Canmore Rabbits .ca
Hope for Rescue
   Home      Courts      Appeal-Calgary
links to this websites Court pages:


    

Alberta Court of Appeal - Calgary

May 2013 - Appeal Court decision ignored substantial laws and evidence ( eg TabA ), then blocked my letter of response to Canmore lawyers illegal procedure of last minute verbal arguments and new legal grounds of appeal - which I obviously had no chance to prepare a response during final minutes of verbal arguments.

Even without my response, I had previously submitted the Supreme Court decision in tampered transcript which is proven by my audio recordingI also learned that Court of Appeal does not release recordings - that they are the private use of the Appeal Judges only - why all the secrecy - to hide proof of abuses and injustices.

This is just one case of many - you would be surprised to learn how many innocent people are abused and the rapists and murders wander freely about society because they had enough money &/or political connections to get away with their crimes.  Some may say, that the way it is, I reply: Over 100 years ago, women could not vote, yet that too changed like so many other advances in our society - so we should strive to improve our defective, unjust legal system to make law better & fairer for all people.

===== My Filed Documents - Alberta Court of Appeal =====

Onischuk Motion to Strike Canmore Brief 

Onischuk Factum-AB

Onischuk Factum-C

Onischuk Appeal RecordDigest-A     

Onischuk AppealRecordDigest-B

TableofContents.pdf   Evidence-A.pdf   Evidence-B.pdf   Evidence-C.pdf  Evidence-D.pdf  Evidence-E.pdf   Evidence-F.pdf

CASE FACTS: Town of Canmore offered a (flawed) public service contract, that was to remove feral rabbits - which bidding was open to anyone in the public.  I claimed Canmore discriminated because rescuers were forced to fundraise to solve Canmore's problem and were denied fair bidding for equal funding to do the same task - removing "feral" rabbits from Canmore.  

The Alberta Human Rights Act is supposed to guarantee freedom from discrimination and fair, equal pay in job advertising and employment which is supported by several Supreme Court decisions (see SCC application and  supplemental case laws - vol2: SCC:Longuil, SCC:BC-PSERC, SCC:BC-HR ).

Canmore contract tender RFP document (offer for contract employment), public statements and Town bylaws identified the feral rabbits were wildlife which created a legal problem of ownership - because wildlife are owned and managed by Alberta Crown.  This legal issue falls under the Municipal Govt Act s.10,13,536-538 which authorizes "a person" to bring a legal action to Court of Queen's Bench. I did so but was denied any legal standing to argue my issues in Court, then again on Appeal, because Canmore lawyers defense was that I was not a Canmore resident - but the MGA does not literally state that, and Courts are supposed to follow the wording of the written laws, with fair liberal interpretation (s.10 Interpretation Act), not make up new meanings (SCC- Lameman, see my SCC application ). Furthermore, the Canmore bylaws (Hunt-Trap, Animal Control) and contract I was applying for were inter-related as both were dealing with Animal Control of "wildlife" and "feral animals". Alberta Wildlife Act regulations did not clearly state that domestic rabbits unique species were not wildlife, and the scientific definition of "feral" is an "animal returning to a wild state of living". All of the contract wording problems and bylaw wording was the sole responsibility of Town of Canmore.

I had also filed claims under the Canadian Charter of Rights, Alberta Bill of Rights and Canadian Bill of Rights.  According to Constitution Act, 1982 the Canadian Charter of Rights is Supreme Law of Canada, so every other law is supposed to be secondary.  Section 24(1) of the Charter states that any person can bring a legal action to court for any violations of their legal rightsThe Charter of Rights and Alberta Bill of Rights says we have a freedom of religion-moral conscience (s.2), a right to work anywhere in Canada (s.6.2b) and a right to be free of discrimination, with for fair, equal treatment under the laws (s.15.1).  I and other rescuers were discriminated against for our religious-moral conscience beliefs, discriminated against in contract bidding unfairness, and later by Canmore refusing all sanctuaries in Autumn 2012-2014.  However, despite my "legal rights" and written laws, I was denied any fair hearings on the merits of these issues in Alberta Courts.  So the "Supreme Law" of Canadian Charter Rights to argue the legal issues was never allowed in Alberta Courts - on the flismy, illegally corrupt decision that it was because I was not a resident of Canmore.  I suppose thats why they altered the Court transcripts and why Judges refused to release Court audio that would prove truth and their many legal deceptions.

I get stuck with my legal costs, plus whatever Canmore lawyers repeatedly triple their cost claims despite Canmore creating all the legal issues - but Canmore is given no responsibility for doing so. Worst of all, many good people in and outside Canmore are blocked from providing a humane win-win solution that solves the problem faster at lower costs - facts arrogantly overlooked by Judges looking to construct a win for their political masters, their friends & relatives ( eg - is Town Manager Lorrie Obrien related to Appeal Justice Obrien?  Which Judges own property investments in Canmore ? ).


**Historical Notes 2011-2013

Friday June 21st 2013 - I faxed the Supreme Court Registry my application to have this case heard by the Supreme Court. After reading the Court of Appeal decision, it is apparent they misunderstood many key facts & issues.  Appeal panel wrongfully allowed & used Canmores last minute arguments at the hearing which as any appeal judge or law professor will tell you, that new arguments are not allowed on appeal (only for a constituional issue which was not Canmores new argument I never had a valid contract to allow me any legal standing to proceed).  Since the Court of Appeal also reneged to apply my Strike application also, it seems the Court of Appeal appears to be playing favourites of Calgary lawyers & local politics to unjustly support Canmore & prevent any corruption investigations and false propaganda by Canmore officials to misleada public to support killing the rabbits. Appeal panel also placed some untrue comments as to my rescue plans so as to influence Supreme Court not to accept my application.  I will post my application to the Supreme Court after I serve Canmore lawyers in downtown Calgary next week (after the floods subside).


Court of Appeal

03 April 2013 - Despite a lack of sleep and some last minute issues, the hearing at the Court of Appeal in Calgary went well.I must compliment the Honourable Justices Mr. P.Martin, Mr. C.O'Brien & Mr.B.O'Farrell for making sure I had a chance to present legal arguments and issues on behalf of the bunnies, rescuers sanctuaries and the many concerned residents of Canmore. These were the three justices whom have heard my other presentations since Sept 2012, and they impress me with a willingness to listen.   I have asked them to consider under the Charter s.2,15(1) that people who want to rescue animals are often discriminated against their religious or moral conscience. In addition to Canmore I also gave rabbit rescue evidence for Kelowna, and University of Victoria.   The justices have not made any decisions yet, reserving their judgments on my legal standing, contract issues, my motions to strike Canmore new arguments and factum. The Justices will also decide what fresh evidence will be admitted to help them understand for legal use, the truth of the avoidable tragedy at Canmore that has been kept hidden from the public. News media withholding facts & info have also contributed to allow the senseless, horrific killings by the Town of Canmore. update 13 March 2013 : This is scheduled to be heard Wed Apr 3 at Court of Appeal.**Dan Onischuk, who took Canmore to Court in Nov.2011 to stop the cull, has applied to the Court of Appeal to strike the Canmore Response to his appeal.  Dan says "Canmore has had over 3 months to file their reply and offered no reasons why they did not - they want to drag this out as long as possible to ensure that only the kill contractors get any funding support"The Court application can be read at www.rabbitnews.org/news.php

Update 10 Jan 2013:  Appeal Court says their fax failed to receive all pages, 21 Dec, so Dan went to Calgary today to spend the day re-filing and making some  changes to the application. It is now set for hearing 8 Feb in Calgary at the Court of Appeal - #2600 TransCanada Tower.

Update 11 Feb - Appeal Court Judges need more time to review new materials & Canmore lawyer(s) try to stop my strike application...
Next Court of Appeal hearing 04 March 10AM Calgary...stay tuned !

Will there be a Second Chance ?

13 March 2013 by Dan Onischuk
Appeal Panel Justice Martin granted leave for Dan to file more fresh evidence, and extended legal argument memorandum and affidavit  after hearing Dan's concerns that he was being asked to waive legal rights for a second chance for an injunction hearing. This should not be a requirement to waive a possible legal right, and the legal right to ask the appeal panel jusitce just to file documents.
Normally, a person applying to QB Court can then apply to an appeal court justice as a second chance hearing for an injunction. Since QB Court denied to give Dan any legal standing, technically Dan only had one legal chance to be heard. Today Appeal Panel Justice Martin told Dan Onischuk in Court there was no second chance for him to apply for an injunction directly to the appeal panel. Justice Martin also directed Dan to submit his application to Canmore lawyers to notify them (completed previous day 12 March) to get the Canmore legal position on Dan's intended application for a Appeal Panel review of the 21 Dec 2012 injunction refusal by Justice O'Brien. Justice O'Brien would have to give his permission for the appeal panel to review his decision.  Although Justice O'Brien practiced law for many years in Calgary, there presently is no information to connect him to Laurie O'Brien, Canmore Town Manager.

Although Justice Martin remarks in Court showed that he knew and liked Canmore lawyer Michael Aassen very well, it is hoped that will not skew Justice Martins objectivity in reviewing the merits of the appeal.  To sway Justice Martin early on, Mr Aassen made remarks that Mr Onischuk was from Edmonton and that he was twice denied in QB - when in fact, Canmore lawyers failed to serve Dan with legal documents before the first Court hearing, then the second Court hearing was not starting fresh, rather it was an uphill battle to overcome a decision already made without any fair opportunity to prepare the first time.  Mr Aassen also remarked that Canmore had a problem with cougars coming into town to hunt the rabbits. No reason was given why Canmore refused to allow rescuers to solve the issue more quickly as they did in 2008 at Kelowna 800 rabbits in 9 months, and in 2010 at Univ. Victoria 1100+ rabbits in 10 months. Canmore has now been trapping for over 14 months and per the fresh new evidence, trappers recently admitted they expect it will take 3-5 years and they probably will never be able to trap them all.Since filing his documents and fresh evidence, which Dan remarked in Court that "this fresh evidnce is proof that Canmore led a deliberate program of propaganda and disinformation to make the public support a kill program rather than rescuers".  In reply to Mr. Onischuk's reference to R v Ferris - ABCA, SCC, which advocates including all relevant evidence, Justice Martin remarked the Appeal panel will decide what evidence will be selected for consideration.   A check of local newspaper websites (rmoutlook.ca canmoreleader.com) now reveals that almost all of the new fresh evidence has been removed from public viewing. It is hoped that future journalism efforts will ask harder questions and do better fact checking that should also be published with any Officials comments.

Injunction Hearing Results

12 Dec 2012 - by Dan Onischuk
Normally, a person applying to QB Court can then apply to an appeal court justice as a second chance hearing for an injunction. Since QB Court denied to give Dan any legal standing, technically Dan only had one legal chance to be heard. Today Appeal Panel Justice Martin told Dan Onischuk in Court there was no second chance for him to apply for an injunction directly to the appeal panel. Justice Martin also directed Dan to submit his application to Canmore lawyers to notify them (completed previous day 12 March) to get the Canmore legal position on Dan's intended application for a Appeal Panel review of the 21 Dec 2012 injunction refusal by Justice O'Brien. Justice O'Brien would have to give his permission for the appeal panel to review his decision.  Although Justice O'Brien practiced law for many years in Calgary, there presently is no information to connect him to Laurie O'Brien, Canmore Town Manager.

Although I did not get an injunction from the court of appeal, for legal technical reasons (my appeal has to first be decided to decide if I should get legal standing to bring an action) I believe that I will eventually win as legally our Charter rights are fundamental see s.2,15,24(1) as is the written laws of the Municipal Govt Act s.10,13,536-538, etc. as per my appeal found at http://www.rabbitnews.org/news.php.  So i believe that I will succeed on appeal without even getting to the many legal errors of the first QB judge from first 2011 QB court hearing.A setback, yes, but ANYONE from Canmore could bring an application for an injunction and probably win - I lost my first application because the judge decided I had no rights since I was not from Canmore (ignoring the fact I had applied for the contract to remove the rabbits, etc, etc ).Some GREAT news too - I did defeat the Canmore application for costs security, which means the appeal can proceed on the merits without me having to prepay Canmores legal costs (weird rule – that i should be required to subsidize the defendants no matter how much and how  many lawyers they want to bill for ).  So there is no money barrier to stop the appeal from being heard and decided by the Court of Appeal.Canmore lawyers got two lucky breaks (again) – they failed to file key cases and evidence that they brought at the last minute into court giving me no chance to prepare (again). Canmore lawyers offices are about 2km from the Courthouse - not the 700km I drive roundtrip to file and serve  ).Canmore lawyers also missed their second “deadline” for filing their response to my factum (which I had to pay $400 legal costs to file late) – without giving any reasons (again) but now have to file by 21 Dec (i hope) – so that I get to work on my reply over the Xmas holidays.So tell your Canmore friends, and other rabbit pals too, that there is still legal hope to save many of the Canmore rabbits.  There are still rescuers and sanctuaries like www.preciouslifesanctuary.org whom are still wanting to help save the rabbits too !!

Seeking Kill Injunction Again

News Release 04 Dec 2012 (noon) posted by: Canmore Rabbits Rescue -
an affiliate of HoppyEndings Rabbit Rescue, Edmonton (www.hoppyendings.com)
Next Wed Dec 12, Edmonton photographer Dan Onischuk will be seeking a new injunction (at the Court of Appeal in Calgary) to stop Canmore’s kill   trapping. “The injunction request is based on new evidence and issues – Canmore unfairly denying good sanctuaries for rescue, to investigate possible inhumane killing methods, and to give time for an investigation of my claims of contract employment discrimination by the Alberta Human Rights Commission.”Mr. Onischuk will also be seeking public interest standing to bring into question the high kill trapping costs of $10,000 month (plus expenses) and the unusual ‘full pay with no minimum capture quota’ – at a very low capture rate of only about 70 rabbits a month by kill contractors.
Mr Onischuk says “Rescue volunteer success at Kelowna (700 rabbits) Univ. of Victoria (1100 rabbits) prove this can be done quickly and at a lower total cost by rescuers. It appears to me that kill contractors are unfairly being given a monopoly with no accountability to ensure this is done quickly, economically and humanely. ”“Rescue groups are required to raise donations in advance and have a charity which kill contractors do not require. Canmore officials refuse to allow rescuers to trap and to use trapping funds to pay for spay-neuter, sanctuary or relocation costs. There is no good reason why volunteer trapping funds are not being paid “per-rabbit caught” to volunteer groups like Animal Rescue Corp. who offered to capture all of the rabbits within a few months and relocate them to US sanctuaries. Other Alberta-BC groups also offer to provide spay-neuter and relocation but Canmore officials impose ‘established sanctuary’ and unusually high zoo standards to disable good new sanctuaries from qualifying.""It seems paradoxical that Canmore says this is an urgent issue but then does everything possible to stop any rescuers from helping solve the problem more quickly and humanely at a lower total cost. ”