Doug Morton’s Interesting Affidavit

February 10th, 2020

This week’s article was to be a thunderous rollercoaster of fascinating revelations, all brilliantly written, obviously, and we had plenty of pretty pictures to plaster throughout it.  Then the Canadian Standards Association (CSA) filed new documents in Court and, these being such a laughable exercise in bombast and creative writing, we shelved our rollercoaster article for some future date and instead offer the following excursus of the most recent affidavit of Mr. Doug Morton, CSA’s VP of Government Relations.

Beginning thusly, saith Morton; “I have come to know Mr. Knight over the course of the several years of this litigation (para 6).”  He knows me in the non-biblical sense, I should point out.  Still, he’s spewing rubbish and still thinking I’ll give in, so he can’t know me too well.

Then Morton starts a long and laughable parade of complaints to the Court.

“Mr. Knight asserts […] that CSA is a government body or is the ‘civil service’.  We are not.  The fact that CSA is not a government body or government agent has been repeatedly found and confirmed by the Federal Court and the Federal Court of Appeal in the proceedings between these parties (para 8).”

He’s referring to Justice Manson’s Ruling that CSA is a private entity.  Readers will recall that CSA’s government status was not an issue at the Manson Hearing, so there was no evidence introduced on the matter, no submissions on the matter, no oral argument on the matter, etc.  In other words, and as noted at the time, Justice Manson decided to Rule on an issue that wasn’t before the Court and without any submissions of evidence whatsoever.  The fact that Justice Manson was also an employee of CSA may have played a role in the Ruling.  Ya think?

Morton continues;  “Mr. Knight asserts […] that we have ‘targeted’ his employees and vendors or done something to influence or intimidate persons to cease having business dealings with him.  Mr. Knight does not identify any person CSA has allegedly targeted or so influenced.  CSA categorically denies these false and malicious allegations.”

Indeed CSA has targeted our employees and vendors.  They’ve been sending threat letters to our vendors from as early as 2012.  We have copies of these.  Electrical engineers have been reluctant to work for us after CSA intervened in writing to “scare away” anyone willing to work for PS Knight.  We have copies of these too.  In fact, so does the Court.  The CSA’s intimidation and blacklisting of PS Knight was outlined in Court and certain of the evidence, including the “scare away” letter, written to a specific and identified engineer, was entered as evidence in Court.

In this, Morton is just lying.  He’s counting on the Court not noticing a few pages of evidence amid the mounds of paperwork CSA’s loaded upon them.  You see folks, that’s why CSA submits thousands of pages of paper in every filing; it clouds things.  Lies get lost in the paperwork.

Moving on, Morton then brags about CSA “spending over $200,000.00 on counsel and experts” for just one of the motions within CSA’s wee war.  That’s your money, by the way. 

Throughout his affidavit, Morton repeatedly claims that our side had contacted their side, also repeatedly, asking to adjourn various of CSA’s motions.  Again, nonsense.  This is a CSA tactic we’re well familiar with. 

Typically, after filing a motion against us, CSA then calls us through their legal counsel to negotiate a resolution to the motion they filed in the first place.  Often, CSA’s incentive seems to be growing worry that the Court won’t find in CSA’s favour.  But, we’re told, if we agree to some concession somewhere, then CSA will agree to a concession of their own, and the motion can be mutually adjourned.  Win – win, we’re told.  In the past, for financial reasons we’ve agreed to this.  We sign the papers and give the concession.  Then, usually in the space of a few days, CSA reneges on the concessions they’d just agreed to.  So they get the adjournment they wanted, plus the concessions we gave them, and we get nothing at all. 

Sometimes these things are even worse.  In one such CSA requested agreement to adjourn, after we complied with requirements of our side the CSA filed contempt proceedings against me personally, trying to put me in prison as punishment.  It was contemptuous, apparently, to comply with an agreement that I’d signed in good faith.  But, you see, CSA tends to creatively reinterpret whatever they sign to their own benefit, regardless of the actual text of the agreement.  Hence, their violations cease to be violations and my compliance becomes a matter of criminal contempt. 

We’re not making this mistake again.  There will be no further adjournment agreements with CSA.  They just can’t be trusted.

Back the affidavit, Morton then gets on a roll, accusing PS Knight of all manner of horrific imprudence. 

“Mr. Knight has publicly accused judges of the Federal Court, including Justice Manson and Chief Justice Crampton, of corruption in the form of colluding to fix cases” in favour of CSA.  Yes.  Well, he has.  We’ve covered this extensively, by the way.  You’re invited to review the evidences here and here.

“Mr. Knight has brought a complaint against CSA’s former instructing counsel [R.J. Falconi] with the Law Society of Upper Canada, falsely accusing him of very serious wrongdoing (para 53)”.  Yes, we filed, and our filing was honest.  CSA’s former counsel was indeed engaged in wrongdoing, as defined by the Law Society.  If the Society, and CSA, wish to reinterpret their own regulations to mean the opposite of what they actually say, then we’re powerless to know what those regulations mean until after adjudication.  What we filed we covered here, and you may review for yourselves whether Falconi’s conduct was compliant with the Law Society’s regulations.

This next one is a goody;  “Mr. Knight has falsely claimed to be the owner of copyright in CSA’s Code publication and sent invoices in the sum of millions of dollars to every provincial government for their alleged use of his materials (para 57).”  Why yes, we have.  But we announced it publicly, waaay back in 2016 and 2017, so it’s not quite the revelation to the Court that Morton claims. 

In quick review, Manson’s Law makes any holder of copyright assignments covering text of legislation a private owner of that legislation, and as PS Knight has indeed owned such an assignment from well before Manson’s Law was issued, we therefore are a legitimate owner of the text of legislation covered by our assignment.  Just like CSA, we can invoice governments for their use of our property.  And we have. 

Transparent, isn’t it?  The CSA wants the law, including Manson’s Law, to apply only when it profits them.  If the law ceases to profit CSA, then the law, or an agreement, or a Court Ruling (etc.) must mean the opposite of what it says.  Laws, you see, are for the little people.  In the civil service, laws are window dressing, not to be taken seriously.

One more comment about invoicing, as this one really worries CSA.  You see, if we succeed in collecting on our invoices based on CSA’s collections on their invoices, then the validity of CSA’s ownership of legislation starts costing the government plenty of money.  Either both invoices are valid or neither, the law cannot apply to only one side.  Thus far both are valid, but CSA is fretting about this.

Moving on, we published an article last November entitled All the Players in One Place.  It was an unmasking of sorts, exposing the major players in the civil service’ war against PS Knight, including CSA’s outside counsel, Kangaroo Crampton, Michael Manson, and the Federal Civil Service directly, as now all working closely together.  Noting our article in his affidavit, Morton comments as follows;

“Mr. has published unsubstantiated claims on his blog concerning a recent Canadian Bar Association conference attended by members of the Federal Court and members of our external counsel’s law firm (para 58).”

Unsubstantiated?  The source for the allegation was directly referenced.  The Canadian Bar Association itself issued the evidence, on their own letterhead.  And it’s still there.  The link to our article is here, and the CBA evidence is here.  Seeee the substantiation!

Again folks, the list of attendees Morton refers to is two pages long.  Amid thousands of pages of CSA filings, two pages gets lost.  And CSA knows it.  So they make another accusation expecting that the Court won’t notice its falsity.

Well, Morton ends his affidavit with a bang.  A big lie, actually.  They’re practiced at big lies, they know that a small lie is more likely to be disbelieved than a big lie.  So here are Morton’s biggest lies of the affidavit, in three exciting paragraphs;

“It has not been CSA who is attempting to escalate the expenses of Mr. Knight, but rather Mr. Knight has been attempting to escalate the expenses of CSA (para 69).”

“Mr. Knight has repeatedly demonstrated unreasonable and vexatious conduct and shown himself to be incapable of handling a matter such as this expeditiously or reasonably (para 7 – written reps).”

And, due to Mr. Knight’s conduct, “this action will not proceed expeditiously (para 50).”

See?  The CSA has not been dragging this out for eight years, it’s been me all along.  I’m just unreasonable and vexatious, a really rotten person, incapable of handling the issue responsibly.  Oh, and PS Knight company, all by itself, has been “escalating the expenses” of CSA, trying to bankrupt the Federal Treasury.

Mr. Morton, as I know you’re reading this, and with respect Sir, you really ought to be more cautious with Canada’s cannabis laws.