March 8, 2016 UPDATE: Legal fees paid — on to Federal Court for Charter trial contesting Canadian FATCA IGA legislation.
Canadians and International Supporters:
You came through once again: $594,970 for legal costs have now been donated and our outstanding legal bill is finally paid off.
Thanks especially to those who donated even though they never had any “spare” money to give, and despite this gave over and over and over again.
This last round of fundraising also shows that our Canadian lawsuit remains dependent on the kindness of our International Friends: There would be no lawsuit without their financial help.
Know that a very generous donation (today) from a supporter in the United States made it possible to pay off the remaining legal debt. Also please appreciate that there would be no lawsuit without the help of the Isaac Brock Society which has kindly let us use its website to solicit funds.
Our next step is the Constitutional-Charter trial in Federal Court.
For this we need more Canadian Witnesses, and my next post will be devoted only to a request for Witnesses willing to go public, like our Plaintiffs Ginny and Gwen.
For the future: I want a win in Federal Court — and I want the new Liberal Government not to appeal that win.
Thank you all for your support,
Stephen Kish,
for the Directors,
Alliance for the Defence of Canadian Sovereignty
@Stephen Kish
I guess CIBC hasn’t read this on page 24 here:
https://www.fin.gc.ca/treaties-conventions/pdf/FATCA-eng.pdf
“Relationship Manager Inquiry for Actual Knowledge. In addition to the electronic and paper record searches described above, the Reporting Canadian Financial Institution must treat as a U.S. Reportable Account any High Value Account assigned to a relationship manager (including any Financial Accounts aggregated with such High Value Account) if the relationship manager has actual knowledge that the Account Holder is a Specified U.S. Person.”
Bubbles
Stephen mishap does not have a relationship manager
Aka private banker
@George
I think I’ll ask mine then. We also filled out a W9 with him. He’ll have to tell me if he did.
Watching Canadian Election returns online, the Liberals look like they’ve done the same thing for Atlantic Canada that the SNP did for Scotland – took all the seats bar three.
Brockers its time to quickly educate the new mps before the civil service does.
The liberals could simply not elect to defend the next lawsuit and it would then fall without them having to repeal
Think obama justice Dept and not defending doma
There has been a Twitter & Social Media storm.
There has been an Uprising by Native Canadians !
There has been an expression of utter contempt for the Conservative Party of Haperites.
There is demand that Canada restore her Sovereignty and Charter Rights for all citizens and Residents.
There has been a glorious flushing sound as the Harperite Bums exited through the sewer.
By God the Liberals had better do what is right and reverse the unjust laws imposed by Harper. Am I vexed ? Yes I am vexed but I see new hope !
With God’s help a peaceful revolution … revolution? … nay, restoration of Values, Principles and Privacy … is afoot!
Thank you Canada !
Aside from changing the names of the Attorney General of Canada and the Minister of National Revenue on the claim, does anything else change? Will there be an attempt at mediation/negotiation given that we are now suing a new government, or is it business as usual.
@Marie, “Will there be an attempt at mediation/negotiation given that we are now suing a new government, or is it business as usual.”
Thats an interesting question and it drives home the immediate need to educate all these new MPs!!!!!
This is not a problem of the making of the Liberal Party but they will be playing with the hangmens noose!!
The only example I can think of is from the USA…sigh…..where the Obama Justice Department did not defend the Defense of marriage Act which helped it fall.
There is also a difference in DEFENDING and defending a lawsuit, if you get what I mean.
But I do know education must begin immediately!!!!
It seems to me that courts are nearly always happy if parties negotiate a solution and take the burden off the judge. There have been a few exceptions in the US, but I don’t know if there have been in Canada.
But I want more for my “strategic voting”
Congratulations are certainly in order for Mr. Trudeau and for Canadians in general for telling Mr. Harper it was time for him to pick a window!
I was wondering whether ADSC-ADCS would be willing to take a formal position on this development. By this I mean something that would be posted at http://www.adcs-adsc.ca as their formal position as opposed to just the personal opinion of bloggers, posters, and supporters on Brock.
I assume the fight will continue but it would be good to know whether ADSC-ADCS plans to declare immediate war on Mr. Trudeau as Mr. Harper’s successor or whether ADSC-ADCS intends to declare a brief truce to allow Mr. Trudeau to settle into office and make good on promises to do something about FATCA (albeit his promises are a bit vague and he should at the very least be pressed to firm things up sooner rather than later).
This is the most important sea change since this FATCA battle began so I’m hoping ADSC-ADCS can be persuaded to make a formal statement on the matter.
During the debates I attended before the election, one of my questions was “If elected, will your party reinstate the court challenges act” The answer from my Liberal candidate was a resounding YES! They will clearly reinstate the funding and the act. Perhaps we can now apply for funding as this is a legitimate issue with merit. Mr Trudeau might find it odd if he takes no action for the Canadians who’s lives were destroyed by the Harper government’s Treason, he will be paying for our lawyer through the Court Challenges act…..
Here is the written letter I received from my Candidate regarding the Court challenges act. “Canadians take pride in their Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and see it as both an expression of our values, and a tool for building a more equal society. Access to justice is essential for a meaningful commitment to equality in our democracy, but the high costs of litigation can sometimes silence those whose rights are already most vulnerable. A Liberal government will reinstate the Court Challenges Program in order to maintain effective access to Justice, and to prevent financial barriers from blocking the pursuit of equality for all Canadians” This was what was provided to me in writing from my Liberal Candidate…
@NativeCanadian
and to prevent financial barriers from blocking the pursuit of equality for all Canadians
Under the old Court Challenges Program (of course the terms might be different when it is restored) was it necessary to prove financial need to be eligible for funding?
Thank you for asking for reinstatement of the court challenges act, NativeCanadian. Interesting step and information here.
@Dash. I have never required the Court Challenges act as my personal rights provided by the Charter were not violated until now. I do believe there was a due process to filter out issues or possible violations that might not be valid. A committee or something like that. I guess we will find out now. Thanks Carol, I’m here for ya all!
@Native Canadian.
Big Up ! Your campaign has been superb ! Thank you.
@Native Canadian…….slick and brilliant……BRAVO my friend!!!!
@Brockers and @ADCS…..
I think Dash is on to something but let me elaborate some more……..
Where do we go and how do we move forward on the lawsuit?
FACT, until a Court says otherwise the FATCA IGA is the legitimate law of the land in Canada. We might not like it but it is the law and was duly passed.
The IGA does have a break up/termination clause as follows; “Either Party may terminate this Agreement by giving notice of termination in writing tothe other Party. Such termination shall become effective on the first day of the monthfollowing the expiration of a period of 12 months after the date of the notice of termination.”
So yes Dash is on to something and I think that ADCS needs to draft an eloquent letter to Trudeau and all the members of the Liberal Party in Parliament demanding that they terminate the agreement and provide the requisite 12 months notice to the USA. Terminating the IGA would render the lawsuit moot.
It is now time for them to take FULL ownership of the IGA or to disown it and blame the Conservatives.
Absent the political termination solution what could the Liberals do? They MIGHT want to have the Courts kill the IGA. Selfishly I have more to gain if the Courts kill it as that will enable lawsuits outside Canada!! But I will take a win anyway I can get it.
Is it possible for Parliament to provide an EXPEDITED path so this would go straight to the Supreme Court of Canada? I know Congress can do that in the USA.
Could ADCS ask/demand that in the absence of terminating and providing the 12 month get out notice that they enable legislation that will fast track the lawsuit to the SCC?
What else could be asked?
The enabling legislation not the IGA itself stated;
” Inconsistent laws — general rule
4. (1) Subject to subsection (2), in the event of any inconsistency between the provisions of this Act or the Agreement and the provisions of any other law (other than Part XVIII of the Income Tax Act), the provisions of this Act and the Agreement prevail to the extent of the inconsistency.”
The new parliament should be asked to STRIKE the above in the enabling legislation!! That would keep the IGA but it would restore supremecy of all other laws in Canada!!!
What say other Brockers?
Canada should copy the US’s “Last In Time” rule and renege on the treaty immediately. (Even though it’s not a treaty in the US, it seems to be one in Canada.)
But that’s a “should”. We’ve seen Trudeau’s disinterest. Where there’s a won’t, there’s no way. Canada’s courts still give the second best chance.
The best chance is still “sauve qui peut.”
Dash and George,
ADCS is already addressing a component of the issues that you raised.
Norman,
Yes, the mighty U,S, invokes the Last in Time rule to get around negotiated treaties and they don’t even bother (as part of the treaty requirement) and out of simple courtesy to inform other countries that it passed new legislation contradicting the treaty — and Canada and other countries never complain.
Justin Trudeau, the recently elected Prime Minister of Canada, said this to Blaze in a June 25, 2015 letter: “We believe that the [FATCA IGA] deal reached between Canada and the U.S. is insufficient to protect affected Canadians.”
…and another big problem is that the Government of Canada is REQUIRING Canadian banks in Canada to comply with U.S.A. law and register on the I.R.S. website.Simply remove that and let the banks decide whether to comply for the 30% tax break or simply to stop investing in the U.S.A., and you’re golden because the non-FATCA banks, with lower costs, will drive the FATCA-compliant banks out of business.
@Stephen Kish
Good to hear. Basically I look at it like this: because Trudeau has a majority, he is going to be around for the next 4 years. That uncertainty has been removed. I don’t know whether 4 years is enough time to fully complete this fight (I do know that litigation can take a LONG time to fully make its way through the courts). But clearly Trudeau is going to be a constant factor for at least the next few rounds of this fight.
As such I think that ADCS-ADSC needs to scope out–ideally sooner rather than later–whether Trudeau is friend or foe. We need to get a read on this guy and what he’ll be like in power as it affects this battle. There’s a lot of uncertainty surrounding this fight but we can (and should) figure out what Trudeau’s election really means for this.
Tom Alciere says,
“…and another big problem is that the Government of Canada is REQUIRING Canadian banks in Canada to comply with U.S.A. law and register on the I.R.S. website. Simply remove that and let the banks decide whether to comply for the 30% tax break or simply to stop investing in the U.S.A., and you’re golden because the non-FATCA banks, with lower costs, will drive the FATCA-compliant banks out of business.“
Ah, the simplicity of it. If only the new government sees it. I couldn’t agree more. It`s time for individuals, businesses AND banks to stop investing in the good old USA. There is no place for US law in Canada.
@Dash…everything you said and while we scope him out…….give him a path out of the inherited mess. Plus let him think its Harpers fault not his and he will gain by getting Canada out of this.
For information on how the Court Challenges Program worked, see:
http://www.ccppcj.ca/e/ccp.shtml
The annual reports have detailed information on cases which the Program has supported. I found the later reports, in PDF, easier to navigate than the earlier ones in HTML.