Compare to Ernst:
Labels given to Ernst by authorities/NGOs since she began speaking out about Encana’s, AER’s and Alberta Environment’s contaminated water cover-up and law violations:
- That “crazy lady” at Rosebud (by Encana’s licenced land agents, media, politicians and the regulators);
- Judged a “criminal” without any arrests, fingerprinting, charges, due process and without any evidence by AER in 2005;
- “Eco-terrorist” by AER’s outside counsel, Glenn Solomon, in an official court filing in 2012, also without any arrests, fingerprinting, charges, due process and without any evidence;
- “Activist” and or “Fractivist” by Canada’s NGOs, including Council of Canadians and Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives (Why not name Ernst what she is? A frac-harmed Canadian citizen, business owner, landowner, scientist whose corporate obligations include exposing the truth);
- “Water Activist” by Lawyers Weekly Magazine (see above smears by NGOs);
- Political grandstanding “Nutcase” by AER’s outside counsel, Glenn Solomon;
- “Vexatious litigant,” also without due process and without any evidence, “Unwise” and “Alice in Wonderland” by the Supreme Court of Canada in their official ruling in Ernst vs AER. Did J Abella and the other justices publish this fabricated smear for the remaining defendants and lower courts to later use to throw out Ernst’s lawsuit?
Jessica Ernst Open Letter to Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin Regarding False and Seriously Damaging Statements in Justice Rosalie Abella’s Supreme Court of Canada Ruling, Ernst v AER
The Supreme Court of Canada’s ruling: https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/16325/index.do
The dishonest statement by Justice Rosalie Abella (Global Jurist of the Year in 2017, the year the ruling was released in my case) was called out by J McLachlin and three other judges in their dissent ruling in my case, but only the defamatory statement by J Abella was repeated in the court’s summary sent to Canadian media. Media published the lie.
2019 07 09: Three Leaves to Appeal the Claimed Jurisdiction of Court of Queen’s Bench Over Vexatious Litigants by Jonnette Watson Hamilton:
… For one thing, the litigant has been characterized as a “vexatious litigant” by a person in authority. Their reputation and credibility have been, or can be perceived by the litigant or others to have been, damaged. A vexatious litigant starts out with at least one strike against them….
Nasty! Canadian courts describing “individuals as exhibiting ‘vexatious-style’ behavior without formally designating them as a vexatious litigant.” Is that how Supreme Court of Canada Justice Rosalie Abella gets away with ruling AER found Ernst to be “vexatious litigant” when evidence proves AER found Ernst to be a “criminal,” 7 years later, a terrorist – all without charges, evidence, trial or due process? With AG Jody Wilson-Raybould saying & doing nothing about Canada’s top judicial farce?
Who orders a new hearing for a Supreme Court of Canada ruling where 9 justices knowingly published a lie and sent it to the media? Who “slaps” Justice Rosalie Abella for knowingly lying in her ruling and belittling the applicant?
The Complainant: The Canadian Human Rights Case on First Nations Child Welfare by Cindy Blackstock, (2016) 62:2 McGill LJ 285
Cindy Blackstock, PhD is a member of the Gitksan First Nation. She has served as Executive Director of the First Nations Child and Family Caring Society of Canada since 2002 and is also a Professor at the School of Social Work at McGill University. Her primary interest is ensuring culturally based and equitable services for First Nations children and families in Canada.
In February 2007, the First Nations Child and Family Caring Society of Canada and the Assembly of First Nations filed a complaint under the Canadian Human Rights Act alleging that the Government of Canada’s inequitable provision of child welfare services to 163,000 First Nations children, along with its flawed implementation of Jordan’s Principle, was discriminatory on the prohibited grounds of race and national ethnic origin.
The case was highly contested. By the time the final arguments were heard in 2014, the Government of Canada [then Steve Harper gov’t] had made eight unsuccessful attempts to get the case dismissed on technical grounds and breached the law on three occasions.
On 26 January 2016, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal substantiated the complaint and ordered the Canadian Government to cease its discriminatory conduct. This article describes this historic case from the perspective of the executive director of the complainant, the First Nations Child and Family Caring Society of Canada, highlighting access to justice issues for equality-seeking Indigenous groups, children, and civil society. Recommendations for reform are discussed.
Alanis Obomsawin documents Cindy Blackstock’s fight for equality for Aboriginal children by CBC Radio, Sep 02, 2016
Canadian documentarian Alanis Obomsawin describes Cindy Blackstock as “the strongest person I’ve ever met.”
The celebrated filmmaker’s latest film is about Blackstock, and the fight she led against the Canadian government, alleging the federal government under-funds First Nations children living on-reserve. The NFB film, We Can’t Make the Same Mistake Twice, will premiere at the Toronto International Film Festival on September 13th.
Blackstock first took her complaint before the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal in February 2007. The case ended nine years later, on January 26, 2016, when the tribunal ruled that the federal government does discriminate against First Nations children.
Both Blackstock and Obomsawin spoke with Day 6 host Brent Bambury about why it was important to share the story with a wider film audience.
“The government always said, ‘look at all the money that we spent,” explains Obomsawin. “So the public that hears this, they say look at all the money they’re spending on Indigenous people and they’re complaining.”
Obomsawin goes on to tell a story from the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal hearing, in which Blackstock describes a scenario in which an organization is paid to take care of 500 children, when in fact they have 690 children under their care.
“So this kind of stuff — the public don’t realize what that means,” says Obomsawin.
“All that is taking away all the human aspect of a life of a child.”
How it began
When Blackstock was working as a social worker in British Columbia, she noticed the difference between services provided to Indigenous and non-Indigenous children.
Today, Blackstock is the Executive Director of the First Nations Child and Family Caring Society of Canada. In 2007, together with the Assembly of First Nations, Blackstock filed a complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal alleging that First Nations children were being discriminated against through the under-funding of services provided to children living on reserves.
The federal government [Steve Harper govt was in power for nearly all the duration of this case] fought the case every step of the way, at one point having the complaint dismissed. But that decision was overturned, and the tribunal case dragged on, with a decision coming nine years after the complaint had originally been filed.
“I think most listeners can understand that,” says Blackstock. “It’s a huge amount of time in a childhood, and what was so frustrating is that the legal technicalities that the federal government relied upon were all about fairness for the government. Never once in the nine years of this trial did they ever advance an argument about the best interest of the kids.”
Snooping by the government
During the trial, Blackstock filed an Access to Information request for documents withheld by the federal government. It was through those documents that she learned the Canadian government had been gathering personal information about her.
Government officials had monitored Blackstock’s Facebook page, took screen-shots and copied information that was then shared among government staff. “They were trying to find ‘other motives’ so they could get the case thrown out on frivolous and vexatious grounds,” explains Blackstock. “So they were looking for some other motive, personal issue or grudge that I might have, so they could bring that to the attention of the court and have it thrown out.” Blackstock says that the 189 government staffers monitoring her activity found no other motive because there was no other motive.