Message from Christine Foesier:
Dear Honorable Danielle Smith,
I, Christine Foesier, a registered intervener in Proceeding 29924 Requesting Review of AUC’s Decision #28295-D01-2025 Caroline Solar Project, have observed that the AUC seems to be making this review process very complicated for all Parties requesting review. Even the King’s Bench isn’t this complicated!
I would like to point out some information in regards to Section 5.
5 Grounds for review and granting of review
(1) The Commission may grant an application for review of a decision, in whole or in part, where it determines that the review applicant has demonstrated:
(a) The Commission made a palpable and overriding error of fact, or mixed fact and law where the legal principle is not readily extricable, which is material to the decision. An error is palpable if it is obvious and is overriding if it has impacted the result.
(b) There are previously unavailable facts material to the decision, which:
(i) existed before the decision was issued,
(ii) were not placed in evidence or identified in the original proceeding, and
(iii) the review applicant, exercising reasonable diligence, could not have discovered at the time.
(c) There are changed circumstances material to the decision, which occurred since its issuance.
There has been a huge palpable and overriding error of fact, or mixed fact and law where the legal principle is not readily extricable, which is material to the decision:
The major palpable error is the Quasi-Judicial Court AUC is running; which is nothing short of meeting the definition of a “Kangaroo Court” which is only providing the “image” of a fair legal process, while making overriding errors of fact.
AUC Public Administration Officers, who are required to INVESTIGATE facts, or ascertain the existence of facts, and draw conclusions from them, as a basis for their official action, and to exercise discretion of a judicial nature, have completely failed at the requirement to investigate facts or ascertain the existence of facts. AUC public administration officers have failed to acknowledge or provide evidence based facts or provide a legal protection for those directly and adversely affected by this decision, and has made the decision based on a biased and minimal consultation process which omitted facts of truth. There has been a complete disregard not only for public policy and bylaws, but also for human rights and proper due process of law.
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Canadian Bill of Rights both guarantee the right to due process.
Rule of Law: The principle that everyone is subject to the law, including the government, is central to due process.
The real issue at hand here is not the double spacing or maximum 15 pages in a review application or lack of facts or error of facts presented by applicants requesting review. Rather, it is the “Quasi-judicial”- “Kangaroo”- completely biased court that is being run here, and this fact alone makes this whole Decision #28295-D01-2025 palpable and overriding error of fact, or mixed fact and law where the legal principle is not readily extricable, which is material to the decision.
Claims of “climate change” agenda, “economic and population growth”, “tourism growth”, and “in the public interest” is lacking factual evidence, but instead are mere bias and opinion claims of a quasi-judicial system.
According to Black’s Law Dictionary:
QUASI: Lat. As if; as it were; analogous to. This term is used in legal phraseology to indicate that one subject resembles another, with which it is compared, in certain characteristics, but that there are also intrinsic differences between them. It is exclusively a term of classification. Pre-fixed to a term of Roman law, it implies that the conception to which it serves as an index is connected with the conception with which the comparison is instituted by a strong superficial analogy or resemblance. It negatives the notion of identity, but points out that the conceptions are sufficiently similar for one to be classed as the sequel to the other.
JUDICIAL: Belonging to the office of a judge; as judicial authority. Relating to or connected with the administration of justice; as a judicial officer. Having the character of judgement or formal legal procedure; as a judicial act. Proceeding from a court of justice; as a judicial writ, a judicial determination.
QUASI JUDICIAL: A term applied to the action, discretion, etc., of public administration officers, who are required to investigate facts, or ascertain the existence of facts, and draw conclusions from them, as a basis for their official action, and to exercise discretion of a judicial nature.
Due process of law, according to Black's Law Dictionary, refers to the legal concept that the government must respect all legal rights of a person, ensuring fairness and justice in its actions. Essentially meaning, the state must follow all relevant laws and principles in a case to protect individual rights and prevent government overreach.
Due process guarantees that the government will act according to the law, not arbitrarily or unfairly, according to Discover Canada. “Canada’s legal system is based on a heritage that includes the rule of law, freedom under the law, democratic principles and due process. Due process is the principle that the government must respect all of legal rights a person is entitled to under the law.”
It applies to all actions by the government, including laws, legal proceedings, and even how it uses its power.
Substantive Due Process: Due process has also been interpreted to limit the power of the government to create laws that infringe on fundamental rights and freedoms.
Procedural Due Process: This aspect focuses on the fairness of legal procedures; ensuring individuals are given proper notice, an opportunity to be heard, and a fair hearing. Due process aims to ensure that everyone is treated fairly and that justice is administered without bias.
How is removing all Public Hearings from YouTube in alignment with “in the public interest” claims? I can go back 5 years on our County YouTube (likely when they started their live streaming of council and strategic planning meetings), with the average meeting being approximately 5 hrs long. Public information should remain publicly available indefinitely, especially if a process is ongoing review. The removal of these public hearings from 5 months ago regarding the Caroline Solar Project from AUC YouTube is absolutely another violation to the public interest. The removal of all public hearings except two recent ones is deplorable.
As a member of RACCG and an intervener in Proceeding 29924 Request for Review Application, I request an UNBIASED review of the AUC Quasi-Judicial process that is failing We the People of Rural Alberta and infringing on our inherent rights! Ignoring the voices of many individuals in the name of major foreign corporate interests is not due process of law, rather a slap in the face displaying government corruption and overreach which disregards fundamental human rights.
Sincerely and Respectfully,
Christine Foesier
Concerned Clearwater County Resident
No comments:
Post a Comment