Ezra Levant exposes Justin Trudeau’s final days in office, alleging $272M in foreign aid to Bangladesh and $84M to Syria amid conflicts, while questioning digital vote tampering—97.3% AI likelihood—with 400K registered but only 150K verified voters. A $290M class action lawsuit against Freedom Convoy protesters, led by Zexi Lee, is deemed politically motivated, with April 3rd trials expected to lack Crown evidence. Defendants may push for a Toronto venue, arguing no common issues exist among 25K plaintiffs. Viewers demand declassified Trudeau-China gangster meeting docs and scrutinize Mark Carney’s China ties, suggesting rushed elections to install him before full public review. [Automatically generated summary]
While the world, or at least while Canadians, are focused on the Trump trade wars and the Carney selection, Trudeau's cabinet ministers are raiding hundreds of millions of dollars and shoveling it out the door to their terrorist friends.
I'll show you the news.
But first, let me invite you to become a subscriber to what we call Rebel News Plus.
It's the video version of this podcast.
Today in particular, I want you to see a video from Syria.
It shows you what's going on over there that most of the media is ignoring.
It's eight bucks a month.
Go to RebelNewsPlus.com.
And you don't just get the video content.
You get the satisfaction of helping Rebel News stay strong and independent.
We take no government money and it shows.
Tonight, while Canadians are distracted by the Trump tariffs or the ascent of Mark Carney, Trudeau's worst allies raid the bank.
It's March 13th, and this is the Ezra Levance Show.
Well, it's not a very strong democracy, Canada.
You know, we like to lord it over other countries.
In the third world, obviously, we assume we're better than the Americans.
We don't have the same checks and balances they do.
The parliament has not yet returned.
We're still prorogued.
What's the excuse?
Mark Carney is jetting off to Europe for a one-week junket rather than dealing with the crisis at home.
Trudeau is still jetting around until the last minute.
He's getting as many taxpayer-funded private jet flights in as he could.
Carney's been flying private jets for the past few days too, even before he was sworn in.
I don't quite get that.
Why was he getting all the perks and privileges of being prime minister when he was not that yet?
And he was getting confidential security briefings as well.
By the way, I don't believe the vote that selected him.
I've told you my facts.
I don't know any more facts than what I've told you.
But based on those facts, I do not believe that Mark Carney is the legitimate winner of the liberal vote.
400,000 people registered to vote.
That's what the Liberal Party said.
But only 150,000 of them were verified.
Who were they?
Who were the ones who were disqualified?
We don't know.
And no one in the regime media seems to ask.
The fake debate gave away a lot of it for me.
So obviously collusion.
It was like a simulation of a debate.
And the MP who would have musked things up for them, Ruby Dalla, she was kicked out, but they did take her 350 grand.
But what really did it for me was the extremely unlikely voting results that were far too uniform to be believable.
In every riding, it was the same.
And I checked Christy Freeland's home riding.
Only 188 souls voted for Karina Gould in Burlington, only 180 people.
And Mark Carney loved everywhere.
But equally, in equal measure.
No, I'm sorry, I don't buy it.
And when I asked an AI engine to run different simulations, it said it was 97.3% unlikely, only a 2.7% likelihood that those numbers were untampered with.
But there's no one to complain since all four of the candidates are in it together.
And no journalists would ask, even if they would be granted access to the great man.
You know, China, the People's Republic of China, has expressed its interest in interfering with this very thing.
It's one thing for them to fight battles for nominations for different MPs, but imagine the whole enchilada.
Imagine getting the whole thing by helping to select the prime minister himself.
Yeah.
Hey, I got a question for you.
I mean, I've been involved peripherally in politics for a while when I was much younger.
I actually ran for office.
I don't know if you know that.
I was briefly the Reform Party or the Canadian Alliance candidate in Calgary Southwest before Stephen Harper stepped in.
So I have some experience with voting and scrutineers and checking and double-checking.
You know what a scrutineer is, right?
You have neutral counters, typically working for Elections Canada or Elections Ontario, Elections Alberta, whatever, or some organizations.
And then you have partisans watching the neutral counter, each one making sure that their team doesn't get the short end of a stick.
You literally have everyone watching the count.
I saw that again when I was in Clackton on Sea in the United Kingdom.
That's Nigel Farage's writing when he was elected last July.
It was amazing how much scrutinizing there was.
They counted and recounted till 4 a.m. and everyone knew it was legit.
Hey, I got a question for you.
How do you scrutineer an online vote?
How do you scrutineer 250,000 voters being disqualified?
How do you even go through that?
How do you scrutineer these digital results?
Foreign Aid Scandal00:08:48
And how would you if it's all an inside deal anyways?
Well, yeah, I'm sorry.
I just don't believe it.
But I want to tell you what's going on while we're distracted.
While Justin Trudeau is swanning around the world, I think he's finally gone now.
I'm not sure.
How many goodbye videos has he done?
It's sick.
And I think that by the time, I mean, I don't know exactly.
Actually, it's tomorrow, isn't it?
It's tomorrow that Carney will be sworn in.
While we're focused on those circuses, Trudeau's men know where the.
By the way, right now, Justin Trudeau is still prime minister.
And his men are raiding the bank.
You know, in the United States, they're doing the opposite.
They're locking the safe in the bank.
The Doge, that's the Department of Government Efficiency, led by Elon Musk and his tech bros, are going through all the spending in the United States.
I mean, amazing little anecdotes, like they're paying people Social Security who are allegedly 200 years old, they're still getting paid, or there's more people getting Social Security than there are human beings in America.
Like it's just astonishing statistics.
But they're shutting down waste.
In fact, they're shutting down entire departments and agencies sometimes, including one called USAID, which was a kind of foreign aid.
And as American taxpayers are being relieved of tens or hundreds of billions of dollars, not just in obligations, but in many cases, fraud and abuse and outright theft.
Well, Canada, correction, Justin Trudeau's cronies are raiding the bank even in their last hours.
Look at this story.
This is the global news version.
Canada gives $272 million in aid to Bangladesh, Indo-Pacific, as USAID shuttered.
So do you get that?
Elon Musk is saving Americans billions of dollars.
And Trudeau, and in this case, Ahmed Hassan, are saying, no, no, no, Bangladesh, that's very important to us.
We're big shots.
We're only in power a few more days.
Let's just take the money.
Who's going to stop us?
The media, parliament?
They're still dissolved.
Who's going to stop us?
Let's steal a quarter billion dollars.
Let me read the story.
Canada's Minister of International Development, Ahmed Hassan, unveiled $272.1 million.
I love that 0.1.
In new funding on Sunday for foreign aid projects in Bangladesh and the Indo-Pacific region.
Quote, Canada continues to fiercely strengthen our long-lasting friendship with Bangladesh.
Oh, really?
And the wider Indo-Pacific region with our long-standing people-to-people ties, Hassan said in a statement.
By supporting vulnerable communities, healthcare services, empowering women, and addressing climate change.
So you're just burning them.
Why don't you just take a bale of hundreds and throw it in the bonfire?
We are creating a brighter tomorrow for the global community.
How about the community of Canadian taxpayers?
And this was announced as a counterpoint to the United States.
Quote, the money to be spent alongside contributions from other foreign partners and donors will provide new funding for 14 different projects in Bangladesh and other countries in the Indo-Pacific region.
The federal liberal government's move highlights a dramatically different Canadian approach to foreign development assistance compared to American Republican President Donald Trump's government, which halted funding through the United States Agency for International Development, USAID.
So they're buying nurses in Bangladesh.
Not that we need nurses in Canada.
Let me quote from the press release.
One project, or this is from Global News, one project was described as empowering women in the nursing sector.
It includes a $6.3 million funding boost over three years to Canadian company CoWater International, the government stated.
So more than a quarter billion dollars we will never see again.
As they say, foreign aid is taking from the poor people in one country to give to the rich people in another country.
They're taking the money from Canadians to give to cronies and schemers and consultants in Bangladesh.
Outrageous.
But look at this.
This is from Omar Al-Ghabra.
That's the Islamist extremist who basically was the co-chair, effectively, of Justin Trudeau's campaign back 10 years ago.
I knew him before he was an MP.
He was the head of the Canadian Arab Federation.
He wanted to legalize Hamas and Hezbollah terrorist groups in Canada.
But really, there's no need, is there?
I mean, they're already de facto legal, aren't they?
Here's two Toronto police doing a Toronto police podcast about how the October 7th massacre of Jews actually has a silver lining, guys.
It's funny you say this because, you know, through social media, a lot of people after October 7th started learning about Islam.
They did, yeah.
And they said, okay, what is it with the religion that everyone, why is it so hated?
You know what I mean?
Why are they being attacked all the time?
So people say, you know what, let me learn about Islam.
And there have been a lot of reverts through this whole process.
I couldn't imagine, like, I guess when you're on social media, most of the feeds come through you.
Once you see one, it just keeps coming.
But the amount of people that are that are reverting to Islam is unbelievable.
And they're just, I guess, through education, right?
They're actually educating themselves and saying, what is it that Muslims are being targeted?
And why are they being targeted?
Let me learn about this religion.
What are these accusations that they're saying about Islam?
And let me learn about it myself and figure out, hey, is it actually true or not?
Yeah, and those same police said that you shouldn't criticize pro-Hamas protesters because that's Islamophobic.
Did you see that video too?
And that is something that we celebrate in Canada, the freedom of speech.
However, when we have somebody labeling a certain group as something they're not, all of a sudden now it becomes, and there's an Islamophobic undertone, if someone is calling a Palestinian rally a Hamas rally, then all of a sudden people start getting afraid.
And they think, oh, wow, these are people that support an entity that's been labeled as a terrorist organization.
However, the people that are there protesting, they're there for a different cause altogether.
So then that becomes active discrimination when you classify an entire group with a group that they don't even identify with.
So that's the challenge.
And it creates fear, right?
It creates fear fear within different communities.
Confusion, fear.
Confusion, fear.
And it's fundamental.
Yeah, so no need to legalize Hamas.
sort of been legalized already.
So anyways, Omar Al-Ghabra is back in the news because Trudeau appointed him to be Canada's point man towards Syria.
And of course Syria is now under a, you know, now that they've displaced Bashar Assad, he's being replaced with an Islamic terrorist.
And in the final hours of Trudeau's rule, Omar Al-Ghabra shoveled them some money.
Let me read.
Before I do that, let me show you.
Let me prove to you how horrific the new Syrian terrorist leader is.
Take a look at the ethnic cleansing.
They're specifically targeting Christians, by the way.
Take a look.
Super gross.
Here, let me read Omar Al-Ghabra's tweet.
Today, the government of Canada announced several key measures to help the Syrian people build a stable country that respects all of its citizens.
$84 million in humanitarian aid, easing economic sanctions, restoring diplomatic relations.
hang on they're massacring Christians and Alawites which is another ethnicity and Druze which is another they're massacring them I think they killed over a thousand Christians.
And you're easing sanctions and you're renewing diplomatic relations and you're shoveling them nearly $100 million.
Massacres and Diplomacy00:03:47
They're robbing the bank in their final hours.
But Mark Carney is the same.
Here's his first tweet on foreign affairs.
It has been more than two days that the supply of electricity to Gaza has been cut off.
It must resume.
Essentials, including food, electricity, and medical supplies should never be used as political tools unless you're Doug Ford.
Canada must work with our allies to stand up for international law to promote sustainable peace and security in the Middle East and to support full access to humanitarian aid for Palestinian families.
As this work continues, both parties must work towards the return of all hostages and the completion of the ceasefire agreement.
There is no terrorist group that these people won't support.
Welcome to Mark Carney's Canada.
The same as Trudeau's Canada, but worse.
Stay with us, Moorhead.
If you were to ask me to describe the British justice system, the police, the prosecutions, the courts, the prisons, I would have to answer honestly with the words, it depends.
I mean, it depends who you are.
Not what you did, but who was doing it.
I give you the example of my friend Tommy Robinson, who right now is serving nine months in solitary confinement.
He was actually sentenced to the maximum two years, but the kind of math, you reduce it by a few months there, a few months here, you're out after.
Anyhow, he'll be out in a grand total of nine months, served in solitary confinement, not for any crime.
He hasn't actually been convicted of a crime.
It's a civil offense he did.
He wouldn't take a video down from Twitter.
That's an extremely harsh sentence.
Other than Julian Assange, I don't know of anyone in the world who has spent nine months in solitary confinement.
I don't think it's healthy.
By contrast, thousands of different rape gang members in the United Kingdom, these are men who repeatedly rape young girls again and again in these child exploitation networks.
They're typically sentenced to a couple of years in jail and get out much sooner for a much more heinous crime.
So I say again: you know, where you stand is based on where you sit over there and who you are.
And that's why the British Prime Minister has a nickname.
His name is Keir Starmer, but everywhere he's called two-tier Kier.
And he was even asked about it when he visited the White House.
JD Vance asked him some questions about the state of freedom of speech, and it depends on who you are.
Let me show you a little bit of that exchange.
Take a look.
I said what I said, which is that we do have, of course, a special relationship with our friends in the UK and also with some of our European allies.
But we also know that there have been infringements on free speech that actually affect not just the British, of course, what the British do in their own country is up to them, but also affect American technology companies and by extension, American citizens.
So that is something that we'll talk about today at lunch.
We've had free speech for a very, very long time in the United Kingdom, and it will last for a very, very long time.
Well, no, I mean, certainly we wouldn't want to reach across U.S. citizens, and we don't, and that's absolutely right.
But in relation to free speech in the UK, I'm very proud of our history there.
Yeah, I think it used to be true that the United Kingdom had a lot of free speech, but I think JD Vance is onto something there.
You have free speech if you say the right things.
But of course, that's not free speech at all.
Now, let's transpose that to Canada.
Public Nuisance and Free Speech00:11:52
Do we have two-tier justice in Canada also?
I'd like to think we're not as far down that path as the United States, but sometimes I don't know.
Let me give you the example of the harassment hate marches that the Hamas protesters have done in Canada over the past year and a half.
I'm not just talking about mean words.
I'm talking about actual crimes.
Uttering threats, trespass, mischief, stalking.
I mean, yes, there's hate crimes as well, but I'm not a big fan of those.
But how about the other real crimes?
Have any of them been prosecuted?
I think of how long some of those hate encampments were allowed to fester on university property.
So there was the trespass element too.
And remember, many of those encampments were staffed by non-students.
Compare that.
Compare how police forces in Canada have positively acted as concierges for these Hamas hate protests.
Well, compare that to how the trucker convoy was treated in Ottawa in 2022.
They didn't harass anyone.
They didn't trespass.
What they did do is they had some parking violations and they honked their horns at least until a judge told them to stop.
That's it.
In fact, as you may know, crime in Ottawa went down.
Nonetheless, they were treated not to the concierge-style police service that we've seen for the Hamas protesters, but Justin Trudeau actually invoked martial law using the Emergencies Act for the first time in history.
Like I say, two-tier justice.
Well, is that what's happening now in Ottawa?
Because a group of Ottawa leftists led by a bureaucrat named Zexee Lee have filed a class action lawsuit.
Actually, they filed it a few years ago against Tamara Leach and Chris Barber and the Truckers for a staggering $290 million.
For what?
Was this the greatest bank heist in history?
No, that's how much they claim they and the rest of their class was harmed by the trucks honking their horns for a few days in Ottawa.
Bad news is the federal court, sort of the Court of Appeal of Ontario recently upheld Zexee Lee's right to proceed, denying an application by Chris Barber and Tamara Leach that this was simply a slap suit, a strategic litigation against public participation.
The truckers went to court and said, Your Honor, kick this stuff out.
It's just a censorship action.
And the court said, no, we'll let it proceed.
Johnny is not to talk about it.
He's one of the lawyers on this project.
He's with the Justice Center for Constitutional Freedoms.
His name is James Manson.
It's good to have you back, James.
Thanks for being here.
Hi, Ezra.
Thanks for being here.
Well, you know what?
You guys are fighting the good fight.
We're helping to defend Tamara Leach in the criminal court, but the Justice Center is helping to defend her in the civil court.
Tell us a little bit.
I think we've talked about this before, but not recently.
Maybe recap.
What is this lawsuit about?
Like, how on earth?
Like, $290 million.
I feel like I'm listening to Dr. Evil when he puts his pinky to his mouth and says, billion, a trillion.
I mean, why not ask for a trillion dollars while you're at it?
It's just such a, to me, a laughable answer.
What would Zexie Lee, the Ottawa bureaucrat who's one of the faces of this suit, what would she say has been damaged to the extent that she and her friends get 290 million?
Well, Ezra, I want to, I'm glad you asked, and I want to sort of maybe re-situate this for you.
I'm not sure that the viewers are really aware of how this all started.
Back in 2022, as the Freedom Convoy protest was going on, that's when Ms. Lee started this lawsuit, you know, in the first place.
Originally, this was a much smaller lawsuit.
It was only for about $8 or $9 million, I think, which is a lot, but it's obviously only a small fraction of what it is now.
Anyway, Ms. Lee was the only plaintiff at that time.
It was against a couple of people, a few people, Tamara Leach, Chris Barber, and a few of the other well-known people in Ottawa at the time.
And she was only claiming damages for herself and her, you know, some, I think, her neighbors, the people in her apartment building directly.
It wasn't a very big, you know, area that she was claiming was the subject of a nuisance.
This is all about nuisance.
And again, for the viewers, Ezra, nuisance is all about enjoyment of your property.
You're allowed to enjoy your property in Canada in peace.
And basically, she was saying, look, the horns and the diesel fumes that I'm suggesting were everywhere, she's saying, you know, caused us a nuisance.
All right, she's entitled to, you know, to claim that.
We'll see what happens.
But it was a very small claim comparatively that has since ballooned, exploded into a $290 million Frankenstein, if I could use the term, engaging different classes of plaintiffs.
So now it's not only Zexi Lee and her next door neighbors.
Now it's all the businesses in Ottawa, downtown, who had to close.
Now it's all the employees who worked in a business that couldn't work because the building was closed or the restaurant was closed or whatever.
And it's all the people in the downtown core of Ottawa.
Not just her building, not just her neighborhood.
Everybody in a wide swath, kilometers long, who happened to be there at the time.
And here's the interesting thing, Ezra.
The new version of the claim, I don't know if people are aware.
It says literally, all the people in downtown Ottawa are part of the plaintiffs group, except those who supported the Freedom Convoy.
So apparently, ponking horns and nuisances affect only the people on that side of the political whatever divide and this issue and not the others.
Horns don't apparently affect people who happened to support anti-COVID protests.
I forget the name of the lead lawyer.
He's a real leftist activist.
Do you remember the name of the lead lawyer in this case?
The lead lawyer's name is Paul Champ.
Right.
And he's a hardcore left-wing guy.
This is a feast for lawyers.
Now, I don't think Zexey Lee or her friends have any dough.
I guess class actions like this are usually taken on commission, right?
The lawyer says, I'll put in, you know, lots of work over the course of years.
And if we win, I get a third or a half or whatever.
And they, I guess they have to either just work as volunteers or somehow get some sort of financing.
Do we know anything about financing?
Is this being propped up with some NGO money or even government of Canada money?
We don't know.
We don't know, Ezra.
That might come out later in the piece.
I don't know.
But I think it's important, just since I said later on in the piece, I think it's important for the viewers to understand, right?
Coming back to this decision that we're talking about from the Court of Appeal, this is a temporary decision.
This is a preliminary decision.
It is not the final merit, right?
It is not the Court of Appeal saying, hey, Tamara, hey, Chris, you got to pony up $290 million.
That's not where we are.
We're at the bottom of the first inning in this case.
And this issue with the Court of Appeal that you've flagged for us, Ezra, is really the result or the end result of a preliminary motion that we brought.
Again, you were talking earlier on, just now, Ezra, about the slap litigation.
This is essentially a way that somebody uses to try to shut down somebody else because they don't like what they're saying.
I'm going to sue you into the ground, Mr. Defendant, unless you shut up and keep your mouth shut.
And if you don't, you're going to pay.
Well, that's essentially a slap, strategic litigation against.
And it's so obvious.
I mean, I saw Zexee Lee testify at the Public Order Inquiry Commission.
She couldn't be more of a political activist.
Her lawyer, as you mentioned, Paul Champ, is a radical lefty.
It's so evident to me this is just a punishment lawsuit against Tamira Leech and Chris Barber.
But you're saying the Court of Appeal said, well, no, it may have some elements of that, but there's something underneath it that deserves its day in court.
I think that's what you're saying.
That's right, Ezra.
That's what I'm saying.
And there's a lot of dimensions to this case.
And I don't want to bog everybody down with all the details.
But for example, one of the things we were arguing was that this case engages the concept of a public nuisance.
Okay.
I just want to be technical for a little bit here.
There's a private nuisance in law and there's a public nuisance.
Private nuisance is generally: hey, you can't interfere with me when I'm having a beer in the backyard and I'm trying to barbecue some chicken.
You can't, you know, play your stereo too loud that I'm annoyed.
That's essentially a private nuisance.
I can claim damages from you if the court establishes that you have interfered with my property.
Okay, that's one.
Then there's the other concept of public nuisance, different.
What does that mean?
Well, that means that there's a community-wide issue going on.
For example, the chemical factory on top of the hill is spewing chemicals all over the place and interfering with everybody's rights to enjoy the atmosphere.
Or there's a new runway at the airport and the planes are all coming in and making it impossible for people to enjoy their entire community, things like that.
The reason I bring it up, Ezra, is because public nuisances, generally speaking, are not something that you can sue for.
It's a community-wide thing.
And normally what that means is the attorney general is supposed to be the one acting on behalf of the people who brings that entire claim against the defendant, whoever it is, the runway, the airport, whatever, on behalf of everybody.
And the remedy is not damages.
The remedy is an injunction, generally speaking.
So what we are suggesting, or what we're going to be saying is, to your point, is that in this case, Mr. Champ and Ms. Lee and everybody, they're really putting on the Attorney General's hat in this case.
And they're suggesting, hey, the Attorney General didn't bring a lawsuit, which I guess he could have, or she could have.
They didn't.
So they're suggesting, well, we have the right to, and we should.
They're basically trying to police and enforce what happened.
They're trying to do private prosecution, really.
And by the way, the government threw the Emergencies Act at them, and the federal court said that was illegal and unconstitutional.
They got their tickets for parking.
You know, it's so obviously a political move to me.
And I, again, this is why I started by talking about two-tier justice.
Hey, there's one more thing you said that I just want to jump on.
Sorry to interrupt you.
You said that this is on behalf of businesses and employees.
Common Issues in the Case00:10:30
Look, I was down there for a few days of the truck.
I wasn't there for the whole time, of course, but I was down there for a few days.
And what I observed was twofold.
I observed a ghost town.
There were lockdowns, in effect, and there didn't even have to be because Ottawa is a city of public servants, public servants, government union workers is maybe a more neutral way of putting it.
And they had all been working from home for two years by then.
So the idea that this disturbed business, everyone was at home anyways.
All the shops and coffee shops and restaurants and stores in downtown Ottawa, it was a ghost town because the whole city center was shut down.
In fact, I got to tell you, to this day, there's civil servants who have not returned to their office.
And same thing on the employee side.
I remember going into this little cafeteria, like just a little corner shop sandwich shop in Ottawa, and the elated looks on the owners.
Finally, for the first time in memory, they had customers, happy customers eating and not whining about masks.
So not only was it a ghost town to begin with, but the truckers brought life and business.
Those truckers were buying stuff every day, whether it was sandwiches and coffee or whatever.
I think that this is so patently false.
But what you're saying is that the courts didn't say we're going to side with the plaintiffs on the substance.
You're saying the courts just said, this will have its day in court.
We're not going to throw it out preemptively.
Is that a proper statement of things?
I think that's right, Ezra.
Let's just unpack it a little bit here.
What we're talking about, again, in this motion that we brought before the lower court judge, we were suggesting, hey, this is one of those cases where the plaintiffs are trying to shut down legitimate expression, freedom of expression from the defendants.
This is not good.
It's not on.
You got to toss this.
At least you got to toss some of it.
And why some of it?
Well, look, it's, again, complicated, but one of the things we were saying, for example, was that there wasn't enough evidence filed by the plaintiffs in the motion to get beyond part of the test.
There's a test in the motion.
You got to satisfy the test.
One of the steps is, for example, about the merits.
Is there enough there there, you know, to warrant this going ahead?
Have they filed enough evidence to suggest that, yes, in fact, they're going to win a trial?
This isn't a trial.
It's a bit of a smell test, but nonetheless, you got to put enough evidence in.
We said they didn't.
The court of appeal and the lower court judge said, no, we think they did, basically.
For the purposes of this preliminary motion, we think it's enough.
One of the things we were saying, for example, one of your employees, one of your famous employees, Ezra, his name is Jeffrey Devaney, employee of one of the random restaurants.
He claims he couldn't have, he couldn't work and he wasn't able to work because the restaurant was shut down and therefore he's claiming damages.
Well, anyway, long story short, Jeffrey Devaney didn't file any evidence on this motion.
Zero.
I don't know where Jeffrey is.
I don't know why he didn't file any evidence, but he didn't.
So we said, how can Mr. Devaney be a plaintiff?
How can the court conclude that he's got a good claim if he doesn't even provide one shred of evidence?
And ultimately, the lower court said, and the court of appeal agreed that it was okay.
There was some other stuff in the record that they could point to that was, meh, okay, enough.
We're not going to dismiss it now.
And here's the bottom line, Ezra.
I think that the Court of Appeal just kind of wanted to let this move on to the next step of the proceeding.
They don't want to use this slap mechanism as a very heavy sledgehammer.
They just want to make it a bit more of a swinging gate, if you will.
It's not going to be very hard to get beyond this.
Only very egregious cases will be shut down at this step.
And here's this.
Oh, sorry, go ahead.
No, no, that's I was listening to what you were saying, and I was just thinking that there's a lot of politics in law.
And I was slightly daydreaming because I was thinking about the defendants here, Chris Barber and Tamara Leach, and they are on trial on the criminal side of things.
And that ruling will come out.
I think it's going to be in April 3rd now.
It's supposed to be late March.
It's been delayed a bit.
And I have a good feeling about that criminal trial.
Now, that's a much higher burden of proof.
The prosecutor has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.
And I attended a lot of those days in the court, and there didn't seem to be a lot of evidence that the Crown had at all.
So I am cautiously optimistic that Tamara Leach is going to win that one.
It feels like this is a dying vestige of whiny leftists that, you know, back in 2022, they thought they were winning.
The Emergencies Act, riot horses.
Wow, we're on the hunt.
But now, Emergencies Act tossed out as illegal.
I think Tamara Leach is going to be acquitted.
It really feels like I'm watching a rerun from an earlier era.
This feels like such a nasty political lawsuit.
I don't know.
I'm just sort of frustrated that the Court of Appeal let it go, but I understand the reasoning you've suggested.
What's the next step?
Right, where does this go from here?
So, this right sounds like it will go on the trial.
Yes, what are we looking at?
So, number one, there's going to be another motion.
I don't think it's going to be my clients who will bring the motion.
It might be a couple of the other defendants.
They're probably going to be challenging the venue.
I think they're going to want to try to move the case from Ottawa to Toronto.
I think they're going to want to try to suggest that they might get a more fair hearing in Toronto.
And also, there's a larger team of judges in Toronto with more experience with class actions.
It's a more financial center, you know.
So, that might be a good way, a good reason to move it to Toronto.
We'll see about that.
But here's the important thing, Ezra.
And I think this is what the viewers should look to.
Again, this is a proposed class action.
A class action is a very strange animal.
It's basically where the plaintiff says, Hey, I think there ought to be, you know, tons of plaintiffs here, and the defendant is liable to all of us.
I'm going to stand up for all the people who are like me.
So, the quintessential case, of course, Ezra is like where you have a pacemaker and the pacemaker has been, you know, it's defective, and you have a heart attack.
Some people die, other people don't die, but they have this bad pacemaker, so they might die at any time.
And so, you have to sue the manufacturer of the pacemaker.
Well, you've got thousands and thousands of people that have this pacemaker, some of them don't even know they've got this pacemaker that there's a problem.
But the plaintiff says, I'm going to stand up for all of them, known or unknown.
We're going to do this all for them.
And they go to the pacemaker manufacturer and they say, Hey, you're liable.
Anyway, long story short, Ezra, the viewers will appreciate that there is a very serious issue in those cases.
Is the pacemaker defective or not, right?
And so, you can't have a whole bunch of like thousands of different cases, each one of them with a different result and a different judge and courtroom about whether the pacemaker was or wasn't defective.
That common issue should be decided once and for all, and that makes sense for us, right?
So, the procedure of a class action is: hey, take a look at the case.
Is there a common issue across all the plaintiffs that you need to establish once and for all?
And if that's the case, it makes sense to do it that way-to have a class action.
However, Ezra, think about it in this way: is there a common issue in this case that needs to be decided once and for all?
We know there was honking going on, we know there were fumes, okay, maybe coming out of the trucks when they were running, whatever.
That's not really an issue.
The issue is: did all these plaintiffs, Zexi Lee, and all of her 25,000 friends in Ottawa, did they experience a nuisance?
But nuisances, Ezra, are personal, right?
They're not across the board.
Somebody living in somebody living in Vanier may have a completely different experience than somebody living, you know, in Center Town or wherever Sandy Hill or whatever these neighborhoods were in Ottawa that were affected.
So, ultimately, we're going to be saying that there are no common issues, that this is not a situation.
This ought to be a class action at all, because every person will have experienced the protest differently.
Some people may not have even been there.
Maybe they were in Florida, maybe they're deaf and they can't hear.
I don't know.
Basically, the certification motion, that's what we're driving towards now.
That is where the plaintiffs are going to have to establish that the class action that they claim is viable, is a good idea, because there are common issues that need to be resolved once and for all.
And we're going to, I mean, it's no secret, Ezra.
Like, I can talk about it.
It's no secret.
We're going to be saying there aren't.
There just aren't.
So basically, we're saying that this can't be a $290 million behemoth.
Well, it's ridiculous on the face of it, and everyone knows it.
James, it's great to catch up with you.
Thanks for spending so much time with us today.
Thank you, Ezra.
Cheers.
Anytime.
There you have James Manson of the Justice Center for Constitutional Freedom.
No Secret Plans00:01:25
Stay with us.
More ahead.
Hello, my friends.
Your letters to me on Trudeau meeting with an alleged Chinese gangster.
Tom Salkin says the documents need to be released not just to the RCMP, but to the public via declassification because the RCMP can't be trusted.
Well, for one thing, they kept the secret until Trudeau was gone.
Isn't that crazy?
John Bolt says, we need a new government that immediately institutes a Doge ministry.
You're right.
I'm just worried that there's so many parts of the Canadian establishment, the deep state, that would stop that, whether it's the civil service or the courts or the Senate.
Greg Rosschat says, the question needs to be asked: what are Carney's connections to China?
Well, we are answering, though.
Sheila Gunn Reed, in particular, is building up our Carney files.
So check out her reports elsewhere on our website.
But, oh, of course.
I mean, Carney is an internationalist, a globalist, and he rubs shoulders.
He's in China all the time.
Brookfield is a major investor.
That was the company he chaired, major investor in China.
It's like a mini BlackRock.
I think they're going to rush the election so Canadians are foisted, have Mark Carney foisted on us before we even get to know him.