We are committed to sharing news, stories, events and opinions that ensures our province stays free, united and independent from the overreach of the Federal government.
All are welcome and respectful debate is encouraged. Please join with the intention of participating. Proceeds are donated.
IVAN RAND: THE CANADIAN WHO DEFENDED GOD-GIVEN RIGHTS BEFORE THE CHARTER EVER EXISTED
The Father of Canada’s Implied Bill of Rights (1884–1969)
Sign the petition to stop Bill S-206:
https://www.change.org/Kill_Bill_S-206
1. Early Life — A Child of the Maritimes, Born Into Hard Work and Self-Reliance
Ivan Cleveland Rand was born on April 27, 1884, in Moncton, New Brunswick, to a modest working-class family. His father, Nelson Rand, worked as a machinist for the Intercolonial Railway; his mother, Minnie, raised the family with the strong Christian discipline and work ethic typical of rural Eastern Canada at the time.
Rand grew up in a Canada that valued:
personal responsibility
faith
community
fairness
and suspicion of arbitrary authority
These early influences would shape his entire legal philosophy.
2. Education and Rise to the Supreme Court
Rand attended:
Mount Allison University
Harvard Law School (one of the few Canadians of his era to do so)
He practiced law, served as a law professor, and eventually became Attorney General of New Brunswick.
In 1943, he was appointed to the Supreme Court of Canada, where he served until 1959.
He died in London, Ontario, on January 2, 1969, leaving behind a body of jurisprudence that still limits government power today.
3. His Philosophy: Rights Come From God, Not Government
Rand believed:
Human rights are inherent, pre-political, and not created by Parliament.
He said freedoms flow from “the nature of man” — not from government.
This is why he is cherished by defenders of:
freedom of expression
freedom of religion
due process
property rights
limits on state power
rule of law
Long before anyone heard of Pierre Trudeau or the Charter, Ivan Rand built Canada’s real constitutional protections.
4. His Legacy: The Implied Bill of Rights
Through his decisions, Rand recognized a constitutional doctrine that Parliament could NOT override:
The Implied Bill of Rights
— an unwritten set of ancient freedoms protecting:
speech
religion
press
political debate
lawful protest
protection from arbitrary government action
This doctrine is still cited today — including in Roncarelli v. Duplessis, and most recently in Attorney General v. Power (2024), which affirmed Parliament’s supremacy over the courts.
5. The Ten Most Important Ivan Rand Cases
(with explanations you can use for activism, legal arguments, or teaching)
1. Boucher v. The King (1951)
Freedom to criticize government
Rand ruled that criticism of government is not sedition and cannot be criminalized.
He protected public dissent and prevented the state from calling disagreement “dangerous.”
Significance:
This case protects activists, journalists, and anyone calling out corruption.
2. Saumur v. City of Quebec (1953)
1953 – The landmark freedom of expression case
Rand ruled that freedom of expression and freedom of religion exist independently of government and arise from “the nature of man.”
Significance:
This is the foundation of Canadian freedom of expression, BEFORE the Charter.
3. Henry Birks & Sons v. Montreal (1955)
Municipal limits — no arbitrary power
Rand struck down a bylaw giving broad, vague authority to city officials.
Significance:
Municipalities cannot rule by arbitrary discretion — relevant for smart meters, zoning, AMPs, and bylaws today.
4. Chaput v. Romain (1955)
Police accountability
Rand held that police raids without lawful authority violate fundamental freedoms.
Significance:
Police cannot act as political enforcers; they must follow lawful authority.
5. Switzman v. Elbling (1957)
Freedom of political debate
Rand struck down a Quebec law banning discussion of communism.
He famously wrote:
“Parliament cannot silence opinion or control thought.”
Significance:
The government cannot criminalize opinions — even unpopular ones.
6. Lamb v. Benoit (1959)
Protection from arbitrary detention
Rand condemned the police for detaining a woman without lawful authority.
Significance:
Reinforces habeas corpus and prevents arbitrary police power.
7. Roncarelli v. Duplessis (1959)
Rule of law — no official is above it
Rand held Premier Maurice Duplessis personally liable for abusing his power to punish a citizen.
Significance:
The greatest rule-of-law case in Canadian history.
Government power is not absolute. Officials can be held personally responsible.
8. Winner v. SMT (Eastern) Ltd. (1951)
Mobility rights across provinces
Rand ruled that provinces cannot block people from crossing borders or operating businesses interprovincially.
Significance:
Canada is one country; provinces cannot trap citizens in internal borders.
9. Canadian Freight Assn. v. Attorney General (1952)
Federalism and limits on government power
Rand prevented overreach by emphasizing constitutional boundaries.
Significance:
Helps stop federal or provincial intrusion today in areas outside their authority.
10. Chaput v. Romain (1955)
(religious freedom)
Protects peaceful religious practice from police intrusion.
Significance:
Confirms that government cannot target religious believers or suppress their activities.
6. Why Ivan Rand Matters Today
Ivan Rand is more important today than ever:
We are facing administrative monetary penalties
Digital ID
Increased surveillance
Abuse of municipal and provincial power
Suppression of speech
Attacks on religion
Property rights violations
Arbitrary use of police authority
Rand’s rulings say “NO” to all of this.
He gives us legal ammunition grounded in:
Common law
Natural law
Canadian Bill of Rights
Section 129 of the Constitution Act 1867
Not the Charter.
7. Final Word: Canada Already Has a Defender of Rights — and It Isn’t Pierre Trudeau
Ivan Rand proved:
**Rights are God-given.
Rights are inherent.
Rights do not come from Parliament or courts.
And rights cannot be taken without lawful authority.**
He fought tyranny when few others dared to.
And today, Canadians like you are picking up the torch.
Please pass this civics information on to your friends and family including the children so that we can help protect Canada from tyranny in future.. Knowledge is Power
-Jane Scharf
Use these discount codes to get 1/2 price subscription.
Monthly FREEALBERTA -$1
Annual GWDISCOUNT- $12
Carney and the liberals are doing some next level tyranny with the bills they are tabling. It’s heavy. It’s like…as bad as it is, it’s likely worse than we know…🤔
A very interesting opinion piece by Keean Bexte. I haven’t been much of a fan of his for some time. I found his rants much like Rath’s…way over the top. However, maybe he’s mellowed because this has me thinking.
Copied⬇️
Mark Carney does not have a one seat majority.
Not yet.
But Ottawa is already acting as though one more floor crossing is inevitable, as though it would be stabilizing, as though it would crown Carney as unassailable. That assumption is wrong. And it should give pause to any Conservative MP currently flirting with the idea of defecting.
If you cross the floor and hand Carney a one seat majority, you are not his greatest asset.
You are his hostage.
A government that survives by a single vote is not strong. It is deeply vulnerable. And the people with the most leverage in that environment are not the newcomers who just arrived. They are the vestiges of the Trudeau era who never left.
Steven Guilbeault. Karina Gould. Others who believe this party was theirs before Carney arrived and should be theirs again.
...
