Released March 1st 2024
You can find the interactive documented path at ... ACCEPTABLE?
Prime Minister announces mandatory vaccination for the federal workforce and federally regulated transportation sectors
Main Content
Trudeau vows to freeze anti-mandate protesters' bank accounts
Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has taken the unprecedented step of invoking the Emergencies Act to crack down on anti-vaccine mandate protests.
Mr Trudeau said the scope of the measures would be "time-limited", "reasonable and proportionate" and would not see the military deployed.
With no need for court orders, banks can freeze personal accounts of anyone linked with the protests.
Hundreds of demonstrators remain in Canada's capital city.
On Sunday, law enforcement cleared anti-mandate protesters at the Ambassador Bridge in Windsor - a critical pathway for Canada-US trade - after a week-long stalemate.
What began as a rally against a new rule that all truckers must be vaccinated to cross the US-Canada border, or quarantine upon return, has grown into a broader challenge to all Covid health restrictions.
"This is about keeping Canadians safe, protecting people's jobs," Mr Trudeau told a news conference on Monday.
He said the police would be given "more tools" to imprison or fine protesters and protect critical infrastructure.
Mr Trudeau told reporters the legislation would be applied temporarily and in a highly specific manner.
Critics have noted that the prime minister voiced support for farmers in India who blocked major highways to New Delhi for a year in 2021, saying at the time: "Canada will always be there to defend the right of peaceful protest."
Mr Trudeau's invoking of the Emergencies Act comes as demonstrations across Canada enter their third week.
- EXPLAINER: What powers will Emergencies Act give Trudeau?
- AT THE SCENE: After police raid, what next for Canada protests?
Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland said at Monday's news conference that banks would be able freeze personal accounts of anyone linked with the protests without any need for a court order.
Vehicle insurance of anyone involved with the demonstrations can also be suspended, she added.
Ms Freeland said they were broadening Canada's "Terrorist Financing" rules to cover cryptocurrencies and crowdfunding platforms, as part of the effort.
Getty Images"It's all about following the money," she said.
She spoke after hackers released details of what they said were 93,000 donations for the truckers totalling $8.4m (£6.2m) to the crowdfunding platform GiveSendGo.
The Emergencies Act, passed in 1988, requires a high legal bar to be invoked. It may only be used in an "urgent and critical situation" that "seriously endangers the lives, health or safety of Canadians". Lawful protests do not qualify.
Speaking on Monday, Canada's Justice Minister David Lametti argued these conditions had been met.
But the Canadian Civil Liberties Association disagreed, warning that the move "threatens our democracy and our civil liberties".
Ottawa protest leader Tamara Lich dismissed Mr Trudeau's move, telling AP News: "There are no threats that will frighten us. We will hold the line."
Ontario Premier Doug Ford, a Conservative, said he supported the federal government.
But the premiers of Quebec, Manitoba, Alberta and Saskatchewan said the emergency powers were not needed in their regions.
Before Mr Trudeau's announcement, Quebec Premier Francois Legault said invoking the Emergencies Act could "throw oil on the fire".
Will Trudeau succeed?
Analysis by Jessica Murphy, BBC News, Toronto
Under growing pressure to bring the disruptive protests to an end - be it from the White House or increasingly frustrated Canadians - Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has entered uncharted territory with the decision to invoke the never-before-used 1988 Emergencies Act, the country's most powerful tool for when it is facing a national emergency.
The powers announced by Mr Trudeau go into effect immediately - but his government has to present it to the House of Commons and the Senate within a week and needs a green-light or the proclamation would be revoked.
All main Canadian federal political party leaders have said it's time for the protests - which have had an impact on supply chains, the national economy and the country's relations with the US - to end.
But they aren't all necessarily on board with Mr Trudeau's unprecedented move.
Conservative leader Candice Bergen voiced concern it could inflame the situation.
The support of NDP leader Jagmeet Singh may give Mr Trudeau enough votes to pass it through the House - though the Senate could still be a hurdle.
Protests are ongoing in various parts of the country.
In Ottawa, the nation's capital, between 400 to 500 trucks have been parked in the city centre for 18 days.
Protesters have also been blockading border crossing at Coutts, Alberta, and Emerson, Manitoba.
On Monday, Alberta police arrested 11 people and seized a cache of guns and other weapons.
Weekend protests have also taken place in cities including Toronto and Winnipeg.
From: David Amos<david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, Aug 18, 2024 at 12:46 PM
Subject: Fwd: Fw: Compte rendu de la Commissaire à l’information / Information Commissioner’s final report (dossier du CI / OIC complaint number: 5822-03179)
To: Dana-lee Melfi <dana_lee_ca@hotmail.com>, <Greffe-Registry@oic-ci.gc.ca>, mcu <mcu@justice.gc.ca>, pm <pm@pm.gc.ca>, pierre.poilievre <pierre.poilievre@parl.gc.ca>, <ps.ministerofpublicsafety-ministredelasecuritepublique.sp@ps-sp.gc.ca>, jagmeet.singh <jagmeet.singh@parl.gc.ca>, rob.moore <rob.moore@parl.gc.ca>
Cc: Newsroom <Newsroom@globeandmail.com>, Robert. Jones <Robert.Jones@cbc.ca>, David.Akin <David.Akin@globalnews.ca>
From: Moore, Rob - M.P.<Rob.Moore@parl.gc.ca>
Date: Sun, Aug 18, 2024 at 11:45 AM
Subject: Automatic reply: Fw: Compte rendu de la Commissaire à l’information / Information Commissioner’s final report (dossier du CI / OIC complaint number: 5822-03179)
To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.
Thank you for contacting the Honourable Rob Moore, P.C., M.P. office. We appreciate the time you took to get in touch with our office.
If you did not already, please ensure to include your full contact details on your email and the appropriate staff will be able to action your request. We strive to ensure all constituent correspondence is responded to in a timely manner.
If your question or concern is time sensitive, please call our office: 506-832-4200.
Again, we thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts and concerns.
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
Office of the Honourable Rob Moore, P.C., M.P.
Member of Parliament for Fundy Royal
From: Ministerial Correspondence Unit - Justice Canada<mcu@justice.gc.ca>
Date: Sun, Aug 18, 2024 at 11:45 AM
Subject: Automatic Reply
To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.
Thank you for writing to the Honourable Arif Virani, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada.
Due to the volume of correspondence addressed to the Minister, please note that there may be a delay in processing your email. Rest assured that your message will be carefully reviewed.
We do not respond to correspondence that contains offensive language.
-------------------
Merci d'avoir écrit à l'honorable Arif Virani, ministre de la Justice et procureur
général du Canada.
En raison du volume de correspondance adressée au ministre, veuillez
prendre note qu'il pourrait y avoir un retard dans le traitement de
votre courriel. Nous tenons à vous assurer que votre message sera lu
avec soin.
Nous ne répondons pas à la correspondance contenant un langage offensant.
From: David Amos<david.raymond.amos333@gmail.
Date: Sun, Aug 18, 2024 at 11:44 AM
Subject: Re: Fw: Compte rendu de la Commissaire à l’information / Information Commissioner’s final report (dossier du CI / OIC complaint number: 5822-03179)
To: Dana-lee Melfi <dana_lee_ca@hotmail.com>, <Greffe-Registry@oic-ci.gc.ca>
Response to ReportFrom: Dana-lee Melfi <dana_lee_ca@hotmail.com>
Sent: August 15, 2024 12:36 PM
To: _Greffe-Registry <Greffe-Registry@oic-ci.gc.ca>
Subject: Re: Compte rendu de la Commissaire à l’information / Information Commissioner’s final report (dossier du CI / OIC complaint number: 5822-03179)To whom it may concernThank you for this report and Orders.First order of business for me in response is to request the Commissioner this decision, Report & Orders be made publicly available in the interest of public safety as described in the ATIP ACT.Unfortunately my pc has mysteriously broken down and cannot highlight as I usually do on a cell phone.If the citizens cannot rely on the DOJ to operate properly on a very important request that involves the safety of every Canadian, it becomes a grave matter of interest to the public. Period.Secondly, I intend to appeal two sections of the report.I have $50 left to my name in my bank accounts and now no computer is making it extremely difficult to do this properly.On these grounds I am applying for an extension of time to appeal of 30 days beyond the 30 days.Because of the nature of the initial request and the OIC investigation, I cannot retain any help in the legal field by lawyers choice. In order for me to do this portion of my investigation I must now retain help. I am going to require help for the Federal Court review.The Commissioner says in the report, that she is not a criminal investigator, nor did she receive proof of no voice contact portion.There is proof the director of ATIP & DOJ called me unsolicited. I was never asked for proof. It is meta data tracked though on a phone # though. And more. My recorded conversation with the Director proves the "Document manipulation" Charge I would like to do under Citizens arrest as described in Mt preliminary report PDF at this adress. https://peace-man.ca/acceptable The recording of the Director can be found here www.Peace-Man.ca/atipThis ATIP is a portion of my current investigation of Government penetration you see.Everything I have done is meta data captured and on removable drives and a special device.What is not shown in the Commissioner’s final Report & Orders is the magnitude nor seriousness on time sensitive review.Meta data from the Top ! Justin Trudeau down to the bottom of the street actors.And everything in-between.CSIS Agents, RCMP, PLT, PIDC, OIC, PEBA, Doctors, Lawyers, and the list goes on with the data they created by interacting with me.All of this because of this very ATIP ACT REQUEST.I may not have gilded letters in front of my name.I have been hired by billion dollar corporations for my set of skills until I displayed integrity.You may know I am in a lawsuit with the government "Dana-lee VS Government of Saskatchewan & Canada Life." I should not have to do what I'm doing, but it is a necessary life and death decision for humanity and this path of deception and penetration of our Government.I believe we had a beautiful way if life and reputation the world respected.In a very short time it has been abused, targeted and tarnished in obvious fashion and reason.I believe the system we had and written words are not being followed bringing OUR House into disrepute.On page 16 of my Charter Challenge THE KING VS DANA-LEE I prove through case law this is happening. It is happening to even the DOJ as we see in the report in question.Please consider, Dana-lee MelfiFrom: _Greffe-Registry <Greffe-Registry@oic-ci.gc.ca>
Sent: August 6, 2024 11:10 AM
Subject: Compte rendu de la Commissaire à l’information / Information Commissioner’s final report (dossier du CI / OIC complaint number: 5822-03179)
Conformément au paragraphe 37(2) de la Loi sur l’accès à l’information, vous trouverez ci-joint le compte rendu de la Commissaire à l’information concernant la plainte susmentionnée.
Commissariat à l’information du Canada
Greffe-Registry@ci-oic.gc.caLe présent courriel est confidentiel. Il est interdit à toute personne autre que le ou la destinataire d’utiliser, de diffuser, de copier ou de stocker ce courriel et ses pièces jointes. Si vous avez reçu cette transmission par erreur, veuillez répondre immédiatement à l’expéditeur et supprimez ce courriel.
Please find attached the Information Commissioner’s final report under paragraph 37(2) of the Access to Information Act on the above-noted complaint.
Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada Greffe-Registry@ci-oic.gc.ca
This email is confidential. Any use, sharing, copying or storage of this message and its attachments by anyone other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this transmission in error, immediately reply to the sender and delete this message.
From: Dana-lee Melfi<dana_lee_ca@hotmail.com>
Date: Sun, Aug 18, 2024 at 1:25 AM
Subject: Fw: Compte rendu de la Commissaire à l’information / Information Commissioner’s final report (dossier du CI / OIC complaint number: 5822-03179)
To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.
Sent: August 6, 2024 11:10 AM
Subject: Compte rendu de la Commissaire à l’information / Information Commissioner’s final report (dossier du CI / OIC complaint number: 5822-03179)
Conformément au paragraphe 37(2) de la Loi sur l’accès à l’information, vous trouverez ci-joint le compte rendu de la Commissaire à l’information concernant la plainte susmentionnée. Commissariat à l’information du Canada Le présent courriel est confidentiel. Il est interdit à toute personne autre que le ou la destinataire d’utiliser, de diffuser, de copier ou de stocker ce courriel et ses pièces jointes. Si vous avez reçu cette transmission par erreur, veuillez répondre immédiatement à l’expéditeur et supprimez ce courriel. | Please find attached the Information Commissioner’s final report under paragraph 37(2) of the Access to Information Act on the above-noted complaint. Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada Greffe-Registry@ci-oic.gc.ca This email is confidential. Any use, sharing, copying or storage of this message and its attachments by anyone other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this transmission in error, immediately reply to the sender and delete this message. |
|  1:25 AM (11 hours ago) |
| |||
Sent: August 6, 2024 11:10 AM
Subject: Compte rendu de la Commissaire à l’information / Information Commissioner’s final report (dossier du CI / OIC complaint number: 5822-03179)
Conformément au paragraphe 37(2) de la Loi sur l’accès à l’information, vous trouverez ci-joint le compte rendu de la Commissaire à l’information concernant la plainte susmentionnée. Commissariat à l’information du Canada Le présent courriel est confidentiel. Il est interdit à toute personne autre que le ou la destinataire d’utiliser, de diffuser, de copier ou de stocker ce courriel et ses pièces jointes. Si vous avez reçu cette transmission par erreur, veuillez répondre immédiatement à l’expéditeur et supprimez ce courriel. | Please find attached the Information Commissioner’s final report under paragraph 37(2) of the Access to Information Act on the above-noted complaint. Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada Greffe-Registry@ci-oic.gc.ca This email is confidential. Any use, sharing, copying or storage of this message and its attachments by anyone other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this transmission in error, immediately reply to the sender and delete this message. |
Institution: Department of Justice Canada
Date: 2024-08-06
OIC file number: 5822-03179
Access request number: A-2021-00580
Complaint
The complainant alleged that the Department of Justice Canada (Justice) did not
respond to an access request within the 30-day period set out in section 7 of the
Access to Information Act. The request was for records between December 1, 2020
and October 6, 2021, associated with the legality or legal path of Prime Minister
Justin Trudeau’s announcements on August 13, 2021, and the subsequent
implementation of mandates regarding COVID-19 vaccinations for federal employees
and for travel.
This allegation falls under paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.
The complainant also alleged the following:
• Justice took an invalid extension of time and eventually withdrew it. This
allegation falls under paragraph 30(1)(a).
• Justice improperly placed the access request on hold. This allegation falls
under paragraph 30(1)(f).
• Justice communicated by phone, despite requesting communication in writing.
This allegation falls under paragraph 30(1)(f).
• Justice did not meet its responsibilities under subsection 4(2.1) to make every
reasonable effort to assist the requester with the above-noted access
request(s). This allegation falls under paragraph 30(1)(f).
2
Investigation
Extension of time
Justice received the access request on September 23, 2021. On December 1, 2021,
Justice took a time extension of 1,825 days pursuant to paragraphs 9(1)(a) and
9(1)(b). On December 15, 2021, Justice emailed the complainant to confirm that they
were officially retracting the extension and placing the file on hold as of December 1,
2021. Also on December 15, 2021, Justice informed the Office of the Information
Commissioner (OIC) that the extension would be retracted and that Justice would
continue to work with the complainant to clarify the request and provide a response to
the access request in a timely manner. On December 20, 2021, Justice sent the
complainant a letter that formally confirmed the retraction of the extension letter
issued on December 1, 2021.
As Justice withdrew the time extension, I conclude that the issue is moot, and that no
further investigation into its validity is required.
Suspension of the time limit to respond
Justice stated that the file was placed on hold indefinitely as of December 1, 2021, to
allow for additional clarification of scope.
Section 6 requires requesters to provide enough detail in their request that
experienced institutional employees could identify relevant records with a reasonable
effort. Justice did not claim that the access request did not meet the requirements of
section 6. Rather, Justice’s attempts at clarifying were meant to reduce the scope of
the subject matter of the request in order to assist in managing the anticipated
volume of responsive records.
There is no provision in the Act for putting an access request on hold for any reason,
except when suspending the time limit pending the Commissioner’s decision on an
application under subsection 6.1(1), even with the consent of the complainant.
As such, I conclude that Justice improperly placed the access request on hold.
Communication by phone
On December 1, 2021, Justice acknowledged the complainant’s preference to
communicate in writing, and noted this preference in the file. Later in the day, the
complainant indicated that they would take a call, that they wanted a call from a
supervisor, and included a phone number. On December 2, 2021, the complainant
3
arranged with Justice for a phone call on December 3, 2021. This phone call
occurred as agreed upon.
While the complainant submitted that this phone call was the result of undue
pressure, I received no evidence illustrating this pressure. Further, no evidence was
received that indicated that Justice communicated by phone on other occasions, or
that Justice communicated by phone without the complainant’s express consent. I
therefore conclude that this allegation is not founded.
Subsection 4(2.1): Responsibility of government institutions
Subsection 4(2.1) requires that the head of a government institution, without regard
to the identity of a person making a request for access to a record under the control
of the institution, make every reasonable effort to assist the person in connection with
the request, respond to the request accurately and completely and, subject to the
regulations, provide timely access to the record in the format requested.
Did the institution meet its obligations under the Act?
Justice stated that every reasonable effort was made to assist the complainant by
providing multiple options, clarifying the request, and guiding the complainant
through the process of the access request. In particular, multiple efforts were made to
assist the complainant in clarifying the scope of the request through September and
October 2021.
However, communication decreased or ceased to a level where the complainant
submitted that the access request appeared to have been abandoned by Justice or
purposely not handed over to a new point of contact. The complainant stated that
there was no contact or updates on the file since January 2023. Justice informed the
OIC that the complainant emailed twice on August 31, 2023, but that the emails were
sent to the attention of individuals no longer working at the department. While Justice
stated on March 19, 2024, that they would reach out to the complainant to provide an
update, the complainant has stated that no such communication occurred.
It is clear that updates regarding the point of contact and regarding the processing of
the request were not made, and as such I conclude that Justice failed to meet its
obligations set out in subsection 4(2.1) to assist the complainant. I find this to be
particularly egregious given that Justice stated the file was put on hold in December
2021, to allow for additional communication with the complainant to clarify the scope
of the request.
4
Time limits for responding to access requests
Section 7 requires institutions to respond to access requests within 30 days unless
they have transferred a request to another institution or validly extended the 30-day
period for responding by meeting the requirements of section 9. When an institution
does not respond to a request within the 30-day or extended period, it is deemed to
have refused access to the requested records under subsection 10(3).
Nevertheless, the institution is still required to provide a response to the access
request.
What is a response?
The response must be in writing and indicate whether the institution is giving access
to any or part of the requested records.
• When the response indicates that the institution has given access to the
records or part of them, the institution must provide access to those records.
• When the response indicates that the institution has denied access to the
records or part of them, the institution must explain that the records do not
exist or that the institution has exempted them, or part of them, under a
specific provision, which the institution must name.
In specific circumstances, the institution may refuse to confirm or deny in its response
whether records exist under subsection 10(2).
Did the institution respond within the time limits?
Justice received the access request on September 23, 2021. On December 1, 2021,
Justice took a time extension of 1,825 days pursuant to paragraphs 9(1)(a) and
9(1)(b). However, Justice notified the complainant by formal letter on December 20,
2021, that this time extension was being withdrawn. As such, the deadline to respond
to the request remains October 29, 2021. Justice did not respond by this date.
Justice is deemed to have refused access to the requested records under subsection
10(3).
Justice advised that there are 168,537 pages of records responsive to the request.
Justice’s access to information and privacy unit confirmed that all records were
gathered by May 10, 2022. However, two years later, review of the records has not
yet begun. Justice indicated that once the review begins, the analyst will be required
to index each document, as well as identify the duplicates and not relevant/out of
scope records. Justice noted that internal and external consultations may be
required, which may cause significant delays.
5
Justice estimated that it would take 14 years to process the request. This is based on
a preliminary volume of 168,537 pages, with a calculation of 1,000 pages processed
per month by a single analyst.
I do not consider Justice’s estimate of 14 years to be reasonable. Given that the
records were retrieved from eight different offices of primary interest (OPI) across
Justice, there is a high likelihood of duplicates, which will lower the total volume of
responsive records. In addition, five of the eight OPIs are legal services units, and it
is therefore likely that many of the records from these OPIs will be exempted under
solicitor-client privilege, which would not require line-by-line review.
Finally, an institution the size of Justice should be able to put more than one resource
on this request. While I understand that Justice seeks to strike a balance between
processing one large request and serving other requesters, the fact remains that
Justice has committed no resources to the processing of this request since the
records were retrieved.
The complainant has now been waiting for over two and a half years for a response
to the request. This delay is unacceptable and is in clear contravention Justice’s
obligations under the Act, which provide for the provision of timely responses.
Considering all of the above, I conclude that Justice must respond to the request
within five (5) years, taking into consideration that:
• The Justice Access to Information and Privacy team has several analysts who
will be able to share the task while working on other files - it is possible to
carry out several tasks at the same time;
• The final page count will most likely be lower than the current estimate; and,
• Consultations should be limited to necessary circumstances and specific
information, in order to limit delays.
I also find that Justice must report to the complainant on the progress it has made
and must consider releasing the documents as they are processed, if possible.
In the event that the complainant decides to modify the scope of the request in order
to reduce the response time, I invite the complainant to discuss this aspect directly
with Justice.
Intent to Deny Access
During the course of the investigation, the complainant alleged that there was
document manipulation and false information being used to subvert the Act.
6
Section 67.1 makes it an offence to destroy, mutilate or alter a record, or direct,
propose, counsel or cause any person in any manner to do such things with the
intent to deny a right of access under this Act.
My mandate is to conduct administrative investigations into federal institutions’
compliance with the Act and to draw conclusions based on facts. I am not mandated
to conduct criminal investigations or assign civil or criminal liability. Although I can
draw conclusions based on facts, I do not have the authority to investigate whether
actions were taken with the intent to deny a right of access under the Act.
During an investigation, I may disclose to the Attorney General of Canada information
relating to the commission of an offence against a law of Canada or a province by a
director, an officer or an employee of a government institution if, in my opinion, there
is evidence of such an offence, as stipulated in subsection 63(2).
While Justice could certainly have handled the processing of this request better, I did
not find evidence related to the commission of an offence under the Act in the context
of this investigation.
The complaint is well founded, because:
• Justice improperly placed the access request on hold.
• Justice failed to meet its obligations to assist the complainant pursuant to
subsection 4(2.1).
• Justice is deemed to have refused access to the requested records under
subsection 10(3).
Orders
I order the Minister of Justice to do the following:
1. Remove any hold placed on the processing of the request;
2. Provide a complete response to the access request by May 17, 2029;
3. Provide updates to the complainant every six months on the progress of
processing the access request; and
4. Provide interim releases to the complainant at regular intervals, if possible.
Initial report and notice from institution
On June 13, 2024, I issued my initial report to the Minister of Justice setting out my
orders.
7
On August 2, 2024, Justice’s Acting Director of Access to Information and Privacy
gave me notice that Justice would be implementing the orders. Justice indicated that
in an effort to comply with the orders, they have assigned five members to index the
records, and the file will be transferred to a paralegal for review of exclusions and a
senior analyst will take over review of the documents due to its volume and
complexities.
Review by Federal Court
When an allegation in a complaint falls under paragraph 30(1)(a), (b), (c), (d), (d.1) or
(e) of the Act, the complainant has the right to apply to the Federal Court for a review.
When the Information Commissioner makes an order(s), the institution also has the
right to apply for a review. Whoever applies for a review must do so within 35
business days after the date of this report and serve a copy of the application for
review to the relevant parties, as per section 43. If no one applies for a review by this
deadline, the order(s) takes effect on the 36th business day after the date of this
report.
Caroline Maynard
Information Commissioner of Canada