If you are an individual who has
Concerns about gender discrimination
in the courts, or who has
Problems gaining access to his
children or to children in his extended family on account of divorce or separation, or if
you have
Concerns about liberal (Liberal)
public funding going to family-hostile women's organizations and none to men's and
father's rights organization and none, little or only a pittance going to family-friendly
women's organizations,
then: Please make sure you also
read the appended messages by Dave Prichard.
The very last message by Doug Reid contains an abstract of the intentions of the lawsuit
and will contain a link to to a form like the one at <http://www.wevote.com/> to be filled out by
interested parties. The message by Doug Reid
will tell you whether you should be involved or not.
Please check back here soon for updates.
(See details below)
Update, 1998 08 15
Pat Ellis served and filed a notice of motion on August 13, 1998. The motion is
to be heard 10 a.m., August 31, 1998 in the Federal Court (8th floor, Canada Life
Building, 330 University Avenue, Toronto, Ontario).
The motion is for:
-- An order that the use of the word "sex" in section 15 (2) of the Charter
of Human Rights and Freedoms (1982) or that the use of the word "sex" in section
15 (1) and the words "equally to male persons" in section 28 be declared
unconstitutional because they are in conflict with the provision of section 15 (2).
-- An injunction against federally and provincially sponsored
gender-specific programs, due to the unconstitutionality of such programs as they
discriminate against a specific gender.
From the CANADIAN CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS at http://dial.uwaterloo.ca/~ccmclare/docs/charter.html
15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the
equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular,
without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex,
age or mental or physical disability.
(2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its
object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including
those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion,
sex, age or mental or physical disability.
[The argument by Pat Ellis is that the provision of section 15 (1) is made null and
void by the exception quoted in 15 (2). Either one of the statements makes the other
contradictory. --WHS]
28. Notwithstanding anything in this Charter, the rights and freedoms referred to in it
are guaranteed equally to male and female persons.
[The argument by Pat Ellis is that the wording of section 28 is incompatible with
the provisions of section 15 (2). --WHS]
Pat Ellis can be reached at:
Patrick Ellis
347 Ranee Avenue
North York, Ontario
M6A 1N9
Tel: 416-781-4300
df117@torfree.net)
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 1998 00:01:04 -0400 (EDT)
From: Nicholas J. Kovats <cn650@freenet.toronto.on.ca>
To: Freedom For Kids <cn650@freenet.toronto.on.ca>
Cc: [not shown]
Subject: CANADIAN FATHER SUES FEDERAL GOVERNMENT RE: CHARTER GENDER BIAS
HI!
This is Pat Ellis, writing to advise the Canadian public on matters related to divorce,
custody, access and gender bias. I am not on-line as of yet but except to be
shortly. Inquiries can be directed to my number at (416)781-4300. E-mail
inquiries can be directed to Nicholas Kovats (Freedom For Kids) at
<cn650@torfree.net>. Messages will be stored at this address pending the
activation of my account.
(Note: Pat Ellis can now be reached via e-mail at df117@torfree.net
--WHS, 1998 08 11)
A Statement of Claim has been launched against the Government of Canada for
Constitutional Gender Bias. This is a multi-million dollar lawsuit. All 260 lines of
The Charter should be studied, in order to appreciate the cause of action.
The CANADIAN
CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS may be found at:
<http://canada.justice.gc.ca/cgi-bin/folioisa.dll/const_e.nfo/
query=[jump!3A!27charte1!27]/doc/{@395}?>
[see also Canadian
Human Rights Act]
This is a Federal Court of Canada Action. Class action inquiries are welcomed.
-- snip! --
Subject: PAT (CHARTER CHALLENGE) ELLIS NOW ON LINE...
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 01:30:02 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Nicholas J. Kovats"
<cn650@freenet.toronto.on.ca>
Pat (CHARTER CHALLENGE) Ellis can now be contacted via e-mail at;
*Pat Ellis - df117@torfree.net
Kind Regards...Nick-F.F.K.
PS: Apparently Pat now has a THIRD amended Statement Of Claim. The Feds have replyed
once so far and a their second response to an additional cross-motion by Pat also awaits a
reply...
-- snip! -------------------------------------------------------------
>From cn650@freenet.toronto.on.ca Wed Aug 12 01:24:36 1998
Date: Sun, 5 Jul 1998 02:51:43 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Nicholas J. Kovats" <cn650@freenet.toronto.on.ca>
To: Freedom For Kids <cn650@freenet.toronto.on.ca>
Cc: Freedom For Kids <cn650@freenet.toronto.on.ca>,
"joint_committee -- Sen. Anne Cools"
<remote-printer.SEN_ANNE_COOLS@16139928513.iddd.tpc.int>,
"Eric Lowther (REFORM-MP)" <lowther@reform.ca>,
"Roger Gallaway (MP_LIB)" <gallar@parl.gc.ca>
Subject: PAT ELLIS: ADDITIONAL INFO RE: PARTICIPATION IN CHARTER CHALLENGE
SUBJECT: Your possible participation in Pat Ellis's AMENDED STATEMENT OF CLAIM against
the Federal Government of Canada.
July 4th , 1998
I am sending out my AMENDED STATEMENT OF CLAIM again and this time I have expanded it
so it will be more understandable.
Some of you have called or e-mailed me regarding this matter that I have filed in the
Federal Court of Canada.
Some of you have been wondering how to get involved.
1. You have to have a case which is similar in nature to mine. Any Canadian male
person may make application to the Federal Court in your local provincial capital because
of the anomaly found within s. 15(2) of the Charter. The word "sex" conflicts
with s. 28 and can not meet the inconsistency test under s. 52. I will get into this in
detail but under s. 24(1) of the Charter, anyone whose rights have been infringed or
denied, may apply. You don't have to be directly affected.
2. Go back to Federal Court. To make application follow my style reproduced
below. Filing fees in Federal Court are $2.00. You will need one original and 2 copies.
Motions cost $0.00.
3. To make an application in Federal Court draw off of my document.
You will need two (2) sets of Cover sheets. A Cover sheet is the sheet which specifies;
the Court File Number,
the court your in, i. e.: The Federal Court of Canada-Trial Division,
between (YOUR NAME)--> Plaintiff *and* Her Majesty The
Queen/Defendant,
* and your cause of action. If different than mine please title it
"Statement of Claim". If similar to mine please title it "Statement of
Claim/Joinder" and use Court File No. T-1212\98.
* JOINDER - means you are joining a Class Action Lawsuit. Class Action means when
one party causes an action, ie. starts a legal proceeding and whereas at least one other
party has common elements to the same initial application (Statement of Claim).
As most of you know, divorce is expensive. Most divorced fathers are broke. I am trying
to do something about it. I need others to file statements of claim and your financial
assistance if possible. For example, if the Grand Society decided to throw in their
support, then we could take-up the cause for their son's Charter rights to the children.
This claim affects about half the population of Canada. If any of you wish to
contribute, it would be greatly appreciated. I believe that this matter must go to the
International Courts. I am contemplating a "Crimes Against Humanity" proceeding
in International Courts. Remember Karla Homolka and her, in my opinion, bogus
plea-bargain? Think about a s.1 reasonable limitation on Karla's deal with the former
Ontario Provincial Attorney General Marion Boyd.
If you have any questions PLEASE CALL at (416)781-4300, seven days a week, between
08:00-9:00 and 22:00-23:00 hrs. Calls are returned collect.
Kind regards,
Pat Ellis
-- snip! --
Court File No. T-1212/98
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
(Trial Division)
B E T W E E N:
PATRICK ELLIS
Plaintiff
-and-
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Defendant
AMENDED STATEMENT OF CLAIM
TO THE DEFENDANT;
A LEGAL PROCEEDING HAS BEEN COMMENCED AGAINST YOU by the plaintiff. The claim made
against you is set out in the following pages.
IF YOU WISH TO DEFEND THIS PROCEEDING, you or a solicitor acting for you are required
to prepare a statement of defence in Form 171B prescribed by the FEDERAL COURT RULES,
1998, serve it on the plaintiff's solicitor or, where the plaintiff does not have a
solicitor, serve it on the plaintiff,
and file it, with proof of service, at a local office of this Court, WITHIN 30 DAYS after
this statement of claim is served on you, if you are served within Canada.
If you are served in the United States of America, the period for serving and filing
your statement of defence is forty days. If you are served outside Canada and the United
States of America, the period for serving and filing your statement of defence is sixty
days.
Copies of the FEDERAL COURT RULES, 1998, information concerning the local offices of
the Court at Ottawa (telephone number 613-992-4238) or at any local office.
IF YOU FAIL TO DEFEND THIS PROCEEDING, judgement may be given against you in your
absence and without further notice to you.
Dated this 18th., day of June 1998 at the City of Toronto.
Issued by:
(Registry Officer)
330 University Avenue, Toronto
(Address of local office)
TO: The Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa, Ontario
FACTS:
1. In 1982 the Government of Canada passed into law the Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms hereinafter referred to as the "Charter".
- Proclaimed into law April 17., 1982. Pierre Elliot Trudeau, Prime
Minister, and Jean Chretien, Justice Minister.
2. S.52 of the "Charter" renders the "Charter" the supreme law of
Canada and any law that is inconsistent with it is, due to the extent of the
inconsistency, is of no force or effect.
52(1) "The Constitution of Canada is the supreme law of Canada, and any law that
is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution is, to the extent of the
inconsistency, of no force or effect." The word "sex" is inconsistent with
s. 28 of the Charter as 15(2) divides the gender while s. 28 demands gender equity. When
the common law conflicts with the law of equity, the law of equity shall prevail. This is
a fundamental tenet of a free and democratic society.
3. Under s. 28 of the "Charter" the rights and freedoms referred to in the
"Charter", s.52 and the attached schedules and amendments, are guaranteed
equally to both male and female persons.
S.28 "NOTWITHSTANDING anything in this Charter, the rights and freedoms referred
to in it are guaranteed equally to male and female persons." The word "sex"
found within 15(2) is prevailing over s. 15(2) and can not.
4. Under s. 15(1) of the "Charter" everyone is equal before and under the law
and has equal benefit of the law and may not be discriminated upon based upon various
prohibitions including "sex".
15(1) "Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the
equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular,
without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex,
age or mental or physical disability". Men are equal to women. Same as s.28.
5. S.33 of the "Charter" permits the Government of Canada to override
provisions of the "Charter" notwithstanding s.s.2 and 7-15 only.
S.33 (1)"Parliament or the legislature of a province may expressly declare in an
Act of Parliament or of the legislature, as the case may be, that the Act or a provision
thereof shall operate notwithstanding a provision included in section 2 or 7-15 of this
Charter." This does not include any other section and definitely not s. 28...equal
rights.
6. With respects to penal matters and domestic violence the Government of Canada
overrides the equality rights under s. 15(1) based upon the prohibited grounds of
"sex" in favour of female persons. I allege that the state is overriding men's
rights under 15(1) in favour of women.
7. The Government of Canada condones arbitrary arrest and detention of the male party
to a hetero-sexual relationship concerning domestic violence.
- Can not comment as this is evidence.
8. The Government of Canada permits mandatory arrest and detention of male persons
involved with matrimonial violence.
- Can not comment as this is evidence.
9. Section 15(2) of the "Charter" permits the Government of Canada to
implement special programs based upon, as well as others, the prohibited ground of
"sex".
15(2) "Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as
its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including
those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion,
sex, age or mental or physical disability." Under the prohibited grounds of
"sex" the state has the authority to generate;
1. Women's Directorates.
2. Battered Women's Shelters
3. Wife Assault Courts
4. Affirmative Action.
Because "sex" is redundant as per s.28 so are the above noted programs.
ILLEGAL.
10. The Government of Canada permits the funding of such organizations as the National
Action Committee on the Status of Women based upon provisions found within s.15(2) of the
"Charter".
11. The Government of Canada does not provide the same equal funding for male persons.
12. The Government of Canada does not appoint the same number of female persons to the
bench as male persons are appointed as per s.96 of the British North America Act (1867).
13. The appointment of judges to the bench by the Government of Canada does not
constitute a reasonable limitation under s.1 of the "Charter".
The Federal Government appoints judges to the Ontario Court, General Division. There
are some 220 male persons at this level and about 48 female persons = (+/-) 23/77%. The
predominately male judiciary are making orders against fathers and children as well the
Federal Government is denying female persons their due on the bench, pursuant to
s.28 of the Charter.
- S.96 of the B.N.A. Act falls within the attached schedule, s.52 (2).
14. The override provision, s. 33 of the "Charter" applies equally to both
male and female persons as per s. 28 of the "Charter".
- S.28 provides that if you override for the male you override for the female.
15. A classic example of a s. 33 override of the "Charter" would be the War
Measures Act.
16. There are 2 tests under the "Charter".
- It is a widely held misconception that there is only one test under
Charter...s.1.
17. The first test under the "Charter" is s. 52.
S.52 (1) "...any law that is inconsistent with it..." "Sex", found
within 15(2), is inconsistent with s. 28 therefor how could one possibly test a
"reasonable limitation" test under s. 1.
18. The prohibited ground of "sex", found within s. 15(2) is
inconsistent with s. 28 of the "Charter" and of no force or effect.
19. The second test under the "Charter" is the reasonable limitation test,
s.1.
S.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.
20. An example of a reasonable limitation, a s.1 test under the "Charter", as
established by the Government of Canada, is reflected in the percentage of male to female
persons appointed to the Ontario bench in Ontario Court, General Division.
In respects to "custody/access" a "reasonable limitation" as
established by the Federal Government, since they have about 25/75% spread on the bench,
so should access arrangements be. That is at a minimum.
21. An example of a reasonable limitation, a s.1 test under the "Charter", as
established by the Government of Canada, is reflected in the percentage of male to female
persons appointed to the Supreme Court of Canada.
7 male persons / 2 female persons = 22/78%.
22. The use, by the Government of Canada, of s. 33 of the "Charter" in
application to s.15(1), in order to override male persons rights, is negligent.
23. The word "sex" found within s. 15(2) of the "Charter" is
redundant as "sex" is inconsistent with s. 28, the notwithstanding clause.
24. The Government of Canada negligently passed into law a faulted Act.
25. The Government of Canada negligently promotes and employs, through legislation,
anti-male gender bias.
CLAIM
a. General damages of $25,000.
b. Loss of personal property $50,000.
c. Loss of earnings $420,000.
d. Loss of "Charter" rights to biological off-spring $4,300,000.
S.26..."The Blanket Clause". This covers rights and freedoms not covered in
print under the Charter.
S.26 "The guarantee in this Charter of certain rights and freedoms shall not be
construed as denying the existence of any other rights or freedoms that exist in
Canada."
THE QUESTION IN LAW BECOMES; "DOES A BIOLOGICAL PARENT HAVE A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT
TO THE BIOLOGICAL CHILD?" YES OR NO?
No? We procreate for the state.
Yes? Then under s.28 equal access.
e. Special damages to be determined.
f. A deletion of the prohibited ground of "sex" found within s. 15(2)
of the "Charter".
g. Such further and additional relief that the Honourable Court may deem just.
Dated this 18th., day of June 1998.
Signature of Plaintiff
Patrick Ellis
347 Ranee Avenue
North York, Ontario
M6A 1N9
Tel: 416-781-4300
Acting in Person
(Note: Pat Ellis can be reached via e-mail at df117@torfree.net)
Subject: [MENTION] Pat Ellis Charter Challenge, the feds respond
Date: Mon,
6 Jul 1998 23:56:42 -0400
From: "Dave
Prichard" <bydesign@idirect.com>
Was on the phone with Pat earlier in the evening. The federal government has
responded to his motion. They have sought to have it dismissed as frivolous and vexatious
OR prepare time to present a defence.
Pat noted that they cited no case law to have it dismissed. It is also to
be noted that his application for legal aid has still gone unanswered after many months.
His response to the government motion has to be filed within ten days. I'll post it then.
He will be seeking an injunction to close down all provincial and federal women's
ministries and specialized programs direct by sex as part of his motion.
There are some questions of law, particularly international law, that Pat could
use some instruction on. If somebody has experience in such realms could they e-mail me
directly.
Cheers,
Dave
Subject: [MENTION] Update on
Ellis Canadian Charter Challenge
Date: Tue, 14 Jul
1998 16:53:20 -0400
From: "Dave
Prichard" <bydesign@idirect.com>
Pat Ellis has asked me to update on his challenge of the Canadian charter of
rights. Pat's basic assertion is that sex-specific funding by any level of government
is prohibited by the charter.
Excerpts from a recent legal opinion from a prominent Toronto legal firm
regarding his action.
"Mr. Ellis had discovered an anomaly in the law under the equality rights
provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ("Charter") More
specifically, he has found that subsection 15(2) of the charter with respect to the
prohibited ground of 'sex" conflicts with subsection 28 of the Charter. It does not
appear as though the issue of the conflict between the two provisions of the Charter has
been litigated. In that respect, this would be a test case. What might be required is an
authorisation to do a Constitutional Reference on this point to the Supreme Court of
Canada."
"Section 28 of the Charter, provides that, "Notwithstanding anything in
this charter, the rights and freedoms referred to in it are guaranteed equally to male and
female persons." Whether this provision supersedes subs.15(2) of the charter is an
issue. The override clause of the Charter, section 33, does not apply to section 28 but
does apply to section 15. This is further evidence of the anomaly."
"It appears to us that the gender bias argument of Mr. Ellis has merit, and
is of considerable importance to about half the population of this country, who happen to
be male, and have been or are likely to be subjected to the gender bias in the various
laws of Canada, which may conflict with the supreme law of the land."
Pat phoned this morning to inform me that he has been denied legal aid. The
quotes above are part of the letter from the lawyer to state why Pat should have legal
aid.
On a more up beat note, Pat has heard that a Halifax newspaper columnist has run
a story on why women have been getting funding and men none. A vague mention was made of a
charter suit and that the reform Party has apparently picked up the ball and is making
some press with it. With the house being out for the summer I doubt much will come of it
in the near future.
Pat would be interested if a copy of this is on-line or if some body could clip
it out and forward the article.
Those that have the time and resources may consider filing a through the local
sexual discrimination board. Be it at the municipal, provincial or federal level. Most
likely wouldn't come to much but would certainly raise the profile of the challenge and
get it into main stream media. The point would be to raise the issue of sexual inequality
in terms of government funding.
Those that have any fiscal assets to spare <G> might consider a small
claims court case. If such a case is won it would certainly force it up the legal chain.
Unfortunately if it's lost an individual pays costs.
Cheers,
Dave Prichard
Subject: Class Action lawsuit
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1998 08:09:17 -0700
From: "D.B. Reid" <coparent@radiant.net>
To: "Anne
McLellan" <remote-printer.Anne_McLellan@4.4.0.0.3.4.9.3.1.6.1.tpc.int>
CC: "Ujjal Dosanjh"
<ujjal_Dosanjh@bc.sympatico.ca>,
"Andy Scott" <scottA@parl.gc.ca>
Dear Miss McLellan:
Nota bene: http://www.wevote.com/
D.B. Reid
CoParenting Canada
http://www.radiant.net/coparent/Fatherland.htm
In the best interests of the Family
Class Action lawsuit
This site details a nationwide class action lawsuit on behalf of noncustodial parents
and anyone who:
has ever been discriminated against in family court;
is denied access to their child;
is denied access to their grandchild;
has ever been falsely charged with child abuse;
has ever been maliciously slandered by a social worker;
has ever been falsely charged with domestic violence;
is a relative to one of these people.
What can this mean to you?
If you are one of the millions who have been abused by the US divorce and family law
system during the last 25 years, We the People give you an opportunity to help change that
system. After reading the attached material, if you are interested in participating,
fill out the following form. We will get back to you.
[The form for for Pat Ellis' Class Action Law Suit will be posted as soon as it has
been formatted. --WHS] |
