DID THEY BREACH OUR TRUST? 

 

WHAT IS FRAUD AND BREACH OF TRUST

 

Fraud and Breach of Trust are likely the two most commonly charged dishonesty offenses. Fraud involves obtaining a benefit (not necessarily financial) through dishonesty. Breach of Trust involves abusing a position of authority for self-benefit and against the interests of the person to whom you owe the duty of trust. 

 

VIOLATING DUTIES OF OFFICE OR TRUST

 

This section makes it a criminal offence for a public officer to intentionally and knowingly commit an act that violates the duties of their office or position of trust, for the purpose of gaining a personal benefit or causing harm to another individual or institution.

 

 

WHAT CAN YOU DO?

 

Now that you have studied the allegations and have made a decision regarding the legitimacy of plaintiffs concerns. It is crucial to understand that our voices, your voices, can shape the narrative and bring about change. This investigation itself could have far reaching implications. We have already had queries from Western Canada.

01

SPREAD THE WORD

 

Share the website on all social media platforms. Use your voice to amplify this message. Encourage your friends, family, and acquaintances to do the same. The more people who are aware of this investigation the greater the impact it will have.

02

ENGAGE IN CONVERSATIONS

 

Initiate discussions in social circles, workplace, and community. Encourage open dialogues where people can express their opinions and concerns. By fostering conversations, you help raise awareness and understanding of the issue. Some people have not woken up to the long-term family issues.

03

CONTACT LOCAL MEDIA

 

Reach out to local newspapers, radio stations, and TV channels. Share the investigation and it’s significance with journalists and reporters who cover constitutional breaches. They may find this story newsworthy, helping the story reach a broader audience or they may be part of the political landscape. 

04

CONTACT YOUR REPRESENTATIVES

 

Get in touch with your local political representatives, whether at the municipal, provincial, or federal level. Share the concerns and ask them to take a stand on the matter and advocate for our rights and freedoms.

05

JOIN OR SUPPORT ADVOCACY GROUPS 

Connect with advocacy groups, magazines, (highly recommended, Ontario Landowners Voices) organizations, or individuals who champion people’s rights and freedoms. In this case the control of we the people.

06

REMEMBER

Every voice matters, and your active involvement can be the catalyst for positive change. STAND UP PATRIOTS or fade away.

FRAUD BY OMISSION  

 

DEF: A person can perpetrate a fraud through the omission of a material fact. For this reason, when alleging fraud, a plaintiff may allege that the defendant made “a misrepresentation or a material omission of fact. which was false and known to be false.”

RELEVANCE: The omission of information that ultimately caused the landowner loss of equity with the infringement of the watershed study.

 CRIMINAL CODE MUNICIPAL CORRUPTION 123

 

criminal-code municipal-corruption-123

WHAT ARE THE 3 POINTS TO PROVE IN TORT LAW?

 

To win a tort case, there are 3 elements that must be established in a claim: The defendant had a legal duty to act in a certain way. The defendant breached this duty by failing to act appropriately, and. The plaintiff suffered injury or loss as a direct result of the defendant’s breach.

 

In this watershed case all points to prove are met.

WHAT ARE THE ELEMENTS OF TORT LAW IN CANADA? 

 

In the country’s common law provinces, a tort consists of a wrongful acts or injury that lead to physical, emotional, or financial damage to a person in which another person could be held legally responsible.  

 

In this watershed case wrongful acts by officials in their negligence have caused physical, emotional and massive financial damage to plaintiffs

 

IS TORT LAW CIVIL LAW IN CANADA?  

 

In common law, a tort is a civil wrong for which a legal remedy exists. The wrong relates to harm or losses occurring to a person or their property because of deliberate action or carelessness of another, and forms the basis of the claim by the plaintiff in most civil legal claims.

 

In this watershed case the failure of officials to advise landowners of the potential massive losses is so obviously careless that this inaction appears deliberate.

 

Identifying the Four Tort Elements: 

 

The accused had a duty, in most personal injury cases, to act in a way that did not cause you to become injured. The accused committed a “breach” of that duty. An injury occurred to you. The breach of duty was the proximate cause of your injury.

 

In this watershed case the financial injuries in losses are massive as a result of the breach of trust by the authorities in their failure to assess potential obvious losses and officially notify the plaintiffs with proper documented assessments. This is shown by the lack of a tax reduction.

 

TORT LAW 

The 3 elements of Tort Law ?

 

To win a tort case, there are 3 elements that must be established in a claim: the defendant had a legal duty to act in a certain way, The defendant breached this duty by failing to act appropriately, and the plaintiff suffered injury or loss as a direct result of the defendant’s breach.

 

 

BILL OF RIGHTS  

 

(1) Every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada. (2)  Every citizen of Canada and every person who has the status of a permanent resident of Canada has the right: to move to and take up residence in any province, and to pursue the gaining of a livelihood in any province.

 

CONSTITUTION ART 21 

 

The right to livelihood is a part of the right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the constitution and as interpreted by the same court, right to livelihood adds meaning to sustain life with dignity. It is closely mixed up with the right to life the snatching a person of the right to livelihood is denying him the right to live

 

CANADIAN TORT LAW 

 

What are the different types of loss in tort law? loss In tort, all losses within 3 categories: (1) physical/property damage; (2) economic loss consequent on physical damage (i.e. consequential economic loss); (3) pure economic loss.

 

Canadian tort law is composed of two parallel systems: a common law framework outside Québec and a civil law framework within Québec. Outside Québec, Canadian tort law originally derives from that of England and Wales but has developed distinctly since Canadian Confederation in 1867 and has been influenced by jurisprudence in other common law jurisdictions. Meanwhile, while private law as a whole in Québec was originally derived from that which existed in France at the time of Québec’s annexation into the British Empire, it was overhauled and codified first in the Civil Code of Lower Canada and later in the current Civil Code of Quebec, which codifies most elements of tort law as part of its provisions on the broader law of obligations. As most aspects of tort law in Canada are the subject of provincial jurisdiction under the Canadian Constitution, tort law varies even between the country’s common law provinces and territories. 

 

In the country’s common law provinces, a tort consists of a wrongful acts or injury that lead to physical, emotional, or financial damage to a person in which another person could be held legally responsible.[1] The two main subcategories of tort law are intentional torts and unintentional torts. Similarly in Québec, there are four conditions necessary for a finding of civil liability under the CCQ:[2]—–

 

Imputability: The capacity of a tortfeasor to “discern right from wrong”, and to understand the consequences of their actions.

 

Fault: The failure of a tortfeasor to act as “a normally prudent and reasonable person” would have in similar circumstances.

Damage: Harm or injury suffered by the plaintiff.

Causation: A causal link between the fault of the tortfeasor and the damage incurred by the plaintiff.

 

The defendant in a tort suit is called the tortfeasor, and most often, financial compensation is what tort victims acquire.[3] All torts require proof of fault in order to determine legal responsibility, however, fault is measured differently for the different types of tort.[3] There are criminal code offences in Canada that could also qualify as tort law under common law. However, most victims do not sue those who are criminally charged since the accused do not have the financial means to pay back the victim or because the accused is incarcerated.[4]

NEGLIGENCE 

 

Negligence is a cause of action leading to relief designed to protect legal rights[a] from actions which, although unintentional, nevertheless cause some form of legal harm to the plaintiff. In the common law provinces, there are four elements of negligence required for a particular course of conduct to be considered tortious:[10]

 

Duty: The purported tortfeasor must owe the plaintiff a duty of care, something which may arise from a variety of different factors such as the nature of a situation (e.g. a person driving a vehicle or engaging in some other foreseeably risky activity owes a duty to individuals reasonably likely to be injured such as pedestrians) or the relationship between the parties (e.g. a doctor and a patient).

 

Breach: The conduct complained of must constitute a breach of the standard of care associated with the aforementioned duty. Typically this means that the court will employ a reasonable person standard in assessing whether or not the respondent’s actions were negligent.

Damage: The plaintiff must have suffered damage.

 

Causation: The conduct complained of must either be the proximate cause or the cause in fact of the damage suffered by the plaintiff. In the former case, the respondent’s conduct is the proximate cause of the damage if it could have been reasonably foreseen. In the latter case, the conduct is the cause in fact of the damage suffered by the plaintiff if the damage would not have occurred but for the respondent’s conduct.

 

In the common law provinces, courts have restricted the types of damage for which a plaintiff may seek monetary compensation. For instance, pure economic loss may only lead to monetary compensation in a limited set of circumstances established by precedent; at present, these are 1) negligent misrepresentation or performance of a service, 2) negligent supply of shoddy goods or structures, and 3) relational economic loss between parties to a contract.[11][12] Even where a plaintiff demonstrates that the conduct complained of falls within the circumstances in which pure economic loss may be recovered, they must demonstrate that they were in a “sufficiently proximate relationship” with the respondent.[12] Prior to the ruling in Cooper v. Hobart in 2001, this analysis was grounded in mere foreseeability of injury; however, following the ruling, both the proximity of the parties’ relationship and foreseeability of injury must be proved.[12] Per the ruling in Cooper, courts in the common law province apply a two-step analytical framework based on the Anns test previously applied in England and Wales under which a court will award damages for pure economic loss where the conduct falls within the established categories established by present and, if the conduct does not fall into any established category, will then proceed to examine public policy reasons for and against the recognition of a new duty of care.[11]

 

 

PROPERTY TORTS 

 

Property torts are civil causes of action aimed at seeking damages for interference with a plaintiff’s property, including both immovable property and movable property or chattel. The most significant torts within this category are the two categories of trespass to property:

 

EXPROPRIATION 

 

Google:  Expropriation – Canada 

Note:  Expropriation is similar, but not the Watershed issue in whole.

 

Note:  Expropriated landowners are entitled to fair compensation; this compensation should make them “whole” – that is, fully compensate them for all losses arising

 

Expropriation is the government’s exercise of its right to acquire land from landowners for a public purpose – for example, to build roads, Light Rail Transit projects, schools, etc. The Supreme Court of Canada has stated that expropriation is one of the ultimate exercises of governmental authority.

 

https://unifiedllp.com/10-things-to-know-about-expropriation/

 

https://www.fillmoreriley.com/publication/expropriation-revisited-supreme-court-of-canada-clarifies-law-in-constructive-taking-land-claims

 

FYI: IS CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT MONEY TAXABLE IN CANADA?

 

The tax treatment of class action lawsuit money varies depending on the nature of the compensation. Typically, compensatory damages for personal injuries are non-taxable, while punitive damages and other components related to business claims may be subject to taxation.

CLASS ACTION INFO

 

    The court will only grant certification if it is satisfied that the following conditions apply:

Proceeding as a class action is preferable to other available legal remedies

 

The plaintiffs have a lawful claim against the defendant

Significant value lost due to negligence in “Duty of Care”

 

A specific class of affected persons can be identified 

Watershed affected landowners

 

The members of the class share common questions of fact or law

Persons in authority failed to protect citizens

 

A representative plaintiff can be identified among the class members

John Tait – Named as the lead plaintiff

 

 

 

DISCLAIMER 3

 

All matters herein, are subject to Legal Review.

 

 

Join our info list

* indicates required