Whatcott update and prayer request

Get togethers, protests, pickets, activism, discuss it here!

Whatcott update and prayer request

Postby Bill Whatcott » Mon Nov 27, 2017 11:15 pm

Ronan Oger tried unsuccessfully to have Bill Whatcott criminally charged with a "hate crime" for calling him a biological male and criticizing his agenda during the last BC provincial election. Unfortunately for those who value freedom of speech and more importantly yet, the right to say what is true, Ronan has succeeded in getting the BC Human Rights Tribunal to prosecute Bill Whatcott.

Dear Friends,

Please pray for the telephone case conference that I will be participating in on December 1st at 2 pm (Pacific time). The British Columbia Human Rights Chairperson Walter Rilkoff approved the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms as an intervener in Oger vs Whatcott and then carried on with his usual tirade that I am not being respectful enough and threatening to penalize me with court costs, yada, yada, yada. :icon_rolleyes:

I should note that in all the recent correspondance that I sent the Tribunal regarding this case, I have actually been politely referring to lesbian activist lawyer Susanna Quail as "Ms Quail" and the complainant Ronan (he calls himself Morgane) Oger as the "Complainant." Hence, I can only interpret Walter's threats and admonitions as pathetic pandering to the miltant homosexual lobby, rather than doing his job as a public servant of adjudicating impartial justice. nono2

Bill Whatcott

To see my politely written, unedited, Application to Dismiss go here: viewtopic.php?f=16&t=10668

"I will also speak of your testimonies before kings
and shall not be put to shame,
for I find my delight in your commandments,
which I love."

Psalm 119:46, 47

November 24, 2017

Jay Cameron
Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms

#253, 7260 Elbow Drive SW
Calgary, AB T2V 1K2

Bill Whatcott
Vancouver, BC Vxxxx

Paul Fromm
Box 332
Rexdale, ON M9W 5L3

Susanna Quail
Allevato Quail & Worth
405 - 510 West Hastings St.
Vancouver, BC V6B 1L8

Via Email

Re: Morgane Oger v. Bill Whatcott
(Case Number: 16408)

The Tribunal has received a further application for intervenor status in the above referenced complaint. The application is from Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms [JCCF], a nonprofit corporation based in Calgary, Alberta who both undertakes litigation and intervenes in litigation involving s. 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. JCCF says that it has expertise and experience regarding freedom of expression and freedom of religion and conscience and those are what it seeks to address if granted intervenor status.

As an intervenor, JCCF seeks to make written and oral submissions, to call up to 4 witnesses, including expert witnesses, and to adduce relevant academic research articles. The application is supported by Mr. Whatcott and by CAFE, previously granted intervenor status.

The application for intervenor status is opposed by Ms. Oger on the basis that JCCF and CAFE will make substantially the same submissions, it risks taking the litigation away from the parties and adding to the expense of the hearing, creating a barrier for a complainant. She says further that persons seeking to enforce their rights under the Code should not have to face a “long line of outside parties who wish to insert their perspective on the issues at play.”

2 of 4

Ms. Oger cites the additional costs of additional experts and the increased cost that that will inevitably involve.

Alternatively, Ms. Oger proposes that if JCCF is granted intervenor status that JCCF and CAFE coordinate their evidence their experts and their submissions to avoid repetition, that JCCF have no right to cross examine witnesses and that JCCF and CAFE be restricted to 20 minutes total in submissions.

JCCF agrees to coordinate its submissions and even the length of its submissions.

Analysis and Decision

CAFE was granted intervenor status on the terms set out in Oger v. Whatcott, 2017 BCHRT 195.

I have reviewed the submissions and am satisfied that JCCF may provide useful input to the Tribunal with regard to the law and possibly evidence in this complaint without unduly burdening the complainant in presenting her case.

I am granting JCCF intervenor status on the same terms as were provided to CAFE in paragraph 30 of Oger v. Whatcott, subject to these additional orders which I set out and which will apply to both JCCF and to CAFE.

CAFE and JCCF are to coordinate their submissions, both oral and written, and are not to duplicate each other’s submissions on any particular topic unless they are taking substantially different positions.

The order only allows intervenors to call witnesses with permission of the Tribunal. I will only hear applications to call evidence by the intervenors at the same time. In other words, any applications to call evidence will not be considered and decided until the other intervenor has made its application to call witnesses or has advised the Tribunal that it will not be applying to call witnesses. Applications to call evidence by the intervenors will require full and detailed “will say” statements of what that witness is expected to say. The Tribunal’s usual rules with regard to expert evidence will apply.

At this point in time I am not prepared to restrict the length of written submissions or the time of oral submissions but reserve the right to do so in future. I do remind all parties that in legal arguments, less is often more.

The ability of the intervenors or either of them to cross examine or ask questions of witnesses called by Ms. Oger or the other intervenor will be decided on a witness by witness basis at the appropriate time.

3 of 4

Application to Dismiss

On November 6, 2017, Mr. Whatcott filed an application to dismiss the complaint without a hearing pursuant to s. 27(1). He subsequently filed a Form clarifying that his application is pursuant to s. 27(1)(b) and (d)(i).

Besides submissions, Mr. Whatcott has attached an article from the National Post newspaper and a photograph from the Vancouver Sun newspaper dated November 2, 2009 with the caption: “Three year old [name deleted] gets her H1M2 shot Monday from community health nurses [names deleted] while dad Ronan Oger offers encouragement. The family was attending the clinic set up at Mount Pleasant Community Centre.” The point being made, I presume, is that the person in the photograph identified as “dad Ronan Oger” is the same person as the complainant, Morgane Oger.

Section 27(1) allows the Tribunal to dismiss complaints that do not warrant proceeding to a full hearing. Berezoutskaia v. British Columbia (Human Rights Tribunal), 2006 BCCA 95 at para. 26, leave to appeal to SCC refused [2006] SCCA No. 171. Determinations under s. 27(1)(b) are made on the basis of the allegations outlined on the face of the complaint, without reference to any alternative explanation or evidence that a respondent may put forward: Bailey v. B.C. (Min. of Attorney General) (No. 2), 2006 BCHRT 168, at para. 12. This differs from an application pursuant to s. 27(1)(c) where the Tribunal uses its expertise to review all the information filed to determine whether there is no reasonable likelihood that the complaint will succeed it proceeded to a hearing. Workers' Compensation Appeal Tribunal v. Hill, 2011 BCCA 49.

Mr. Whatcott’s application is focussed on the merits of the complaint, rather than on whether the complaint makes allegations that if proven could amount to a prima facie case. The two exhibits he has submitted are not considered under s. 27(1)(b).

In an application pursuant to s. 27(1)l(d)(i), Mr. Whatcott must persuade the Tribunal that proceeding with this complaint would not benefit Ms. Oger. His application does not readily appear to address why proceeding with the complaint would not benefit Ms. Oger beyond simply making the application.

Mr. Whatcott may leave his application as is, or he may amend it, or he may withdraw it. If he wishes to amend it, he has until December 8, 2017 to do so, the deadline for him to file an application to dismiss. We ask that he advise the Tribunal and the other parties of how he wishes to proceed.

4 of 4

If he intends to proceed with his application, with or without an amendment, the normal procedure would then be to ask for submissions from the other parties

In this case, the normal procedure is complicated by the presence of the two intervenors who I have allowed a limited right to participate in a hearing of this matter on the merits. If Mr. Whatcott proceeds with his application, the question becomes what right, if any, the intervenors should have to participate in the application to dismiss.

I am directing the case manager to set up a telephone case conference with the parties to iron out these procedural issues. I am also directing that at least 72 hours before the case conference is held, Mr. Whatcott notify the Tribunal, counsel for Ms. Oger and the intervenors whether he is proceeding with his application, and if so, whether or not he will be amending it.

Finally, I have admonished Mr. Whatcott before, and will do so again, that we expect all participants in the Tribunal’s processes to be treated with respect. It is not “Quail”, but “Ms. Quail”. Mr. Whatcott may consider that he is at risk of having costs awarded against him if he continues to treat other people, including counsel, discourteously

Walter Rilkoff, Tribunal Member

User avatar
Bill Whatcott
Posts: 6778
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2007 11:33 am
Location: Edmonton, AB

Return to Gatherings and Activism

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest