Canmore Rabbits .ca
Hope for Rescue
   Home      News      Courts
untitle2
untitle3
Links to Courts sub-pages

    Appeal History

    QB History (future)

----------------------------------
Court News

29Oct 2014   a new motion to SCC to reconsider hearing this appeal. As you read my SCC Application to Appeal and my original Motion to Reconsider with Addendum-28 April 2014 with the evidence links below & common law online www.canlii.org), you will will begin to see how unjust, corrupt and unfairly bigoted some of the Alberta Court system really is.  Judges  made a political decision, ignoring facts, evidence laws, Supreme Court decisions, and Rules of Court. Appeal Judges ignored all my evidence to make me take the blame for Alberta & Canmore faulty laws & bylaws, lack of evidence, charter rights violations, contract law violations and inhumane acts.  Appeal Judges even lied in their spin doctoring their decision - note the Events handout for Aug.2014 which clearly shows I/we had sanctuaries since Nov.2011.

Note Supreme Court decision in Godbout v Longueiul (city) which decided two key issues - it is discriminatory to demand a person live in the town where they work and peoples Charter rights are always active - yet Calgary judges ignored these "inconvenient" legal facts among many others.

SCC Chief Justice Mclachlin SCC website 

welcoming comments and previous 1999 remarks about "real-world court decisions" sounds good, but reality 15 years later, the "justice system" is no better.   That is why every province needs a publicly elected committee to oversee each law society, lawyers & judges - with the powers to investigate, issue demerits, fines, suspensions and terminations - which could be overseen by a revised Canadian Senate. Provincial Oversight Committees would also help reduce Appeal Court work by giving unbiased opinions to potential appellates, helping to weed out pointless appeals that are clearly destined to fail.   Each province committee would review and recommend cases that should be heard by the Supreme Court -which could be more effectively productive with teams of 5 justices making decisions for most cases (except for life or death issues).

Valid case complaints like this should also be reversed by a committee decision if the Supreme Court is too busy on other matters. Such a committee will  protect average peoples legal rights, and will also free & protect good judges & lawyers to advance based on their performance - not just who their friends are in the law society or politicians.  The lawyers and judges will finally be freer from major influences of big business and the elected government that controls their jobs and licenses, so as to better serve the public laws with true fairness and honest justice. What group of everyday people is empowered to watchdog the legal rights of everyday citizens ?  Nobody effective right now - we need the rule of law, not the rule of lawyers and ex-lawyer judges whose end goal is maximizing income for their profession, protecting their co-professionals.

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 it more better and fairer for all people.

====== Supreme Court of Canada =======

2013 Apply to Supreme Court

Evidence Vol1.pdf = all of the 2012 court of appeal evidence (A-F) shown below under Alberta Court of Appeal   

Evidence-vol2-TOC-28july2013-scc    Evidence-vol2A-scc.pdf    

 Evidence-vol2B-scc.pdf              Evidence-vol2C-scc.pdf

For proof of blog EARS-Crocodile Tears refer Vol.2 section C. 

TableofContents-Vol3A-scc2013.pdf

Evidence-Vol3A-scc2013.pdf   

TableofContents-Vol3B-scc2013.pdf

Evidence-Vol3B-scc2013.pdf    


===== Alberta Court of Appeal =====

Onischuk Motion to Strike Canmore Briefing 

Onischuk Factum

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

Motion to Calgary Courts - 12 March 2014

After the protest at the Calgary QB Law Courts I filed this new motion to SCC to reconsider hearing this appeal. As you read my SCC Application to Appeal or this new (Addendum-28 April 2014  evidence links below & reference cases online welcoming comments and previous 1999 remarks about "real-world court decisions" sounds good, but reality 15 years later, the "justice system" is no better.   That is why every province needs a publicly elected committee to oversee each law society, lawyers & judges - with the powers to investigate, issue demerits, fines, suspensions and terminations - which could be overseen by a revised Canadian Senate. Provincial Oversight Committees would also help reduce Appeal Court work by giving unbiased opinions to potential appellates, helping to weed out pointless appeals that are clearly destined to fail.   Each province committee would review and recommend cases that should be heard by the Supreme Court -which could be more effectively productive with teams of 5 justices making decisions for most cases (except for life or death issues).Valid case complaints like this should also be reversed by a committee decision if the Supreme Court is too busy on other matters. 

Such a committee will  protect average peoples legal rights, and will also free & protect good judges & lawyers to advance based on their performance - not just who their friends are in the law society or politicians.  The lawyers and judges will finally be freer from major influences of big business and the elected government that controls their jobs and licenses, so as to better serve the public laws with true fairness and honest justice. What group of everyday people is empowered to watchdog the legal rights of everyday citizens ?  Nobody.  We need the rule of law, not the rule of lawyers and ex-lawyer judges whose end goal is maximizing income for their profession, protecting their co-professionals. 

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 it more better and fairer for all people.

====== Supreme Court of Canada 2013-14  =======

Application to SCC

Evidence Vol1.pdf = all of the 2012 court of appeal evidence (A-F) shown below under Alberta Court of Appeal   

Evidence-vol2-TOC-28july2013-scc   

 Evidence-vol2A-scc.pdf   

  Evidence-vol2B-scc.pdf   

  Evidence-vol2C-scc.pdf

For proof of blog EARS-Crocodile Tears refer Vol.2 section C sections 4-6. 

TableofContents-Vol3A-scc2013.pdf

Evidence-Vol3A-scc2013.pdf   

Evidence-Vol3B-scc2013.pdf    


===== Alberta Court of Appeal =====

Onischuk Motion to Strike Canmore Briefing 

Onischuk Factum

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

Motion to Calgary Courts - 12 March 2014

After the protest at the Calgary QB Law Courts I filed this application and four affidavits aff1aff2, aff3, aff4 to transfer the case file to Edmonton for review for mistrial and to obtain evidence other courts repeatedly failed to make Canmore produce to prove their arguments & claims. Although I have taken no legal action, Alberta Government then files demand for costs despite our agreement and then puts a lien against our home to stop legal action.


Court Strike App to be Heard

** 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:  Court 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. ”

Change flawed Courts & Legal System !  www.ReformJustice.org

27 April 2015 - Letter of Request for Leave to Reargue-Rehear Appeal
Oct 29, 2014 I submitted a new motion to SCC to reconsider hearing this appeal.
 
As you read my SCC Application to Appeal or this new (Addendum-28 April 2014  evidence links below & reference cases online www.canlii.org )  to add to the Motion to Reconsider (original motion, welcoming comments and previous 1999 remarks about "real-world court decisions" sounds good, but reality 15 years later, the "justice system" is no better.   That is why every province needs a publicly elected committee to oversee each law society, lawyers & judges - with the powers to investigate, issue demerits, fines, suspensions and terminations - which could be overseen by a revised Canadian Senate. Provincial Oversight Committees would also help reduce Appeal Court work by giving unbiased opinions to potential appellates, helping to weed out pointless appeals that are clearly destined to fail.   Each province committee would review and recommend cases that should be heard by the Supreme Court -which could be more effectively productive with teams of 5 justices making decisions for most cases (except for life or death issues).

Valid case complaints like this should also be reversed by a committee decision if the Supreme Court is too busy on other matters. Such a committee will  protect average peoples legal rights, and will also free & protect good judges & lawyers to advance based on their performance - not just who their friends are in the law society or politicians.  The lawyers and judges will finally be freer from major influences of big business and the elected government that controls their jobs and licenses, so as to better serve the public laws with true fairness and honest justice. What group of everyday people is empowered to watchdog the legal rights of everyday citizens ?  Nobody effective right now - we need the rule of law, not the rule of lawyers and ex-lawyer judges whose end goal is maximizing income for their profession, protecting their co-professionals.

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 it more better and fairer for all people.

====== Supreme Court of Canada =======

2013 Apply to Supreme Court

Evidence Vol1.pdf = all of the 2012 court of appeal evidence (A-F) shown below under Alberta Court of Appeal   

Evidence-vol2-TOC-28july2013-scc    Evidence-vol2A-scc.pdf    

 Evidence-vol2B-scc.pdf              Evidence-vol2C-scc.pdf

For proof of blog EARS-Crocodile Tears refer Vol.2 section C. 

TableofContents-Vol3A-scc2013.pdf

Evidence-Vol3A-scc2013.pdf   

TableofContents-Vol3B-scc2013.pdf

Evidence-Vol3B-scc2013.pdf    


===== Alberta Court of Appeal =====

Onischuk Motion to Strike Canmore Briefing 

Onischuk Factum

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

Motion to Calgary Courts - 12 March 2014

After the protest at the Calgary QB Law Courts I filed this application and four affidavits ( aff1aff2, aff3, aff4 ) to transfer the case file to Edmonton for review for mistrial and to obtain evidence other courts repeatedly failed to make Canmore produce to prove their arguments & claims. Although I have taken no legal action, Alberta Government then files demand for costs despite our agreement and then puts a lien against our home to stop legal action.


Court Strike App to be Heard

** 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:  Court 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 OnischukNormally, 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. ”

 Rebuilding this page links 17 Dec 2014 - some downloads will not work yet. please revisit later as i am prepping for camore protest.
 ps- page still worth reading !!

29Oct2014- new motion to SCC to reconsider hearing this appeal. As you read my SCC Application to Appeal or this new (Addendum-28 April 2014  evidence links below & reference cases online www.canlii.org )  to add to the Motion to Reconsider (original motion) 

SCC Chief Justice Machlin welcoming comments and previous 1999 remarks about "real-world court decisions" sounds good, but reality 15 years later, the "justice system" is no better.   That is why every province needs a publicly elected committee to oversee each law society, lawyers & judges - with the powers to investigate, issue demerits, fines, suspensions and terminations - which could be overseen by a revised Canadian Senate. Provincial Oversight Committees would also help reduce Appeal Court work by giving unbiased opinions to potential appellates, helping to weed out pointless appeals that are clearly destined to fail.   Each province committee would review and recommend cases that should be heard by the Supreme Court -which could be more effectively productive with teams of 5 justices making decisions for most cases (except for life or death issues).Valid case complaints like this should also be reversed by a committee decision if the Supreme Court is too busy on other matters. 

Such a committee will  protect average peoples legal rights, and will also free & protect good judges & lawyers to advance based on their performance - not just who their friends are in the law society or politicians.  The lawyers and judges will finally be freer from major influences of big business and the elected government that controls their jobs and licenses, so as to better serve the public laws with true fairness and honest justice. What group of everyday people is empowered to watchdog the legal rights of everyday citizens ?  Nobody.  We need the rule of law, not the rule of lawyers and ex-lawyer judges whose end goal is maximizing income for their profession, protecting their co-professionals. 

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 it more better and fairer for all people.

====== Supreme Court of Canada 2013-14  =======

Application to SCC

Evidence Vol1.pdf = all of the 2012 court of appeal evidence (A-F) shown below under Alberta Court of Appeal   

Evidence-vol2-TOC-28july2013-scc   

 Evidence-vol2A-scc.pdf   

  Evidence-vol2B-scc.pdf   

  Evidence-vol2C-scc.pdf

For proof of blog EARS-Crocodile Tears refer Vol.2 section C sections 4-6. 

TableofContents-Vol3A-scc2013.pdf

Evidence-Vol3A-scc2013.pdf   

Evidence-Vol3B-scc2013.pdf    


===== Alberta Court of Appeal =====

Onischuk Motion to Strike Canmore Briefing 

Onischuk Factum

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

Motion to Calgary Courts - 12 March 2014

After the protest at the Calgary QB Law Courts I filed this application and four affidavits aff1aff2, aff3, aff4 to transfer the case file to Edmonton for review for mistrial and to obtain evidence other courts repeatedly failed to make Canmore produce to prove their arguments & claims. Although I have taken no legal action, Alberta Government then files demand for costs despite our agreement and then puts a lien against our home to stop legal action.


Court Strike App to be Heard

** 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:  Court 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. ”

untitle1