Tag Archives: Robert McCorkill

Help CAFE Assist the Victims and Support Free Speech in Canada

Posted on by

.

Help CAFE Assist the Victims and Support Free Speech in Canada

Canadian Association for Free Expression
Box 332,
Rexdale, Ontario, M9W 5L3
Ph: 905-566-4455; FAX: 905-566-4820
Website: http://cafe.nfshost.com 
Paul Fromm, B.Ed, M.A. Director

MonikaSchaeferTruth Revealer

​                              Monika Schaefer on CAFE Speaking Tour in Ontario

September 1, 2016

Dear Free Speech Supporter:

This has been a hectic few months for freedom of speech and this Fall promises to be no different.

A Mean, Vicious, Nasty Country


OK, the headline may be a little harsh, but some of our fellow Canadians are narrow-minded vindictive bullies who care not a wit for freedom of speech. Frankly, you and I have a lot to do to turn people on to freedom of speech, to remind them of our proud heritage of individual freedoms now so battered by the Maoist Red Guards of political correctness, and to stand up for the victims of persecution.

Monika Schaefer

Consider Monika Schaefer. She is a violin teacher and four time Green Party candidate from Jasper, Alberta. She has lived in that community for 35 years. She raised her daughter there. She was a community activist and volunteer, devoting hours of her time and fiddling to support worthy causes and entertain at benefits. An open, honest friendly woman, Miss Schaefer had many friends in this small Alberta mountain town. She doesn’t have as many today. In mid-June she posted a short video on You Tube — Sorry, Mom, I was Wrong About the Holocaust https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=E0_BZphQ7Qo&feature=youtu.be 4m48s. Monika was the daughter of post war German immigrants. As a girl, she was mocked and occasionally called “Nazi” by school children. She bought into the indoctrination and the Hollywood version of World War II. She even scolded her mother and wondered why she hadn’t “done something” about what was happening to Jews in  WW II. Over the years, Monika grew skeptical about many things. She became a major doubter of the official line about 9/11. Beginning in 2014, she began reading and came to reject the standard doctrine about the “holocaust.” Her video on You Tube went viral — over 120,000 hits in two months.
“Free speech. Everyone’s entitled to their opinion.” Those were the values of the Real Canada — OUR Canada, yours and mine. These are not the values of the pinched, censorious fanatics of political correctness. Punishment came quickly:
* Monika was a big hit at last year’s Dominion (Canada) Day festivities in Jasper. This year, she was uninvited. There had been some anonymous threats of a protest. [In healthier time, the RCMP would have been informed and these exceedingly well paid officers would have been on hand to keep any protest peaceful.]
* The President of the local Legion banned Monika from being on the premises. The Legion is a favourite local gathering place for musicians. So, this ban in quite serious. When Monika tested the ban, an officious bartenders called the cops.
* The Legion president made complaints to the Canadian and Alberta Human Rights Commissions, to the RCMP and the German Embassy (what? Monika was born in Canada!). “It is a hate crime,” proclaimed Ken Kuzminski, the Legion president and former NDP candidate, about Monika’s soft spoken video. Kuzminski had been a longtime acquaintance of Monika’s.
* Several longtime musician friends cut Monika off cold, There have been threats against her livelihood as a violin teacher.
* The Green Party was in a panic. The office of Leader Elizabeth May, a friend of Monika’s, was in a tizzy and promised that she would be expelled. [Ironically, Monika had quit the party more than a year before over Zionist influence within a group that prides itself on “telling truth to the powers that be”.]
* Monika, ever the community activist, had lobbied for several years for the town to permit busking; that is, musicians can perform in parks or on sidewalks and receive donations from passersby. This Spring the town council approved busking. Monika applied for a permit and was turned down. Dave Baker, Director of Habitat for the Arts, told her:“We have considered your application for a busking permit in Jasper. In light of your recently publicly proclaimed non-inclusive beliefs we have decided to decline a permit to you at this time” “Non-inclusive beliefs”? Any belief is “non-inclusive” as it rejects other beliefs. If you’re a Buddhist, you reject Islam, and are, therefore, “non-inclusive.” The charge is Orwellian and nonsensical.

CAFE’S RESPONSE: Throughout her ordeal CAFE and our supporters have rallied to Monika’s defence on the Internet, with letters to the offending parties, with videos — thanks Brian and Lawrence. We are getting the story of her case out there on You Tube. CAFE organized a quick tour of Ontario (London and Toronto) in August; we have more meetings planned for Vancouver and Edmonton over the next few weeks. Needless to say, this costs money.
 

Arthur Topham & Radicalpress.com — Constitutional Challenge to be Heard Oct. 3-7 in Quesnel

One of the most pressing cases is Arthur Topham’s “hate law” — Sec. 319 —  case resulting from postings on his website Radicalpress.com. Last November, after a 12 day trial, a jury convicted him on one count of “hate” and acquitted him on another. Now comes the second phase — his challenge to the constitutionality of the “hate law”. In the Keegstra appeal in 1990 argued by the late Doug Christie, the Supreme Court by a narrow margin upheld the constitutionality of the “hate law”, agreeing that it was an infringement on free speech but was justified because of the allegedly deleterious effects of “hate propaganda” on “vulnerable minorities.” Arthur is arguing that the context is different. Mr. Keegstra had a captive audience in an Alberta classroom. As Doug Christie argued, the Internet is a completely different context. People have to seek out the posts on a website and can exit at any time. Also, evidence presented by Dr. Persinger at the Marc Lemire Internet Sec. 13 case established that the science which the Supreme Court relied on in 1990 was junk science. Neuropsychology has established that the alleged effects of “hate speech” on “vulnerable” minorities — fear, depression, withdrawal from society, booze, drugs — do not exist. Indeed, many of the “vulnerable” minorities, especially Jews and the LGBTQ crowd, hold privileged and powerful positions in society. This challenge is crucial.

CAFE’S RESPONSE: From the start, we have backed Arthur’s principled struggle for free speech. We were an intervener in the Sec. 13 Canadian Human Rights case — abandoned after the law was repealed in 2012. When “hate charges” were laid after complaints by Harry Abrams of B’nai Brith and Richard Warman, neither of whom bothered to show up at the trial their mischief-making had set in motion, CAFE has been actively involved in Mr. Topham’s defence. We have helped raise money. Last Fall, I provided daily e-mail and short video reports on the trial. I shall again be attending the proceedings in Quesnel and providing daily reports. If you are not already on my e-mail list and want to receive these reports, contact me at paul@paulfromm.com.
 

Brian Ruhe Loses Two More Teaching Jobs

Brian Ruhe, a gentle Buddhist instructor and lecturer on meditation in Vancouver, now turned prolific revisionist videographer has, over the past year, lost a number of part-time lecturing positions at Vancouver area universities, colleges and school boards. He has been the victim of a campaign headed by B’nai Brith’s Harry Abrams who publicly proclaimed his desire effectively  to impoverish Mr. Ruhe and deny him an income. Abrams wrote to Georgia Straight (August 28, 2015): “I have written to the Vancouver parks Board and have asked them to replace this unsavory fellow ASAP. According to Ruhe’s own postings, his Capilano teaching gig was discontinued soon after an important local [Jew] o complained to them too. Also worrying are his associations with white supremacist leaders like Paul Fromm, who himself was disqualified from teaching in Ontario for neo-Nazi racial activism.”  The price for dissenting from political correctness would seem to be penury. As we go to press, Brian has been  fired by the Delta School District.  Reasons provided by the Board state: “ The YouTube videos compiled under your name present a very public expression of conduct that runs contrary to the policies and values of Delta School District. … As well, Delta School District’s Values statement, part of its overall Vision statement, is ‘Caring, Respect, Responsibility, Community, and Excellence’, with ‘acceptance’, ‘equality’, and ‘inclusion’ key terms within that statement.” Apparently, acceptance and inclusion do not apply to accepting and continuing to include Brian, despite a successful 15-year track record with the Board.

CAFE’S RESPONSE: CAFE has written numerous letters of support for Brian through his long battle. We have offered advice and have co-produced numerous You Tube videos with this personable and talented videographer.

McCorkill Defeat

The McCorkill will case was one of the most important ones in which CAFE’s been involved. The McCorkill will — a bequest to the U.S. White nationalist National Alliance — was nullified  by the New Brunswick Court of Queen’s Bench in 2014. We appealed to the New Brunswick Court of Appeal. In a dismissive, contemptuous one page decision, in 2015, they denied our appeal and slapped us with $9,000 in costs to the various parties. We took a chance and risk and sought leave to appeal this vital freedom of speech, freedom of belief and property rights case to the Supreme Court of Canada. On June 9, in a decision without reasons, a three-person panel of the Court denied us leave and slapped us with costs — about $6,000. All I can say is that we tried  hard and had a very well-prepared and aggressive lawyer, Andy Lodge of St. John, New Brunswick. That leaves us with almost $35,000 in unpaid bills.

CAFE is moving with the times and producing several You Tube videos monthly on  free speech issues.

None of this work  can continue without your help.

Please use the attached coupon to send us your most generous donation to help fund our Fall activities. For a donation of $100 or more we’ll send you the dvd of Monika Schaefer dynamic speech (and fiddle playing) at the CAFE meeting in Toronto, August 23.

As well, if you have not already renewed your subscription ($15) to the Free Speech Monitor, please do so.CAFE’s 34 years of free speech activism have only been possible because of the generosity of a small band of free speech supporters like yourself.
 
Thanking you in advance,

Paul Fromm

[Mail in your donation by mail or use PayPal on the CAFE website: http://cafe.nfshost.com.]

CAFE, Box 332, Rexdale, Ontario, M9W 5L3

___    Here is my donation of $_______ to help CAFÉ’s ambitious campaign for free speech to support Arthur Topham and other censorship victims this Autumn.
___ We fought the good fight but were stymied by the Supreme Court. Here is my donation to help defray the costs of the McCorkill Appeal.
___Please renew my subscription for 2016 to the Free Speech Monitor ($15).
$___  Doug Christie booklet or video order from back of this coupon.

Please charge ______myVISA#____________________________________________

Expiry date: __________ Signature:_________________________________________________

Name:_____________________________________________________
Address: _________________________________________________________

Email______________________________

Doug Christie Free Speech  Booklets

For 30 years, Doug Christie, the Battling Barrister, has been Canada’s outstanding free speech attorney. He passed away of liver cancer, all too young, on March 11, 2013  at age 66. Order his outstanding free speech booklets published in C-FAR’S Canadian Issue Series and speeches he gave over the years.
__ The Zundel Trial & Free Speech by Douglas Christie (1985) $4.00
__  Thought Crimes Trial: The Keegstra Case by Douglas Christie (1987) $4.00
__   Free Speech IS the Issue by Douglas Christie  (1990) ($5)
___ Doug Christie –His Last Speech: Free Speech in Canada – Lesbians, Hypocrisies& Contadictions. DVD.  Toronto, December 2, 2012. $20.00
___ How I Became A Revisionist Film Maker And Lost A Lot of Jobs by Brian Ruhe. Toronto, June 30, 2016. $6.00

[Tick booklets or tapes or dvds you want here and indicate the number and enter dollar amount on the other side of this coupon.]

 

Paul Fromm — Free Speech in Justin Trudeau’s Soft Dictatorship

Posted on by

Paul Fromm — Free Speech in Justin Trudeau’s Soft Dictatorship

The Canada Canadian Association for Free Expression Proudly Presents
 
Paul Fromm
 29:01

Director, Canada First Immigration Reform Committee

Winner of the George Orwell Free Speech Award,

Free Speech in Justin Trudeau’s Soft Dictatorship

· Kicked off Parliament Hill

· YOUR WARD NEWS editor & publisher banned from sending or receiving mail

· Supremos Won’t Hear McCorkill Case (bequests to groups whose views are “contrary to public policy” vulnerable)

· The transgendered and sexually screwed up – yet another group you soon will not be able to criticize.

 

Inheritance Rights Attacked: McCorkill Case Lost

Posted on by
Inheritance Rights Attacked: McCorkill Case Lost
 
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eQ1634BmFI
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EaM3woqKqag
 
 
Paul Fromm explains how free speech and property rights took another hit at the hands of the Supreme Court of Canada in not hearing an appeal in the McCorkill inheritance and free speech case, which he discussed in previous videos with the host, Brian Ruhe. Paul is Director, Canadian Association for Free Expression and Winner of the George Orwell Free Speech Award, 1994.
 
 
 
 
Donations to offset CAFE’s legal costs can be sent by PayPal to
cafe.nfshost.com
 
Paul Fromm explains how they lost the McCorkill inheritance and free speech case, which he discussed in previous videos with the host, Brian Ruhe. Paul is Di…
YOUTUBE.COM

Donations to offset CAFE’s legal costs can be sent by PayPal to
cafe.nfshost.com

Update on McCorkill Case where Judge can Throw Out Your Will for Giving to Politically Incorrect Causes

Posted on by

Preview YouTube video Update on McCorkill Case where Judge can Throw Out Your Will


This is the first video in the history of planet Earth where Paul Fromm and Brian Ruhe made a long distance video by Skype, on June 4, 2016. Paul has been the director of the Canadian Association for Freedom of Expression (CAFE) since 1983 and this is the next in a series of videos on the McCorkill case.

CAFE, Box 332, Rexdale, Ontario, M9W 5L3

__ Here’s my special donation of _____ to help CAFE pay off its legal bills in theMcCorkill Will Appeal which is now awaiting “leave” from the Supreme Court,
__ Here’s my donation of ____to help CAFÉ’s support the victims of state censorship, especially Arthur Topham.
__ Please renew my subscription for 2016 to the Free Speech Monitor ($15).
Please charge______ my VISA/Mastercard#_______________________________________
Expiry date: ______ Signature:__________________________________________________

Name:______________________________________________________________________
Address:_________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________ _____

Email___________________________________

OR, visit CAFE`s website and donate by PayPal. http://cafe.nfshost.com

Canada’s Cultural Marxist Courts Strike Another Blow Against Property Rights and Freedom of Speech and Belief

Posted on by

Canada’s Cultural Marxist Courts Strike Another Blow Against Property Rights and Freedom of Speech and Belief

 
Canada’s increasingly culturally Marxist and interventionist courts have just struck another blow against property rights, freedom of speech and freedom of belief. Apparently, by public policy, Canada is homosexual and anti-White. If you don’t buy into this revolutionary ideology, you may not be able to leave money to advance the views you do believe in.
 
The National Post (February 22, 2016) reports: “An Ontario judge has struck down a deceased doctor’s attempt to set up university scholarships exclusively for white, single and heterosexual students, ruling the unusual stipulations clash with ‘public policy.’ Dr. Victor Priebe’s trustee should ignore the discriminatory directions his will set out for the proposed bursary, said the Superior Court of Justice decision. ‘Although it is not expressly stated by Dr. Priebe that he subscribed to white supremacist, homophobic and misogynistic views … (the will’s statements) leave no doubt as to Dr. Priebe’s views,’ said Justice Alissa Mitchell.

Despite the judge’s abusive verbiage, the late doctor seemed only to want to favour his own kind — White heterosexuals. There are all sorts of scholarships designated for Indians, Jews, Catholics, Blacks. Apparently, under the present judicial tyranny favouring one’s own kind — if you’re White and straight — with your own money is the only choice that is “contrary to public policy.”

The National Post article continues: “A 2014 ruling similarly halted a New Brunswick man’s bequest of $200,000 to an American neo-Nazi group, …But judges can curb Canadians’ freedom to direct their financial legacy only when the transgression is blatant, said Laura Cardiff, a Toronto lawyer who specializes in estate cases. …  ‘It’s the ‘safety’ of the state that (has to be) at risk, and it’s a universally recognized risk, not just that a few people might disagree with what this person is doing.'”

“The safety of the state at risk” if a few heterosexual Whites get bursaries to study science? It’s preposterous!

“Royal Trust Corp., the trustee, had asked the court for direction on whether it had to follow Priebe’s instructions. Its lawyer did not comment on the decision. Ontario’s Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee had intervened to urge that the will’s contentious parts be removed. One of the office’s roles is to oversee charitable gifts, and it’s well-established that those gifts cannot violate the Ontario Human Rights Code, said Brendan Crawley, a spokesman.

Priebe died a year ago at age 83, 20 years after he had retired as a radiologist at Windsor’s Hotel Dieu Hosptial. He was also a partner in Windsor Radiological Associates. Priebe’s will asked the trustee to set up bursaries for students planning studies in science, including medicine, genetics, biology, chemistry, physics and pharmacology.

It said one should be directed to ‘Caucasian (white), male, single, heterosexual students,’ while the other should be reserved for a ‘hard-working, single Caucasian white girl who is not feminist or lesbian.’

But Priebe may have gotten the last word. Another provision in his will said the bursaries would be cancelled if a court voided the controversial provisions.”

So, there will be no bursaries.

Sadly, we told you so. When CAFE intervened in the McCorkill case — misleadingly referred to in the National Post article, we warned that efforts to nullify Prof. McCorkill’s bequest to the  White Nationalist (not “neo-Nazi”) National Alliance as contrary to public policy was dangerous, an affront to property rights and freedom of belief and would open the door to further judicial meddling and second guessing. No, it was argued by the Attorney General of New Brunswick arguing for nullification,this would be a once in a generation event. Parroting the government party line, the judgement by the Court of Queen’s Bench said much the same thing.

But within months there was the Spence case in Ontario. “”A Newmarket, Ont., judge made legal history this week by overturning a man’s last will and testament because his deathbed pleas were overtly racist. Judge C.A. Gilmore overturned Jamaican-born Rector Emanuel (Eric) Spence’s will, because he had disinherited a daughter who gave birth to a white man’s child. It is the first known example of a judge nullifying an entire will on the grounds that the motivations of the dead offended ‘public policy.’ Mr. Spence, who died alone in 2013, disowned his daughter when he found out she was carrying the infant. Instead, he left $400,000 to another daughter whom he barely knew in the U.K., largely out of anger and spite.” (National Post, January 29 , 2015) The Post was wrong. Seven months earlier, Mr. Justice Grant in New Brunswick had nullified the bequest of Robert McCorkill to the U.S.-based National Alliance as being “contrary to public policy”!

If You Believe in A Peron’s Rights To Bequeath His Money According to Their Beliefs, CAFE Needs Your Help!

Now, more than ever, we need your help. CAFE has sought leave to appeal the McCorkill decision to the Supreme Court of Canada. This is ferociously expensive. The case has already cost us over $60,000. We urgently need your help

Check out CAFE’s website http://cafe.nfshost.com. You can e-mail a credit card donation to me paul@paulfromm.com or send a cheque or credit card particulars to:

CAFE,

P.O. Box 332,

Rexdale, ON.,

M9W 5L3,

CANADA.

Paul Fromm.

Director

CANADIAN ASSOCIATION FOR FREE EXPRESSION.

 

National Post

Dr. Victor Priebe in an undated photo.

HandoutDr. Victor Priebe in an undated photo.

An Ontario judge has struck down a deceased doctor’s attempt to set up university scholarships exclusively for white, single and heterosexual students, ruling the unusual stipulations clash with “public policy.”

Dr. Victor Priebe’s trustee should ignore the discriminatory directions his will set out for the proposed bursary, said the Superior Court of Justice decision.

“Although it is not expressly stated by Dr. Priebe that he subscribed to white supremacist, homophobic and misogynistic views … (the will’s statements) leave no doubt as to Dr. Priebe’s views,” said Justice Alissa Mitchell.

Her decision invoked a little-known legal principle — stemming from an 80-year-old Supreme Court of Canada judgment — that allows courts to quash people’s final wishes if they clearly offend the interests of the state.

People are allowed to be eccentric

A 2014 ruling similarly halted a New Brunswick man’s bequest of $200,000 to an American neo-Nazi group, while a 2009 Nova Scotia judgment blocked a will that said the deceased’s property could be sold only to Anglicans or Presbyterians.

But judges can curb Canadians’ freedom to direct their financial legacy only when the transgression is blatant, said Laura Cardiff, a Toronto lawyer who specializes in estate cases.

“People are allowed to be eccentric,” she said. “It’s fairly stringent, these requirements. It’s the ‘safety’ of the state that (has to be) at risk, and it’s a universally recognized risk, not just that a few people might disagree with what this person is doing.”

Royal Trust Corp., the trustee, had asked the court for direction on whether it had to follow Priebe’s instructions. Its lawyer did not comment on the decision.

Ontario’s Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee had intervened to urge that the will’s contentious parts be removed. One of the office’s roles is to oversee charitable gifts, and it’s well-established that those gifts cannot violate the Ontario Human Rights Code, said Brendan Crawley, a spokesman.

Priebe died a year ago at age 83, 20 years after he had retired as a radiologist at Windsor’s Hotel Dieu Hosptial. He was also a partner in Windsor Radiological Associates.

Priebe’s will asked the trustee to set up bursaries for students planning studies in science, including medicine, genetics, biology, chemistry, physics and pharmacology.

It said one should be directed to “Caucasian (white), male, single, heterosexual students,” while the other should be reserved for a “hard-working, single Caucasian white girl who is not feminist or lesbian.”

Administrators of the scholarship should make sure yearly that the students remained single, said the will.

He had a rather unique personality

There were other odd stipulations, too, such as that the male bursary should not go to anyone who plays inter-collegiate sports, and that the recipient should ideally demonstrate “they are not afraid of hard manual work in their selection of summer employment.”

In ruling last week that those specifications contravened public policy, Justice Mitchell cited a 1990 case where a bequeathed scholarship available only to white people of British origin was successfully challenged as discriminatory.

But Priebe may have gotten the last word. Another provision in his will said the bursaries would be cancelled if a court voided the controversial provisions.

One long-time acquaintance said she was “a little bit surprised” at the bigotry in his final testament.

“But he had a rather unique personality,” said the acquaintance, who asked not to be quoted by name because of the “awkward” situation. “He certainly was a strong-minded individual.”

Priebe’s obituary in the Windsor Star makes no mention of any spouse or children, saying he was predeceased by his parents and sister, had founded a photography club and enjoyed spending time in local public libraries.

One of his cousins said in a brief email exchange that she had only met Priebe once, in 1960 at her own father’s funeral, and exchanged the odd Christmas card.

“I don’t know anything about him, his friends or acquaintances,” she said.

The underlying case law that doomed Priebe’s posthumous plans dates from 1938, when the Supreme Court was asked to rule on a will that set up a sort of “baby derby,” bequeathing money to the woman who had the most babies within a certain period of time. The judges approved that idea, but said courts could step in when provisions were clearly offensive to public interests, said Ms. Cardiff.

CAFE Seeks Leave to Appeal McCorkill Decision to the Supreme Court of Canada: Free Speech, Freedom of Belief & Property Rights at Stake

Posted on by

 

CAFE Seeks Leave to Appeal McCorkill Decision to the Supreme Court of Canada: Free Speech, Freedom of Belief & Property Rights at Stake

KELOWNA, BC., August 25, 2015. Paul Fromm, Director of the Canadian Association for Free Expression announced today that CAFE had,  instructed its lawyer Andy Lodge of St. John to seek leave from the Supreme Court of Canada to appeal against decision of the New Brunswick Court of Appeal nullifying the bequest of the late Robert McCorkill to the U.S. National Alliance.

“The July 30 decision by the Court of Appeals was dismissive and failed to deal with the substantive arguments and submissions both by CAFE’s lawyer and John Hughes, counsel for the  executor of the estate. In the end, there was no legal precedent for scrutinizing the character of the recipient,” Mr. Fromm said. “This case is crucial for freedom of belief, freedom of speech and property rights,” Mr. Fromm added.

The Court of Appeals decision was short and uninformative.

The brief two paragraph decision concluded: “Having regard to the application judge’s comprehensive reasons and his determination that  the bequest was void as it was against public policy, we can find no justification to interfere. We are in substantial agreement with the essential reasons of the application judge.”

The final paragraph then slapped CAFE with $3,000 in costs ($9,000 total) to each of the parties supporting the nullification of the will on the grounds it was against public policy.

The bequest was deemed “contrary to public policy” because of the politically incorrect ideas of the National Alliance, racial views which are entirely legal in the U.S. where the NA is headquartered.

“After extensive consultations with our supporters in Canada and the U.S., CAFE decided to take this very costly step and seek leave of the Supreme Court to appeal this horrific decision which stomps on free speech and property rights,” said Mr. Fromm.

The Supreme Court grants leave in about only 10 per cent of cases. “However, ” said Mr. Fromm, “this case is of national importance. Its opens the door to endless litigation whenever a bequest is made to a controversial person or organization. It nixes the right of a person to dispose of his property as he sees fit.”

“We were assured by the lawyer for the Attorney General of New Brunswick during the original application that this was a once in a lifetime decision.”

Yet, Mr. Fromm noted, just eight months later, in the Spence case,  an Ontario judge tossed out a will where a Negro preacher disinherited a daughter who had a mixed-race child in favour of her sister who had adhered to her father’s racial views.

The executor for the estate is now appealing this decision.

“This is one of the most serious cases in which CAFE has ever been involved,” said Mr. Fromm. “However, freedom of belief, freedom of expression and property rights are on the line. In the words of Martin Luther, ‘Here I stand, I can do no other, so help me God. Amen.” (Hier stehe ich. Ich kann nicht anders.)

____________________________________________________________

This appeal is a huge and costly undertaking. CAFE needs your support urgently.

CAFE, Box 332, Rexdale, Ontario, M9W 5L3

 

__   I believe property rights and the right of freedom of belief and freedom of expression are worth fighting for. Here’s my special donation of _____  to help  CAFE appeal the nullification of the the McCorkill will’s bequest to the National Alliance  to the Supreme Court of Canada.

__  Please renew my subscription for 2015 to the Free Speech Monitor ($15).

Please charge______ my VISA/Mastercard#___________________________________________________________________________

Expiry date: ______ Signature:_______________________________

 

Name:__________________________________________________

Address:________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________Email___________________________________

 

Court of Appeals Reserves in Crucial McCorkill Appeal: Key Free Speech & Property Rights on the Line

Posted on by
Court of Appeals Reserves in Crucial McCorkill Appeal: Key Free Speech & Property Rights on the Line
Fredericton, New Brunswick. June 18, 2015. A three judge panel of the New Brunswick Court of Appeals reserved its decision in the McCorkill Will appeal. Panel chairman Judge Kathleen Quigg said: “We are going to try to do it as quickly as possible but it also must be translated (into French). It will take a couple of months.” Experienced court observers predicted a six month wait for the decision.
 
“This case is crucial for freedom of speech and freedom of beliefs and for property rights in Canada,” said Paul Fromm Director of the Canadian Association for Free Expression in a statement before the appeal began.
 
The late chemistry professor William McCorkill left the bulk of his estate consisting of old artifacts and rare coins, variously estimated at between $150,000 and a million dollars, to the U.S.-based White nationalist National Alliance. The will was probated in 2013. When the information became public, a Montgomery based censorship group called the Southern Poverty Law Center complained that the bequest would revive Nazism. The SPLC had no standing in Canada, but Ottawa lawyer, copious human rights complainant and loud anti-racist Richard Warman took up the cry and announced the will should be nullified as the bequest was “contrary to public policy.” Isabelle McCorkell *yes, different spelling), the long estranged sister of Robert McCorkill, who had taken no part in the nine year probate proceedings emerged and made an application to nullify the will on the grounds, get this, that it was “contrary to public policy.” Quickly the Attorney General of New Brunswick, the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs and the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith intervened in support of this brazen attack on property rights. The Canadian Association for Free Expression intervened to support the lawyer for the trustee, John Hughes of Moncton, and to support freedom of belief, freedom of speech and property rights, specifically, the right of a testator to direct his estate as he sees fit.
 
The application was heard in January, 2014. In June, 2014, in a surprise decision, Mr. Justice William Grant nullified the bequest on the grounds that it was “contrary to public policy.”
 
The bulk of the work of an appeal is in the written submissions presented to the Court. The actual appeal hearing allows each party to highlight their best arguments and the judges to question and challenge these arguments.
 
CAFE’s lawyer Andy Lodge explained: “We are here today because the Court of First Instance found the National Alliance, the beneficiary of the the gift to be unworthy. This is a ground breaking precedent. There are no conditions in the bequest. Some of the evidence in the affidavits [there was no viva voce testimony] was double hearsay. There was no previous case law to rely on. The goals and objectives of the National Alliance should not be in question.
 
Mr. Lodge was repeatedly interrupted by questions from Judge Alexandre Deschenes.
 
Mr. Lodge continued: “The public policy grounds have generally been a last resort in an effort to invalidate a bequest. There has been much discussion about the activities, communications and character of the National Alliance. the test should be McCorkill.” He gave this bequest with no strings or directions attached. “Giving a bequest to a group some find objectionable is not contrary to public policy. It is difficult to evaluate the character of a beneficiary. This could be a very, very slippery slope, It will shift estate litigation to evaluating beneficiaries. You step away from the conditions, if any, imposed by the testator. How is a court to evaluate how an organization might spend the money. This decision opens that door.”
 
Chairman Justice Quigg wondered: “:Just because it’s new law, just because we have no jurisprudence to rely on doesn’t mean we can’t go forth. There’s legislation against the dissemination of hate propaganda. There could be a link here between the National Alliance and dissemination.”
 
Then joining the battle of behalf of CAFE was Mr. Lodge’s associate Jean-Yves Bernard. “Is it to be against public policy to give a bequest to a group or person of bad character?” he asked. Mr. Justice Grant is creating new law.” The ruling, he added, “creates a problem for estate law, as we must now look at the character of the beneficiaries, their worthiness. It brings ambiguity into estate law.”
 
“These cases would be very rare,” Judge Quigg suggested.
 
The Grant ruling  has created “a sliding scale. It makes estate matters very unpredictable,” Mr. Bernard added. “Untiol now a testator could dispose of property as he saw fit, unless he imposed a codicil that was illegal” — like a New Brunswick will, frequently cited in this case,  where the testator wanted his four horses shot.. The Charter supports freedom of belief and the right to support a belief with a bequest.  Already this case has inspired Spence v BMO using ‘public policy’ to state we should write someone into a will because the testator wrote someone out of the will on racial grounds.”
 
Next, John Hughes of Moncton, lawyer for the Trustee or Executor of the Estate, weighed in to support CAFE. “The International Boundary separates the U.S. from Canada,” he explained. The McCorkill will makes a bequest in New Brunswick but the proceeds go to a beneficiary in the United States.”
 
Frederick Fromm's photo.
CAFE Director Paul Fromm with John Hughes, lawyer for the
Trustee of the McCorkill Estate, Provincial Court of Appeal,
Fredericton, NB., June 18, 2015.
 
 
 
“I labour under a restriction because of a lack of funds due to a Court injunction  freezing the funds of the estate. “This injunction has crippled the ability of the estate to defend itself and has caused the abandonment of one of the Estate’s appeals.”
 
 “The beneficiaries are in the U.S. and this raises the question of ‘public policy.’ Whose public policy? There is no evidence that the National Alliance was ever cjarged or convicted in either Canada or the U.S. The National Alliance in the U.S. is protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution.” And, he added, former N.A. Chairman Erick Gleibe stated in his affidavit that the organization has no activities in Canada. “How can a Canadian Court deny a bequest to a U.S. citizen or group?” he demanded. “This is extraterritoriality.”
 
He then turned his guns on the mischievous organization behind this raid on the estate. “The outrage of minorities to this bequest is irrelevant. this estate is being sent to the United States. The Southern Poverty Law Centre is the puppet master behind this case. The League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith [which has since withdrawn from the appeal] in its submissions made clear references to SPLC’s website.”
 
One of the interveners, he added, “went into a rant against Mr. Fromm and CAFE which I objected to as irrelevant.”  He observed that the SPLC separates its contributors from tens of millions of dollars to enrich itself. The Attorney General has been led down the garden path. The SPLC has enlisted law enforcement agencies and seems to have sold a bill of goods to the new Brunswick Attorney General,” he charged. “And the puppet master role of the SPLC seeks to manipulate the Court of New Brunswick. The Wills Act, Sec. 24(2) of New Brunswick holds that a testator may will his bequest as he sees fit. His failure to note this was an error on Judge Grant’s part,” he argued. “the will, therefore, has legal protection in New Brunswick.”
 
In his decision, Judge Grant “characterized the National Alliance as unreservedly criminal,” Mr. Hughes said. “However, we have a special obligation to our own race, to improve its prospects. It is not racism. There was  no evidence of the National Alliance operating in New Brunswick. Yet, Judge Grant points to the participation of the Attorney General of New Brunswick as an intervener to protect the people of New Brunswick.”
 
Further, Mr. Hughes argued, “there is no evidence of National Alliance Internet dissemination in Canada. Therefore, Judge Grant had to jurisdiction to make the findings he did. Groups that don’t value White survival have criticized the National Alliance.”
 
In response to criticisms of National Alliance founder William Pierce’s fictional writings — The Turner Diaries and Hunter — and ther violence associated with race war in those pages, Mr. Hughes argued: “Where would Hollywood or pulp fiction be without fictional violence. Dr. Pierce’s goal in writing was the preservation of the White Race.”
 
“To render a judgement against a group from another country because of its character is an insult to the U.S.,” he added.
 
“Where do we get the authority our own public policy” to a U.S. group?”  Mr. Justice Deschenes asked.
 
Continuing, Mr. Hughes said: “The Executor has asked me to express the point that. Justice Grant may have been biased” in freezing the assets of the Estate and money due the National Alliance and my accounts. He could have entertained a review of the passing (or unfreezing of the assets) of my accounts, but he postponed it until after this appeal.” The lack of funds had restricted Mr. Hughes ability to act.
 
Next came those arguing against the appeal. Mr. Justice Deschenes observed: “Promoting the White Race is not necessarily detrimental.”
 
Arguing for the Applicant Isabelle McCorkell, Marc-Antoine Chiasson insisted: “Promoting the White Race if it is the majority, is detrimental to minorities.” Admitting that such brazen court intervention to nullify a will as contrary to public policy had little precedent, he said: “To suggest that because it’s a novel idea doesn’t mean the courts shouldn’t intervene. This Court is absolutely able and should intervene. There is evidence that the National Alliance is a White supremacist organization. Public policy is that hate propaganda and hate groups offend public policy. So, therefore a gift to the National Alliance offends public policy. Mr. Chiasson then contended that advocating for “White living space flies fully in the face of  public policy.’
 
“Why can’t Mr. McCorkill make a gift to an organization that is functioning legally in the United States without impediment?” Mr. Justice Deschenes queried,
 
“International boundaries shouldn’t be an impediment to voiding the will,” Mr. Chiasson responded. Also, “I don’t believe fear of opening the floodgates [to more litigation] is sufficient grounds not to act.”
 
“But there is no precedent on this issue,” Mr. Justice Deschenes interjected.
 
Mr. Chiasson admitted: “There is not.” Then, he persisted: “The impact of this gift flies against public policy. The fact that this gift would help fund a hate group flies against public policy. I ask the Court to dismiss the appeal and we seek costs from CAFE.”
 
Arguing for the Attorney General of New Brunswick, Richard Williams admitted: “None of us has been able to find a similar case iin our extensive research, as Mr. Lodge has indicated.. This seems to be the first case of its kind in Canada where a beneficiary’s character is at issue. This is a rare instance. The National Alliance has no redeeming qualities. Even a drug addict is someone’s son.”
 
Almost the last word was left to Mr. Justice Deschenes: “If the National Alliance had been performing illegal acts in the United States, the judge [Grant] and parties would have known about it.”
__________________________________________
 
Please consider making a contribution to help CAFE pay its bills in this crucial appeal defending free speech and property rights.
 

CAFE, Box 332, Rexdale, Ontario, M9W 5L3

 

__   Here’s my special donation of _____  to help  CAFE pay off its legal bills in the McCorkill Will Appeal to be heard in New Brunswick this month.

__   Here’s my donation of ____to help CAFÉ’s support the victims of state censorship, especially Arthur Topham.

__  Please renew my subscription for 2015 to the Free Speech Monitor ($15).

Please charge______ my VISA/Mastercard#_________________________________________

Expiry date: ______ Signature:_______________________________________________

 

Name:__________________________________________________

Address:________________________________________________       _______________________________________________________Email___________________________________

 

Thursday Will Be A Crucial Day for Property Rights & Freedom of Belief

Posted on by

Thursday Will Be A Crucial Day for Property Rights & Freedom of Belief

Canadian Association for Free Expression

Box 332,

Rexdale, Ontario, M9W 5L3

Ph: 905-566-4455; FAX: 905-566-4820

Website: http://cafe.nfshost.com

Paul Fromm, B.Ed, M.A. Director

On Thursday, June 18, the New Brunswick Court of Appeal gets a chance to reverse a lower court decision that seriously infringes on property rights and freedom of belief. Last year, a Court of Queen’s Bench  judge found a U.S. group guilty of thought crimes in Canada, even though they had never been charged, evidence presented, defences mounted or arguments heard. He, then, overturned a will and cancelled a bequest to this group.

CAFÉ is carrying the burden in the battle to reverse a particularly dangerous court decision. Last June, Judge Grant of the New Brunswick Court of Queen’s Bench delivered a breathtaking decision overturning a will with a bequest to a U.S. White Nationalist group on the amazing grounds that it was “contrary to public policy.” The appeal, already delayed once, will be heard in Fredericton on June 18 and CAFÉ, which has fought this battle alone,  owes a pot of money in legal fees.

CAFÉ intervened in the McCorkill will case, beginning  in the summer of 2013. Robert McCorkill, a Canadian  chemistry professor who died in 2004, bequeathed his estate to the National Alliance. The will was probated in May, 2013. Then, the mischief-making, free speech hating Southern Poverty Law Centre in Montgomery, Alabama raised a hue and cry. Ottawa lawyer and frequent human rights and hate law complaint filer Richard Warman proclaimed the bequest “contrary to public policy.” Isabelle McCorkell [yes, different spellings], the long estranged sister of Robert McCorkill, suddenly appeared. Like Warman, she lives in Ottawa. And, although saying she had few resources and lived on $1,000 a month, she retained one of Moncton’s priciest law firms. She obtained an injunction and then filed an application to overturn the will. She was joined by the Attorney General of New Brunswick, the Centre for Israel and Jewish Studies and the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith. CAFÉ intervened on behalf of the executor of the estate.

 

The application was heard in January, 2014 in St. John. The decision came down the same week three Mounties were gunned down in Moncton. Mr. Justice Grant put a shotgun blast through freedom of belief and property rights and overturned the will. All parties, except CAFÉ and the lawyer for the executor, insisted that this was a one-off case. It was not a precedent. Not so. As we reported in the Free Speech Monitor (March, 2015), a Negro preacher who objected to one of his daughters having a child by a White man cut her out of his will. That will was recently overturned because the preacher was deemed to be “racist” and to have discriminated and that such discrimination (with his OWN money) was “contrary to public policy.” The sky is now the limit!

CAFÉ has appealed this appalling precedent. This case is vital to free speech in Canada. We desperately need your help NOW! The appeal has thus far cost us over $30,000 and the bills are not all in. We’ve gone way out on a limb because this case is so very important.

I’ve been in this free speech battle for four decades. We have had some important victories but there have also been defeats. On an ongoing basis, we face efforts by the enemies of free speech to impose their beliefs and throttle dissent, usually using the might of Big Governments and the Court. You and I are dedicated to this precious right of freedom of speech. We’ve taken to heart the late Doug Christie frequent warning: “You only have the rights you’re prepared to fight for.”

Please  send CAFÉ your most generous contribution for the McCorkill Will Appeal.

Sincerely yours,

 

Paul Fromm

CAFE, Box 332, Rexdale, Ontario, M9W 5L3

 

__   Here’s my special donation of _____  to help  CAFE pay off its legal bills in the McCorkill Will Appeal to be heard in New Brunswick this month.

__   Here’s my donation of ____to help CAFÉ’s support the victims of state censorship, especially Arthur Topham.

__  Please renew my subscription for 2015 to the Free Speech Monitor ($15).

Please charge______ my VISA/Mastercard#_________________________________________

Expiry date: ______ Signature:_______________________________________________

 

Name:__________________________________________________

Address:________________________________________________       _______________________________________________________Email___________________________________

Donate & Help Us Preserve Free Speech and Property Rights in Canada

Posted on by

Donate & Help Us Preserve Free Speech and Property Rights in Canada




Click on this link to donate:
https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/m…-ap/x/10233466

The McCorkill Legacy: Can Bequests be Overturned for Ideological Reasons?

Can you bequeath your money to whomever you like? Until last May, that might have seemed a silly question.
However, the enemies of free speech are nothing if not determined and we are living, it seems, in Absurdistan. Last May, the Southern Poverty Law Center, a well-funded rabidly anti-free speech group in the U.S., learned that a retired New Brunswick Professor Robert McCorkill had left his estate to the U.S.-based National Alliance. The SPLC raised the usual howls about “neo-Nazis” and “White supremacists”. Richard Warman, a pal of the SPLC, fumed that such a bequest was contrary to “public policy.” Although the will had been probated, a long estranged sister emerged and obtained an injunction until an application to overturn the will could be heard. Almost overnight, three more parties piled into the fray to try to hijack the will – the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs (successor to the Canadian Jewish Congress), the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith, and the Attorney General of New Brunswick. All sang the same tune: the NA was “racist”; Canada’s public policy is against “racism” (well, except for its 110% support of Israel as a Jewish state) and, therefore, the NA shouldn’t receive the bequest.

The estate’s lawyer, John Hughes of Moncton, who once worked with the late Doug Christie, felt overwhelmed. The right of a person to support the causes he deems fit in his will would seem to be sacrosanct, CAFÉ felt. First, we had to find an attorney in New Brunswick. We were fortunate to find a young, aggressive litigator, Andy Lodge of St. John.
CAFÉ was granted intervener status. CAFÉ filed a motion to strike large sections of the affidavits of the other parties. Many of these affidavits contained rants and opinion, rather than FACTS. The judge ruled in our favour for many of the passages cited.

On June 15, Judge William T. Grant of the Court of Queen’s Bench fired a double-barrelled blast into the guts of freedom of belief, freedom of speech and the right of a man to bequeath his property to a group supportive of his beliefs.

With the swipe of a pen, he overturned a bequest to the White nationalist National Alliance in the will of the late professor of chemistry Robert McCorkill, who died in St. John in 2004. After the will had been probated in May, 2013, the anti-free speech Southern Poverty Law Centre objected and insisted the will should be voided as contrary to the public interest. The SPLC had no standing in Canada, but a long-estranged sister Isabelle McCorkell, although claiming poverty, found a pricey Moncton law firm that made an application on her behalf to nullify the bequest, variously estimated as between $250,000 and $1-million. She was joined by the Attorney General of New Brunswick, the Centre for Israel and Jewish Studies (CIJA), and the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith as interveners.

The application was heard in St. John in late January.

His judgement puts in peril any bequest to a group or maybe even a person whose views are deemed to be “contrary to public policy.”

Judge Grant found: “The purposes of the National Alliance and the activities and communication which it undertakes to promote its purposes are both illegal in Canada and New Brunswick. Consequently, I declare the residual bequest to it in the will of Harry McCorkill to be void.”

Judge Grant noted: “The respondent also submits that the writings of the NA were not in violation of any laws of the United States when they were published. However, they clearly violate the Criminal Code of Canada and this Court takes judicial notice of the fact that in this age of the Internet national boundaries are meaningless for the purposes of spreading hate propaganda such as that disseminated by the NA.”

The ruling is breathtaking in its finding of guilt (of illegality and “hate propaganda”) where no charges have ever been laid. The National Alliance operated in Canada for about a year in the early 2000s. It distributed literature and held small meetings. Yet, it was never charged much less convicted under Canada’s notorious “hate law” or any other law.

Has a New Brunswick court taken us into Alice and Wonderland and the Court of the Red Queen: The verdict is “guilty”; no need for a trial; now on to the sentence!

The judge rejected arguments by CAFE’s lawyer Andy Lodge that overturning the McCorkill bequest would lead to a flood of other such challenges to bequests to any group whose views might seem to be opposed to present government policy: “I, therefore, find that the voiding of a bequest based on the character of the beneficiary is, and will continue to be, an unusual remedy, where, as here, the beneficiary’s raison d’etre is contrary to public policy, it is the appropriate remedy.”

Despite the breezy assurance that voiding the will is only meant to get bad people — the judge found the National Alliance’s publications to be “racist, White supremacist and hate inspired, … disgusting, repugnant and revolting” — one wonders. Canada has abortion on the demand. That’s public policy. Right to Life groups exist to enact laws to control or limit abortion. That’s contrary to public policy. Would a bequest to them be voided? On a larger level, today’s Green, NDP and Liberal Parties, to say nothing of the separatist Bloc Quebecois, advocate positions clearly contrary to many of the ruling government’s public policies. Could bequests to them be ruled similarly illegal?

Indeed, isn’t any political dissent over laws or legislation an expression “contrary to public policy?”

The ruling will significantly diminish the assets of the bequest. Most of the lawyers, however, will do handsomely: “Ms McCorkell is entitled to her costs on a solicitor and client basis from the Estate [and she will get whatever is left of the bequest.] Mr. Streed [the executor] is also entitled to his costs on a solicitor and client basis from the Estate. The Province has not requested costs and CAFE was not successful in its intervention. While the submissions of CIJA and B’nai Brith have both been helpful, their own purposes were also served by intervening. So, I will award them each a lump sum of $3,000 including disbursements to be paid out of the Estate.”

This judgment MUST be appealed. Both the Estate and CAFÉ filed Notice of Appeal in July.This will cost us at least $30,000 and, not to be too coy about it, we need this money now! We must win this case or the right to bequeath your property to whom you will may have to pass the litmus test of political correctness. Because of the malignant role of the SPLC in orchestrating this assault on property rights and freedom of belief, this case could have major implications both in Canada and the U.S.A.

Will you help?

The Canadian Association for Free Expression, founded in 1983, is Canada’s leading free speech advocacy group and has intervened on behalf of victims of censorship from coast to coast.
Make donations to CAFÉ, P.O. Box 332, Rexdale, ON., M9W 5L3, CANADA.[Checks, VISA or Mastercard accepted.]

McCorkill Appeal Delayed as Judge Recuses Herself for Having Accepted Leonard Foundation Scholarship 40 Years Ago

Posted on by

McCorkill Appeal Delayed as Judge Recuses Herself for Having Accepted Leonard Foundation Scholarship 40 Years Ago

Just 48 hours before the New Brunswick Court of Appeals was to hear CAFE’s appeal against the decision of Justice William Grant, one of the three member panel Madame Justice Margaret E. Larlee recused herself. Her reason was that some 40 years ago she’d received a scholarship from the Leonard Foundation which offered assistance to White Protestant applicants.

The appeal is crucial as Justice Grant of New Brunswick’s Court of Queen’s Bench overturned the will of Robert McCorkill who willed the bulk of his estate of old coins ans artefacts to the National Alliance in the U.S. The appeal is vital to freedom of belief and property rights.

In May, 2013, after the anti-free speech U.S. group the Southern Poverty Law Centre (SPLC) protested the bequest, the long estranged sister, Isabelle McCorkell came forth and made an application (nine years after her brother’s death) to have the will overturned, as the bequest to a White nationalist organization was, she argued, “contrary to public policy.” This property rights cancelling argument was raised by Ottawa lawyer Richard Warman who echoed the SPLC complaint. Ms McCorkell was supported by some high powered and well financed interveners, the Attorney-General of New Brunswick, the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs and the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith.

CAFE intervened on behalf of the executor of the estate, “This is a vital freedom of speech, freedom of belief and property rights issue,” says CAFE Director Paul Fromm,.

The decision came down the same week three Mounties were gunned down in Moncton. Mr. Justice Grant nullified the bequest. “He put a shotgun blast through freedom of belief and property rights when he overturned the will,” Mr. Fromm added.

CAFE appealed.

This morning (March 17) the parties were advised: ” The Honourable Madame Justice Larlee has decided to recuse herself from the panel for the Appeal, which is scheduled in the above-noted matter on Thursday March 19, 2015. The matter will therefore need to be rescheduled by the New Brunswick Court of Appeal.”

Somewhat earlier the Court Registrar advised all parties: “This is to inform the parties in this case that in the early 1970’s while a student at UNB Law School Madam Justice Larlee received a Leonard Foundation Scholarship. The Foundation was challenged some 10 years later in The Leonard Foundation Trust case, a case that will be cited in the one under appeal.
If any of you have any misgivings about Madam Justice Larlee sitting on this case because of an apprehension of bias, please inform me immediately so that appropriate steps may be taken.”

CAFE’s lawyer received no notice of any objection.

Lieutenant Colonel Reuben Wells Leonard (1860-1930) was a civil engineer, mine developer, soldier and philanthropist. He saw action in the Northwest Rebellion in 1885 and in World War I. In 1916, he established the Leonard Foundation.

Wikipedia explains: “Under the Leonard Foundation terms, bursaries were made available to students who were white, British subjects, andProtestant and no more than one-quarter of the moneys could be awarded to females. The goal was to provide financial assistance to needy students who showed the promise of becoming leading citizens of the British Empire. A complaint filed against the Leonard Foundation under the Ontario Human Rights Code in 1986 prompted litigation. The Ontario Court of Appeal held in 1990, that the trust’s exclusionary terms relating to race, religion, nationality, and gender were contrary to law.”

CAFE lawyer Andy Lodge of St. John called the decision and timing “extraordinary.”
The appeal will be rescheduled to May or June.