Short Summary Information

May 20th, 2019

“At the above time, date and location, the writer observed that the subject individual was sitting on the hood of a parked car, with his pants around his ankles, and was cleansing his male parts with bottled water.”

I was a security guard during college.  My shifts were in downtown Vancouver, usually late ones.  It was, you know, cultural. 

The hygiene guy was indeed sitting on the hood of a new car, just before midnight if I recall, at Pattison Lease on Georgia, just across from the BC Gas Centre.  Of course, the Pattison lot is now a high-rise and BC Gas is now Teresen.  Times change.

One thing that hasn’t changed much is the demand in my life for formal report writing.  As of today, the CSA’s various litigations occupy 284GB of PS Knight disk space, totalling 10,522 files, an unhealthy percentage being docs for legal filing in various stages of review, editing, fretting, frowning and angerly stowing away.

For this week’s article, given that it’s a short week, I enclose below a sampling of a RestoreCSA summary for external (that is, non-legal) audiences.  This particular doc was created in March 2019 as an abbreviated issue intro, a summary of a single aspect of CSA conduct.  It was sent to a number of authorities.  Right now, the CSA only knows about two of them.  We sent more of them. 

It warms me somehow that CSA doesn’t know where to defend, as they don’t know who all received the salvo.  To hold the surprise for them, I’ve redacted the subject persons list and the appendices.

If the law is to be respected, the doc below should be a bombshell.  And if you’ve ever wondered what it takes to beat back a bully like CSA, well, here’s a primer on it.



Industry Canada / Canadian Standards Association’s
Money for Influence Transactions

22 March 2019


1. This document is an Information on the persons identified as [redact] list (the Accused) [See APPENDIX 1].

2. Since its founding in 1917, the Canadian Standards Association (CSA) has drafted and amended Federal and Provincial legislation in areas of electrical wiring, electrical engineering, and public safety.  Since 1927, the CSA has been responsible for drafting the electrical laws in Canada.

3. There are reasonable grounds to believe that the Accused have colluded with CSA to breach Sections 46, 120, 121 and 463 of the Criminal Code.


4. This Information relates to the Canadian Electrical Code (“CEC” or “Code”).  The Code has been passed into law in every jurisdiction in Canada and is drafted by the CSA.

5. The Code is amended every three years by a series of code committees.  Positions on these code committees are sold by CSA.  The CSA is selling the opportunity to draft amendments the Code and, in fact and directly, to amend Canadian law.

6. Additionally and of great concern, CSA is also selling positions on legislative committees to foreign nationals.

7. The list of contributors to the Code is published within the Code.

8. The CSA has advertised online that they will accept money in exchange for positions on Code committees.

9. These positions feature weighted voting, with specific vote / influence according to the value of money paid.

10. The Accused are / were directly involved with CSA in the trade of money for influence over domestic legislation.


Is CSA Part of Government?

11. The CSA claims to be a private not-for-profit entity.  This claim is false.

12. The CSA was founded in 1917 by the British Empire as a Crown Agency reporting to the Privy Council Office.

13. In the immediate wake of WWI, in a bilateral agreement between the British Empire and the Dominion of Canada, the CSA was patriated to Canadian Government control in 1919.

14. As a result of patriation, the CSA lost is Imperial Government charter (Royal Charter) and was granted the equivalent Government Charter by the Canadian Government.

15. Evidences for CSA being part of Government are voluminous.  Proving CSA’s legal status is equivalent to proving that the Prime Minister’s Office is part of Government. 

16. Efforts to disprove CSA’s Government status rely exclusively on a private not-for-profit registration originally permitted by the Department of Industry to enable CSA to lease office space in Montreal.

17. In every instance in which the legal status of an entity holding both government and private registrations has been heard in Canadian Courts, the government charter supersedes the private charter.  There are no exceptions.

The Code is law

18. The Code is law because it is incorporated by reference within legislation and forms part of the text of that legislation.  The Code is written into the law by the doctrine of incorporation when the incorporating legislation was published in the Gazette.  At the time of incorporation, the Code became an integral part of the incorporating instrument as if the text was actually reproduced therein.

19. The Federal Parliament has incorporated the Code into the Canada Labour Code (the “Labour Code”).  Parliament specifically authorised incorporation of the Code into the Labour Code and it is an offence to violate the adopted Code within that legislation. 

20. Federally, the Code is also incorporated into the Uranium Mines Regulations, National Parks Cottages Regulations, and Oil and Gas Drilling Regulations.

21. The Code is also incorporated into Ontario’s Electricity Act when it was most recently updated and is its enforcing legislation.  Violation of the Code constitutes an offence that provides for liability up to a $50,000 fine or one year of imprisonment.

22. The Code as amended is law under Ontario’s Legislation Act and criminal proceedings are brought for its contravention.  In British Columbia, the Code is valid and enforceable law, and has been for decades, even though it was not attached to, or published in, the Gazette with the regulations that incorporate it.

23. Critically, under the Statutory Instruments Act, any text is defined as law if it has been passed by a legitimate legislative authority, and if the particulars of that text are binding with the subject jurisdiction, and if there are specific penalties applicable for noncompliance. 

24. In January, 2018, the Federal Court Ruled that the Code, and the >2,000 other legislation produced by CSA, are covered under Federal Public Review laws (governing the development of draft legislation).  The Court further Ruled that CSA is in violation of Public Review laws, as the “Code has clearly not been available for public comment for [the required] 60 days.” (See Appendix IX, Page 5)

25. Therefore, the Code is law by legal precedent on Gazetting and incorporation by reference, by Federal Acts and enforcement, by Provincial Acts and enforcement, by definition of the Statutory Instruments Act, and by Ruling of the Federal Court of Canada.

Is legislation privately owned?

26. Yes.  As of March 6, 2016, the Federal Court of Canada Ruled that legislation is privately owned by whomever drafted or lobbied for its passage.

27. The Federal Court of Appeal subsequently upheld the Federal Court Ruling.

28. Legislation in Canada is now privately owned.

29. The changes made by the Court to the ownership of legislation did not affect, nor did they in any way deal with, transactions made in relation to the drafting of law (the subject of this Information).

Are the Accused criminally responsible?

30. The Accused can be liable for the actions of the CSA.  The CSA received money from individuals and / or their employers to vote on legislative committees.  It was CSA that received the money to influence the law; it was the Accused who directly, or by proxy, made the influence payments.  The Accused are therefore liable as participants in money-for-influence transactions.

Is CSA selling influence over legislation?

31. The CSA code committees directly amend existing legislation.  The individuals / entities who purchase positions are thereby enabled to influence the drafting of, and to vote on, amendments to legislation.


Legal Status of CSA

32. Notwithstanding CSA claims to be a private not-for-profit entity, the evidences that CSA is a Government body are voluminous.

33. The CSA was founded in 1917 by the British Empire as a Crown Agency reporting to the Privy Council Office.  The CSA was patriated to the Canadian Government in 1919, receiving a Canadian Government Charter as a domestic Crown Agency (replacing their pre-1919 Royal Charter).

34. After patriation, the CSA reported directly to the Minister of Industry.  Upon the creation of the Standards Council of Canada (SCC) in 1970 (as a sort of clearing house for various regulatory bodies), the CSA reported to the Minister of Industry via the SCC.

35. As a Crown Agency, the CSA is empowered to act as a legislative committee of Parliament.  This capacity is the basis for CSA’s drafting and amending of Federal and provincial legislation.  Further, it is in this capacity that CSA has been granted Accepted-as-Amended provisions at law, enabling CSA to directly alter the text of legislation without Parliamentary review or vote.

36. As with any other Crown Agency, the CSA was housed in Government offices.  Over the course of five decades, CSA was ensconced within various Government Departments, though most usually within the Department of Industry.  Likewise, CSA’s Government Offices were allocated based on Government organization, the CSA changing offices along with other Agencies when dictated by broader Governmental reorganizations.  One can track the decades of various bureaucratic reorganizations in Ottawa by the movement of CSA offices from one Government building to another.

37. The CSA was listed for decades in municipal telephone directories as an Agency of the Federal Government. 

38. The CSA was also listed for decades as a Government Agency in the internal telephone directories of the Federal Government (See samples at Appendix X and XI).

39. As with other Crown Agencies, the CSA was granted franking privileges, allowing them to ship everything from postcards to pallets, mail or freight, without charge as an Agency expense of the Federal Government.

40. The CSA was funded as any other Federal Agency by the Federal Government.  In example, in its first year in Canada, the CSA received 50% of its funding from the Federal Treasury (the balance from other sources including government grants, research grants, and indirect government subsidies).

41. Employees at CSA are considered civil servants and are unionized by a public sector union (CUPE local 967).  Indeed, CUPE entered the CSA workplace in 1969-70 specifically because CSA was a Federal Agency.

42. As with most Government bodies, civil servants regularly transfer into and out of CSA.  In example, employees of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) are routinely seconded to CSA for work on nuclear safety standards.  In this, they are considered CSA employees without losing their CNSC standing or their civil service seniority or designations.

43. Senior civil servants of both Federal and provincial governments routinely serve on CSA’s board of directors.  This is normal for civil servants in Crown Agencies.  It would be illegal however, for civil servants to serve on the boards of private entities receiving ongoing government funding.  No civil servant is prosecuted for serving at CSA because of CSA’s legal status as a Government body.

Examples of Government statements on CSA’s legal status:

44. James McGrath, an MP with 24 years of Parliamentary service affirmed that CSA “enjoys the privileges of a Federal Charter.”  Specifically, “for purposes of our dealings with the Common Market or other countries in the world,” the CSA is “a government body because, as I said, up to this date the Government of Canada has participated fully in this organization.”

45. The Hon. A. K. MacLean described patriation of CSA in 1919 as “a very good expenditure on the part of the Government […] as the British Government renders the same assistance in Great Britain [to the BESC, another Government body].  MacLean is drawing equivalence between CSA and a British Government Department.

46. When Pierre Casgrain, MP asked if CSA reports to Parliament, Sir George Foster, MP, the Minister for Industry, replied “Yes, and we have on record the results of their work.”

47. By the time of the 17th Parliament (1930-35), the CSA had been made “an associate member of” what is now called the National Research Council (“NRC”), a body responsible to the Minister of Industry.  The CSA had by then been receiving sizeable “subsidies” from the NRC as approved by the Minister of Industry on “the same basis” as other bodies of government.

48. The CSA’s legal status was confirmed during the 19th Parliament (1940-45) by the Hon. James MacKinnon, Minister of Industry, thusly;

“The [National Research Council] is closely associated with the Canadian Engineering Standards Association [CSA], which is the national approvals body for engineering practice.  The main committee of CESA is the associate committee on engineering standards of the Council.”

Note that prior to registering a name change in 1944, the CSA was known as the Canadian Engineering Standards Association (CESA).

49. Former Prime Minister affirmed CSA’s Government status in referencing CSA’s Government funding in the Federal Budget as split between two Federal Agencies, the NRC and CSA.

50. Long-time Parliamentarian Herbert Herridge, MP once feted the former director of CSA in a Parliamentary speech, saying;  “The time comes when we should recognize what has been done by senior civil servants.”

51. Jean-Luc Pepin MP, Minister of Industry, repeatedly described CSA as an “Agency” of the Federal Government, once going so far as to describe the SCC as a sort of Parliament within which Government bodies like CSA did the work of state.

52. Ontario Crown Prosecutor, Shane Hobson, in describing his Government’s position on CSA’s legal status in December 2016; “[CSA] is in fact a public entity.  It is an extension of the arm of the Government of Canada.” Further; “…pursuant to its creation by either the previous entity, the British Government, and its subsequent entity of the Government of Canada.”  Further; “So my friend is arguing that these people [CSA staff] are public officers, which they are”.  Further; “[CSA] is a public authority.” 

Legal Status of Legislation

53. On March 6, 2016, Justice Michael Manson of the Federal Court of Canada issued a Ruling known as “Manson’s Law.”  This Ruling overturned the Reproduction of Federal Law Order as well as the various Federal and provincial Queen’s Printer Copyrights enacted across Canada. 

54. According to this Ruling, “it would be contrary to the purposive construction of the Copyright Act to strip” private parties of their ownership rights in the text of law “simply because certain provinces have” passed it into law.

55. On December 7, 2018, the Federal Court of Appeal upheld Manson’s Law, saying; “As long as it is original, any writing may be the subject of copyright in Canada.  This would include laws and regulations.”  Further;  “That law and regulations may be the subject of copyright is indeed recognized.”

56. Succinctly, laws in Canada are now the private property of whomever drafted or lobbied for their passage.

57. The change in ownership of legislation as a result of these Rulings was affected in order to protect CSA’s revenues generated from their monetization of the legislative process.  The change did not however, alter any laws relating to transactions for influence over the drafting of laws.


58. We believe that the Accused have materially violated Criminal Code sections 46.2(b) and (e), 46.3(b), 46.4.4, 120, 121(1), 122 and section 463.

59. We believe on reasonable grounds that during the second, third and fourth quarters of 2017, the Accused did violate Section 46(2)(b) without lawful authority, by communicating and making available to citizens, corporations and other entities of states other than Canada, scientific information and sketches, plans, articles, notes and documents of scientific character detailing the technical electrical engineering and wiring, both in place and planned for installation, that they knew or ought to have known may be used by those states for purposes prejudicial to the safety or defense of Canada;

60. We believe on reasonable grounds that during the second, third and fourth quarters of 2017, the Accused did violate Section 46(2)(e) by conspiring with other persons and entities to take the actions mentioned in para.59 and formed an intention to take the actions mentioned in para.59 and manifested that intention by the overt acts mentioned in para.59 and described in detail below.

61. We believe on reasonable grounds that during the second, third and fourth quarters of 2017, the Accused did violate Section 46.3(b) by, as Canadian citizens owing allegiance to Her Majesty, committed the acts mentioned in para.59 within Canadian jurisdiction.

62. We believe on reasonable grounds that during the second, third and fourth quarters of 2017, the Accused did violate Section 46.4.4 by conspiring to take the actions mentioned in para.59.

63. We believe on reasonable grounds that during the second, third and fourth quarters of 2017, the Accused did violate Section 120 by taking money in payment to influence domestic legislative processes in the amendment of provincial and Federal law.

64. We believe on reasonable grounds that during the second, third and fourth quarters of 2017, the Accused did violate Section 121 by taking financial payments as consideration for cooperation, assistance, and exercise of influence in connection with the transaction of business with, and matters of business relating to, the government.

65. We believe on reasonable grounds that during the second, third and fourth quarters of 2017, the Accused did violate Section 122 in connection with the duties of their offices, by committed fraud and breach of trust by taking the actions mentioned in para.59 and described in detail below.

66. We believe on reasonable grounds that during the second, third and fourth quarters of 2017, the Accused did violate Section 463 by, directly and indirectly, attempted to take the actions mentioned in para.59, did take those actions, and did serve as accessory after the fact by facilitating the sale of products resulting from those actions.

Discovery of Offences

67. The CSA filed a Statement of Claim in Federal Court alleging copyright violation by P.S. Knight Co. Ltd. (“PSK”), during Q2, 2012.

68. Since inception in 1967, the only business activity of PSK has been the publication of electrical guidebooks covering instruction and compliance with Canadian electrical laws.  These electrical laws are referenced and quoted within PSK publications.

69. Since its founding in 1917, the CSA has drafted and amended Federal and provincial legislation in areas of electrical wiring, electrical engineering, and public safety.  In all, more than 2,000 laws are drafted and amended by CSA.  Since 1927, the CSA has coordinated the drafting of electrical laws in Canada, these being the laws referenced and quoted by PSK in their instructional publications.

70. Extensive research was conducted to defend against CSA in their litigation, including research into the legal status of CSA, its authorized activities, and its practices as measured against these authorizations.

Particulars of Offences

71. For purposes of this Information, the influenced law is the Canadian Electrical Code, being the body of text passed into law in every provincial and territorial jurisdiction in Canada as well as by the Federal Government, in regular and scheduled amendment cycles uninterrupted since 1927.  These amendments to law are typically released every three years.  The most recent amendment to electrical law was released in Q1 of 2018.

72. The Canadian Electrical Code is comprised of 42 Sections and one Tables Section, totaling over 600 pages of regulations governing all aspects of electrical wiring and related installation and engineering particulars.

73. All electrical wiring in Canada is affected by, and governed by, the Code.  The Code covers;  1) residential wiring, from single detached homes to multistory residential complexes;  2) commercial and industrial wiring, from gas plants, power plants and nuclear facilities to municipal infrastructure, lighting and transmission, and;  3) special electrical applications, such as airports, hospitals, and military installations.

74. Influence over electrical law affects;  1) the safety of every person domiciled or otherwise present in Canada;  2) the safety and security of our population in its reliance upon a stable, accessible and safe electrical grid;  3) the financial security of Canadian citizens and corporate entities in their obligations to comply with electrical law, and;  4) the defense of Canada in our military facilities and physical and communications equipment, all powered and made useful through, and in compliance with, electrical law.

75. Every jurisdiction in Canada, without exception, has passed the Canadian Electrical Code into law.  The Provincial and Territorial Acts passing the Canadian Electrical Code into law are public domain.

76. The Statutory Instruments Act defines a law as any text that;  1) is incorporated into, or passed as, legislation by a legislative body;  2) requires compliance with the particulars of such text within the jurisdiction of that legislative body, and;  3) prescribes penalties for non-compliance.

77. The Canadian Electrical Code, is passed into law by legislative bodies and enforced as law throughout Canada, thereby meeting all of the requirements of the Statutory Instruments Act for definition as law.

78. Electrical law in Canada is enforced by municipalities, by provincial governments and, on crown land and Federal holdings in foreign lands (military installations, embassies, etc.), by the Federal Government directly.

79. Throughout Canada, any electrical wiring installation of any size or significance under the definitions within the Code must be made in compliance with that law. 

80. Likewise, the physical installation of such wiring must be conducted under municipal or provincial permit stipulating compliance with electrical law.  Further, once completed, electrical installations must be inspected by municipal, provincial or Federal officials to certify compliance with electrical law.  Non-compliance is not legal.  Various penalties for non-compliance apply, depending on jurisdiction, from fines to imprisonment.

81. The Canadian Electrical Code is therefore defined as law, is passed into law, is referenced as law, is treated as law, and is enforced as law.  At law, electrical law is law.

82. The CSA does not acknowledge the legal status of legislation they have drafted, instead CSA refers to the various standards that they develop, such as the Code, as “standards” rather than laws.  The definition of law is unaffected by its non-recognition by CSA.

83. In example, the CSA also develops Canada’s nuclear safety laws on behalf of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission.  While CSA describes these texts as “standards,” the Nuclear Safety and Control Act contains forty-one paragraphs of prescribed penalties for “violation” of CSA’s standards-cum-regulations.  Under the Statutory Instruments Act, the text of nuclear safety law is law. 

84. According to CSA, they have developed over 2,000 standards that have been passed into law.  In each such instance, the CSA refers to these laws as “standards” whereas the Statutory Instruments Act, and the various government departments with accountability for these texts, define and enforce them as laws. 

85. By admission of CSA, each of these laws is drafted and subsequently amended by CSA’s committees, many of which include foreign persons and entities.  Neither CSA directly, nor any of its various legislative committees have received Federal authorization to sell legislative votes or influence or to otherwise furnish such influence to foreign persons or entities.

86. On 30 pages of CSA’s 2018 publication of electrical law, numbered 9 - 38, the CSA lists the persons and entities to whom they have furnished influence and control over the legislative drafting process during the amendment cycle completed in that year (see Appendix II).

87. This edition of electrical law has been published by CSA since Q1, 2018, with ~60,000 copies already released or scheduled for release before the end of 2020.  As this publication is law in Canada, the publication is used in electrical instruction and is therefore more than a casual reference book, it is a well-studied, popularly broadcast legal document, utilized by multiple professions in most educational institutions, government inspection offices, and engineering firms in every provincial and territorial jurisdiction in Canada.

88. The evidence of foreign contributors to electrical law is therefore very substantial and unambiguous, very public and very well broadcast.

89. Among those influencing and directing legislative processes during the 2015-18 amendment cycle, there are 42 non-citizens of Canada and those representing foreign corporate interests, special interest groups, or governments.  These non-citizens and foreign entities are resident in Mexico, the Bahamas, and in 10 different States of the United States of America (see Appendix III).

90. While the unauthorized furnishing of influence to foreigners is itself illegal, the CSA compounds the offence by selling that influence (See Appendix IV and V).

91. Voting rights at CSA are purchasable for as little as $2,000.  As with most cases of influence peddling, the more one is willing to pay, the more influence one will get.  The CSA uses tiered memberships to assign levels of pricing to levels of influence.

92. Specifically, if one pays enough to become a “Level 1 member,” then one is “entitled to 2 votes.”  If one pays double that amount to CSA, then one is “entitled to 4 votes.”  If one pays more than $6,000 per year, then one becomes a “Level 3 member” and is “entitled to 8 votes.”  (See appendix IV).

93. There is no ceiling on payment value, “more than” can be a very large figure indeed.  Like an auction, the amount CSA charges for influence varies based on capacity to pay and the value of competitive advantage gained against one’s commercial opponent in crafting the laws that the opponent will have to comply with.

94. If one pays CSA to be in the top tier, one receives “access to key standards information” and “quick access to CSA staff” through the use of a “special unlisted telephone number.”  In function, paying CSA enough money means that one gains non-public access to the legislative process, access to the working papers in the drafting of legislation during that drafting process, and secret access to the persons who actually draft the technical and legal text of legislation during the drafting process (See appendix VI).

95. The CSA advertised the sales of “participation in standards development” on their website.  After published an article exposing these practices, the CSA deleted the incriminating evidence from their website. 

96. The CSA has listed the foreign contributors to their legislative processes, but has not itemized their specific contributions.  Certain of the foreign contributors may have influenced the legislative process by presentation and argument rather than voting on the final text, this being the equivalent difference as being an MP vs. testifying before Parliament.  Whether by voting or by presentation and argument, the illegality is the influence furnished to foreigners, not the specific form of that influence.

97. In an internal CSA PowerPoint presentation, accidentally unedited for Access to Information release, the CSA admits to receiving “$60-70MM” in influence payments annually, partly in direct cash payment, and partly by service in kind (see Appendix VII and VIII).

98. The influence at issue includes both amendments to existing text of domestic law and the drafting of entirely new regulations for inclusion within existing domestic law.

99. Further, and in example, my company, PS Knight Co Ltd, has been approached by CSA on three separate occasions with offers to sell us influence and voting rights at legislative committee. 

100. In its 2018 Ruling, the Federal Court held that the legislation drafted and amended by CSA is, like any other legislation, covered by the Federal Public Review law (the mandate that all drafts of legislation be made public at least 60 days prior to enactment as law).  The Court Ruled that CSA is “clearly” in violation of Public Review law by refusing to release draft legislation prior to CSA publishing it (See Appendix IX, Page 5).  The CSA is restricting public access to legislation in order to protect the value of that text (in monetizing legislation by selling public access to law) and on behalf of those parties which paid CSA to influence law to its current character.

101. Certain jurisdictions, most notably Alberta, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, the Yukon Territory and the Northwest Territories, have incorporated provisions within their respective Electrical Acts permitting the CSA to amend electrical legislation after passage into law (Accepted-as-Amended provisions).  Beyond amending existing law for passage as part of a regular legislative process, CSA committees are therefore also amending existing legislation external to legislative review or vote.  The CSA committees are directly amending the law.  In this, the unauthorized influence on CSA committees are paying to directly amend CSA’s >2,000 domestic laws, electrical and other laws, to their liking without democratic oversight.

102. With specific regard to the Code, each new iteration of the Code is an amendment of the previous iteration.  The Code is not discarded and drafted anew every three years.  Rather, the previous iteration of the Code is the basis for amendments made to it, each regulation therein being assessed for its clarity and utility based upon the manner in which it is presently enforced as law, amendments to that regulation being made as enhancements to the clarity or utility of the text.  Influence over the Code is therefore influence over amendments to existing law.

103. In our research, we could find no government authorization for CSA to furnish this influence over legislative processes.  The Federal Government was requested to furnish the authorities given to CSA to permit influence to foreign persons and entities, or to confirm that such authority had been granted.  The Federal Government was unable, or was unwilling, to indicate that any such authority had at any time been granted.


Sec. 46.2(b)

104. Quoting Sec.46.2(b); “Everyone commits treason who, in Canada, […] without lawful authority, communicates or makes available to an agent of a state other than Canada, military or scientific information or any sketch, plan, model, article, note or document of a military or scientific character [that] may be used […] for a purpose prejudicial” to Canada.

105. All working papers (documents, notes, articles, etc.) related to legislation controlled by CSA are necessarily available to those on the committees that amend those laws, including foreign influences on committee.  The laws in question are electrical laws, dealing with matters of electrical engineering and are therefore scientific and technical in their nature.  Moreover, the >2,000 laws controlled by CSA are, in the main, laws governing the safety of the Canadian people.  Further, foreign commercial interests are intrinsically at variance with Canadian commercial interests, inasmuch as our corporations compete against theirs.  In this, it appears that every component category within Section 46.2(b) is met in CSA conduct.

Sec. 46.2.(e)

106. Quoting Sec.46.2.(e); Every one commits treason who “conspires with any person to do anything mentioned in [Sec.46.2.(b), as above] or forms an intention to do anything mentioned [above] and manifests that intention by an overt act.”

107. The Accused identified in this Information were responsible for the Committee process of amending electrical law, including the persons paying to influence or control those amendments, and for managing the process of amending electrical law, including the management of foreign persons drafting those amendments.

Sec. 46.3.(b)

108. Quoting Sec.46.3.(b); Every one “commits treason if, while in or out of Canada, he does anything mentioned in [Sec.46.2.(b), as above].”

109. The CSA has offices worldwide.  There is no assurance that the CSA’s arrangements for provision of influence over domestic law were made entirely within Canadian territory, with particular reference to those 42 persons on the Code committee domiciled outside of Canada.  Indeed, CSA sells access to / reading rights for Canadian law from offices in Cleveland, OH.

Sec. 46.4.4

110. Quoting Sec.46.4.4; “Where it is treason to conspire with any person, the act of conspiring is an overt act of treason.”

Sec. 120

111. Quoting Sec. 120; “Everyone is guilty of an indictable offence […who] directly or indirectly, corruptly accepts, obtains, agrees to accept or attempts to obtain, for themselves or another person, any money, valuable consideration, office, place or employment with intent (i) to interfere with the administration of justice”.

112. While permitted to behave as though it were a private entity, the CSA legally remains a Government chartered Agency of Industry Canada reporting to the Minister of Industry through the Standards Council of Canada.

113. The CSA annually receives sizeable funding from the Federal Government for the legislative activities described above, the amendment of the Code being a typical example.  In the last year for which calculated subsidies are available (2017), the CSA received $4,655,674.00 from Canadian governments and government agencies.  In this, the CSA remains functionally a Government Agency and is, through the actions described above, taking additional and illegitimate payments on the side.

114. Electrical law is enforced throughout Canada and violations thereof are punishable at law in both civil and criminal proceedings.  Amendments to domestic electrical law alters what is, and what is not, legally enforceable.  Large multi-year construction projects may be governed by multiple amended versions of electrical law.  In this, furnishing influence over electrical law alters the profile of legal culpability in construction projects while those projects are underway.

Sec. 121(1)

115. Quoting Sec. 121(1)(c);  “Everyone commits an offence who (c) being an official or employee of the government, directly or indirectly demands, accepts or offers or agrees to accept from a person who has dealings with the government a commission, reward, advantage or benefit of any kind for themselves or another person, unless they have the consent in writing of the head of the branch of government that employs them or of which they are an official.”

116. There is no evidence that CSA has at any time received “consent in writing” for their practice of accepting “commission, reward, advantage or benefit” in trade for furnishing influence over domestic legislation.

117. Quoting Sec. 121(1)(d);  Everyone commits an offence who “having or pretending to have influence with the government or with a minister of the government or an official, directly or indirectly demands, accepts or offers or agrees to accept, for themselves or another person, a reward, advantage or benefit of any kind as consideration for cooperation, assistance, exercise of influence or an act or omission in connection with (i) anything mentioned in subparagraph (a)(iii) or (iv)”.

118. The CSA rightfully and publicly claims influence with the government in that their role in drafting legislation is longstanding (since 1917) and uninterrupted (102 years).

Sec. 122

119. Quoting Sec. 122;  “Every official who, in connection with the duties of his office, commits fraud or a breach of trust is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years, whether or not the fraud or breach of trust would be an offence if it were committed in relation to a private person.”

120. The CSA’s Government mandated role in drafting legislation and its Government charter necessarily makes CSA “an official” of Government, a legal status recently and repeatedly upheld by Courts.

Sec. 463

121. Sec. 463, “Attempts & Accessories,” markedly broadens the net and may also be applied in this context.


122. At the time of the 2017 alleged offences, the CSA had been made aware, through five years of litigation processes, of the illegality of furnishing influence over legislation to foreigners, or to Citizens of Canada, in trade for money.  Further, we had published extensively on the illegality of CSA practices on the site.

123. Specifically, and in example, on March 8, 2014, we reported that;

“The Canadian Standards Association (“CSA”) has been providing influence over the drafting of Canadian law to a variety of foreign governments, foreign owned companies and to the citizens of foreign countries” (see Appendix XIV).

124. Quoting within the article our correspondence with the Department of Justice, we noted that;

“Given the recent wave of unauthorized disclosures of sensitive, technical and classified information in the United States and elsewhere, we are urgently aware of the increasing, relatable value of sovereignty over national legal statues and the validity of existing legal statutes, and their enforcement, in safeguarding the primacy and continuity of Canadian control of Canadian law.  We are aware that disuse is, by precedent, discontinuance by degrees, a nullification of a critical defensive statute of our democratic society.”

125. We also noted the legal consequences of the CSA’s then current trajectory, as;

“Section 46 of the Criminal Code is Canada’s treason law.  Quoting Sec.46.2(b); “Everyone commits treason who, in Canada, […] without lawful authority, communicates or makes available to an agent of a state other than Canada, military or scientific information or any sketch, plan, model, article, note or document of a military or scientific character [that] may be used […] for a purpose prejudicial” to Canada.”

126. On May 19, 2014, we reported as follows (see Appendix XV);

“The Canadian Standards Association (CSA) has for years been allowing foreigners to draft Canadian laws in trade for money.  RestoreCSA reported on this activity earlier this year.”

127. In this article, we specifically identified some of the persons to whom CSA had given influence over Canadian legislation.  For example;

“Then there’s Watts Reliant, Inc., whose Engineering Manager, a man named Dustin Allcorn, was also given influence over the 2012 Code.  He’s from Springfield, Missouri.  Mr. Dave Clements is another author, and he lives in Richardson, Texas.  And it goes on like this, the CSA routinely lets foreigners draft Canadian laws.”

128. We also noted that CSA was aware that its legislative practices are violations of Section 46, as we noted;

“The CSA knows that it’s not supposed to be giving influence over Canadian law to foreigners, much less selling that influence.  They know this, they’ve admitted this internally.  […]  From the CSA minutes, read carefully;  ‘In reply to a question […], although [the CSA page] does not cover the question of membership nationality, it is necessary that all members of the […] Committees should be residents of Canada because of possible conflicts that may arise during the voting on international drafts.’”

129. Since 2014, the site featured an Issues section which reads, as excerpted;

“The CSA has been providing direct and material influence over the drafting of Canadian law to a variety of foreign governments, foreign owned companies and to the citizens of foreign countries. In these actions, the CSA appears to be in violation of Section 46 of the Canadian Criminal Code.”

“Unauthorized provision of influence or control over Canadian law to foreign powers appears to be a prima facie act of treason against the Crown.”

“The CSA’s Canadian Electrical Code publication lists the memberships of each committee, including the foreign governments, foreign companies and foreign citizens who have paid to influence the drafting of legislation. Far from having to prove CSA actions, the CSA itself has published them.”

“We believe that CSA’s conduct is actionable and we intend to pursue legal correction.”

130. The CSA employs a clipping service to monitor the RestoreCSA website, reporting each of the above articles to senior management.

131. The CSA’s outside legal counsel, Kevin Sartorio of Gowlings WLG, is a weekly reader of RestoreCSA.

132. The CSA has filed numerous complaints with both Federal and provincial Courts about RestoreCSA’s publishing of original research, reporting of CSA internal whistleblowers, and related reporting on incriminating documentation.

133. In this context, it is difficult to argue that CSA was / is unaware of the legal implications of its legislative actions during the second, third and fourth quarters of 2017.

Court Rulings on Offenses

134. On December 16, 2016, the Provincial Court of Ontario heard the evidence of CSA’s trading of money for influence over the law. 

135. In his Ruling, Justice Quamina wrote that;  “I am satisfied, based on all that I’ve said above, that these allegations [against CSA] are supported by the evidence provided here today.” 

136. The Justice however, chose not to hold CSA accountable for its conduct, concluding that; “I [however] do not so order that this matter proceed [to trial].”

137. The Ontario Appeals Court chose not to overturn the Quamina Ruling.

138. In this, as far as the Court is concerned, and notwithstanding clear legislation on the matter, there is nothing illegal about bribing public or elected officials.


139. The Department of Foreign Affairs, the Department of Justice, Industry Canada, and the Prime Minister’s Office have all been repeatedly advised of the particulars of offences.  None of these entities have taken any action against CSA on the particulars of offences.

140. The RCMP has been made aware of, and furnished with substantial evidence related to, the particulars of offences.  The RCMP has taken no action against CSA on the particulars of offences.

141. In this context, the conduct formerly subject to the RCMP’s criminal investigation of the CSA are either legally permissible or prohibited but not actionable by law enforcement in Canada. 

142. The question then, is whether other stakeholders concur with these prevailing views.

143. In the above context, there is a high probability that the various actions and inactions by relevant authorities to protect CSA from accountability will be reasonably interpreted as reclassifying as legally permissible those actions formerly regarded as illegal, and will therefore and subsequently be acted upon by a variety of entities.