking information from being turned over to the IRS before September 30, 2015. See Alliance’s Claims, our Alliance blog, and AUGUST 4-5 SUMMARY TRIAL FILINGS in LITIGATION UPDATES.
@calgary411
Indeed, your riding is very close.Hold your nose and vote Liberal.
http://calgaryherald.com/news/politics/liberals-conservatives-tied-in-calgary-confederation-poll-shows
As I mentioned to Gwen, this is not a situation that’s just going to go away should the plaintiffs fail in blocking the FATCA IGA in Canada. No one’s going to throw their hands up and say, oh well, at least we tried! As more and more people such as Mulcair’s press secretary are drawn into this, the more the momentum against FATCA and CBT is going to build. The only thing CBT has had going for it is that relatively few people knew about it, and we might actually have FATCA to thank for changing that. Now to get rid of both.
@ george
Thanks for the thanks but it’s calgary411 who does the true heavy lifting … I’m a light weight.
RE: voting
I’m going strategic, even though my riding poll, so far, shows this will be a mere gesture. This is the site I’ve been watching …
http://www.threehundredeight.com/p/canada.html
@ bubblebustin
I agree. The harder and longer we shine a light on CBT, the uglier it will eventually look to everyone … well everyone not completely blinded by exceptionalism, that is.
Thanks, George and EmBee.
EmBee, I’m not doing any more heavy lifting than you — it’s just that I’m here in Calgary (this event was a mere 10-15 minute walk for me) and you’re way down where it would be a long trip to make for such an event with Mr. Mulcair.
…and, I always know that you would laugh (or frown) at any pertinent song lyrics I’d come up with!
P.S. — Harperman Sing-a-long locations: http://harperman.ca/sing-along-locations/ (I understand that Calgary’s location *might* change to right outside the BMO Centre at the Calgary Stampede Grounds where Thursday’s debate takes place.)
And, if anyone is so brave to have their phone ring loudly in a public location, a Harperman ringtone: http://harperman.ca/harperman-ringtone-is-now-available/
Let’s assume that it is true what people were saying on here a couple of days ago: that Elizabeth May may offer to mediate some form of coalition or other agreement between the Libs-NDP to help topple the Cons in a minority government situation.
In such a case I think that popular vote makes a difference. May will probably end up with only one seat (her own) but her mandate to mediate such an agreement will be stronger the greater her popular vote is. Let’s say the Greens end up doing a bit better than current polls show and end up at 8-10% or so. As the sole MP representing nearly 10% of the electorate, she would have a very strong mandate to mediate in any minority government negotiations.
May also seems to be the only North American politician to unequivocally speak out in favour of repealing FATCA/the IGA–Trudeau, Mulcair, and even–I’m sorry to say–Rand Paul haven’t been willing to go that far.
So my take is that if one is against FATCA/the IGA/CBT–and the local riding winner is likely to be clear–the Green party is the best bet. If the local riding is close one might need to be more strategic locally.
Sorry–I meant that Mulcair is unwilling to clearly commit to a repeal of the IGA law. I said ‘Harper’–obviously that is even more true of Harper but that part is pretty obvious–I should have said ‘Mulcair’.
[fixed]
@ Calgary 411 It looks like “Harperman” might make two appearances in Calgary. Planned at City Hall at 4:30 pm (according to facebook page) then talk of a march to BMO center to join the other one there. Almost seems like they will join another group there.
Elizabeth May is planning a twitter session during the debate to participate: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/elections/green-leader-may-to-digitally-debate-opponents-via-twitter/article26363892/.
FUCK
[9] I have concluded that the collection and automatic disclosure of account holder information about US reportable accounts (see paragraphs 28 to 34 below) contemplated by Articles 2 and 3 of the IGA is legally authorized in Canada by the provisions of the IGA Implementation Act and Part XVIII of the ITA. Moreover, contrary to the assertions made by the plaintiffs, I find that the collection and automatic disclosure of any such information is not inconsistent with the provisions of the Canada-US Tax Treaty, and does not otherwise violate section 241 of the ITA. Basically, I endorse the general reasoning and the legal arguments submitted by the defendants in their written submissions and reasserted at the hearing by counsel.
http://cas-ncr-nter03.cas-satj.gc.ca/rss/T-1736-14%20decision%20sept-16-2015.pdf
THANK GOD
This is a case where, in view of the nature of the issues and the public interest involved in clarifying the scope of novel provisions affecting hundreds of thousands of Canadian citizens, no costs should be ordered against the losing parties.
WTF?
[77] For all these reasons, the declaratory and injunctive relief requested by the plaintiffs in their motion for summary judgment shall be denied by the Court, without prejudice to the plaintiffs’ right to pursue their claim that the impugned provisions are ultra vires or inoperative because they are unconstitutional or otherwise unjustifiably infringe Charter rights.
Oh crap! So much for “Justice” Martineau. But … “right to pursue” … will we? … how? What’s the next step?
“What’s the next step?”
Renounce two citizenships instead of one?
But I’d be stateless if I did that.
I can’t believe it. Does anyone on this planet have the courage to do the right thing? Agree with EmBee…what is next? I’m going to bed and put the covers over my head for a year. Damn, damn, damn!
What foes this do for the Bopp suit, as they cited tha Canadian lawsuit in their argument?
The Bopp suit never had a chance anyway. It doesn’t matter how correct Bopp’s plaintiffs are, they’re dealing with a government and courts who have known for years that they want their diaspora to renounce.
Maybe the answer to my question is contained somewhere in here, In today’s article in Taxanalysts:
“Unlike tax treaties, IGAs do not require ratification by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. That means Paul is unable to place a procedural freeze on IGAs the same way he’s put a freeze on tax treaties. That pesky little detail has proved vital to the rise of FATCA and the global spread of similar information exchange mechanisms, such as the OECD’s common reporting standard, which can be thought of as FATCA for the rest of the known universe.
If the lawsuit survives the government’s motion for summary judgment — which remains an open question — one fascinating issue will be the odd-duck status of these IGAs. In many ways, they seem to resemble taxpayer information exchange agreements, which also don’t require Senate ratification on the grounds that they are manifestations of the executive branch’s ability to conduct foreign policy. In practice, however, TIEAs and IGAs aren’t so different from article 26 of your average tax treaty. Yet the latter requires ratification by the Senate while the former do not.
http://www.taxanalysts.com/taxcom/taxblog.nsf/Permalink/UBEN-A2DPSM?OpenDocument
This reminds me of that painting that contains the image of an old woman or young woman depending on how you look at it. Can the IGA’s be legal and illegal at the same time?
@Stephen Kish
My first response was to go buy a bottle of wine and end my sobriety
Instead I put some money in an envelope that I will mail tommorrow
I am gutted but this was a purely speculative option and it did not work out
But I sense Joe arvey will now be hungry for a win
Justice Martineau re the Bopp lawsuit:
[51] Nor is it necessary to decide whether the IGA is a “treaty” under US law. While the status of the IGA as law in the US may be ambiguous – the US Treasury has decided to treat these types of intergovernmental agreements not as treaties but merely as interpretations of treaty terms – as far as Canada is concerned, by the effect of section 3 of the IGA, the IGA is approved by Parliament and has the force of law in Canada during all the period it is in force. In Canadian domestic law at least, the IGA constitutes a tax treaty or a listed agreement within the meaning of subsection 241(4) of the ITA. Detractors of the IGA may wish to question the legal application in the US of the IGA on the grounds that it has not been ratified by Congress – a point that the Court is not called upon to decide today. The IGA is certainly a treaty from the Canadian perspective. At worst, the IGA is still a binding agreement between the US and Canada respecting the interpretation or application of the Canada-US Tax Treaty, and as such may be considered in interpreting the latter, which is a treaty pursuant to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, Can. TS 1980 No. 37.
Always be careful about making anybody the subject of an action verb where the action was done by somebody else.
You lose a chess game. A court case gets decided against you.
Speaking with some experience in these matters this decision – loss at a preliminary stage- was not unexpected and in all likelihood the same fate awaits the U.S. suit. However this is going to be a long fight and my view is we have a better chance of winning under the Charter than we have in the U.S. action. Both these cases need to go through full trials and appeals as necessary to the highest courts.
peter.julian@ndp.ca, Matthew.Kellway@ndp.ca, Francois.Lapointe@ndp.ca, Jean-Francois.Larose@ndp.ca, Alexandrine.Latendresse@ndp.ca, Helene.Laverdiere@ndp.ca, Helene.LeBlanc@ndp.ca, megan.leslie@ndp.ca, Laurin.Liu@ndp.ca, Hoang.Mai@ndp.ca, wayne.marston@ndp.ca, pat.martin@ndp.ca, brian.masse@ndp.ca, irene.mathyssen@ndp.ca, Elaine.Michaud@ndp.ca, AnneMinh-Thu.Quach@ndp.ca, Christine.Moore@ndp.ca, Dany.Morin@ndp.ca, Isabelle.Morin@ndp.ca, Marc-Andre.Morin@ndp.ca, Marie-Claude.Morin@ndp.ca, thomas.mulcair@ndp.ca, Pierre.Nantel@ndp.ca, Peggy.Nash@ndp.ca, Jamie.Nicholls@ndp.ca, Jose.Nunez-Melo@ndp.ca, Annick.Papillon@ndp.ca, Claude.Patry@ndp.ca, Eve.Peclet@ndp.ca, Manon.Perreault@ndp.ca, Francois.Pilon@ndp.ca, john.rafferty@ndp.ca, Mathieu.Ravignat@ndp.ca, Francine.Raynault@ndp.ca, Murray.Rankin@ndp.ca, Jean.Rousseau@ndp.ca, Romeo.Saganash@ndp.ca, Jasbir.Sandhu@ndp.ca, denise.savoie@ndp.ca, Djaouida.Sellah@ndp.ca, Jinny.Sims@ndp.ca, Rathika.Sitsabaiesan@ndp.ca, Lise.St-Denis@ndp.ca, Kennedy.Stewart@ndp.ca, peter.stoffer@ndp.ca, Mike.Sullivan@ndp.ca, glenn.thibeault@ndp.ca, Philip.Toone@ndp.ca, Jonathan.Tremblay@ndp.ca, Nycole.Turmel@ndp.ca, craig.scott@ndp.ca
Damn.
Thank god he didn’t award costs.
I was hoping that it would be possible in Canadian court cases to NOT order costs from the unsuccessful party if the issues raised were seen as legitimate and worthy. I think it’s significant that the judge did not award costs. It does seem that he recognized the importance of the larger issues and questions, and hopefully, that’s a good sign going forward.
“This is a case where, in view of the nature of the issues and the public interest involved in clarifying the scope of novel provisions affecting hundreds of thousands of Canadian citizens, no costs should be ordered against the losing parties.”
I read the two articles on the case in the fp and gm and found both to be balanced. Thanks to the brockers that commented
Emotionally I was hoping for Santa Claus so I was gutted
Is it possible to do a freedom of information and get the number of accounts reported next seek.
Also as I reread the ruling I seem to think the judge thinks that this is a bad and raw deal just legal from the question he ruled on.
He did not award costs which is a big deal and his ruling was without prejiduce on the charter claim.
The two legal articles in the press also have the thread this is far from over
A worry I had if we won round one was that it would be shortlived as the Usa and Canada would just create a legal work around.
My faith tells me all things including the bad work out for ultimate good.
One thing I’m not fond of in the G&M article is in the 1st paragraph: “A legal challenge by two dual U.S.-Canadian citizens that aimed to block Ottawa’s move to hand the banking information of American citizens with Canadian accounts to U.S. tax authorities has failed.”
“American citizens with Canadian accounts” sounds like foreigners coming north across the border to do their banking.
Keep fighting.
@Canoe…….I do not comment on such sites but many brockers do.
All of you need to correct the record as follows or like this….
Genny and Gwen are not “two dual U.S.-Canadian citizens” they are Canadian Citizens with clinging/involuntary US Nationality imposed on them.