MUST READ: An apology to children living on properties leased for wind generation

by Pete Lomath
I’m a 66 year old Canadian who is partly responsible for allowing the McGuinty government to put in place the Green Energy Act and by so doing removing the protection afforded by the various pieces of legislation to children such as you whose parents have seen fit to place you in danger from the health impacts of wind turbines.

By setting what it deems to be acceptable setbacks and noise figures for those on property adjacent to wind turbine installations the Ontario government has acknowledged that anyone living closer than those setbacks or subject to noise levels higher than those referenced in legislation are at risk of health problems due to the wind turbine noise.

As a child living on land that is leased to a wind project YOU have no such protection from the government acknowledged long term effects of wind turbine noise because there are no setback or noise standards relevant to your residence.

Much has changed since our centennial year of 1967 when Ontario proudly heralded this province as “A Place to Stand, A Place to Grow”. Lately thousands of Ontarians have given of their time and expertise in an attempt to ensure that Ontario remains a place where everyone is protected equally from the potential health impacts of wind noise.

So far your government, the legal system, the organizations listed below and each corporation and individual involved in the implementation of wind energy in Ontariohave done nothing to provide any protection to you.

To Premier McGuinty and all who have sided with his government and the various self administering “professional” organizations to ignore the health impacts of wind turbine noise you are just ‘acceptable collateral damage’ from the spread of wind turbines across this province.

The list of those responsible for this sad state of affairs starts with your federal government down through the office of the speaker and all parties of the government of Ontario, the various ministries and allied mandating institutions.

Every single assembly and professional organization that you thought might have a requirement in law to ensure that you are protected has failed you and all in the name of bigger government, bigger business and a greater transfer of Canada’s wealth to the already-rich, mostly resident outside of Canada.

  • The Offices of Canada at the United Nations who purport, with grandstanding, to support the UN rights of Canadian children at the United Nations and yet have ignored my requests for help in protecting Ontario children living on the lands leased for wind generation left with NO protection under the Green Energy Act and who are discriminated against in relation to the protection afforded to their neighbors on adjoining properties.
  • The office of the speaker for the Ontario legislature who has failed to require the TRUTH in the form of science supported by the scientific method from members of the legislature in all matters related to the Green Energy Act in the house and by so doing has destroyed the integrity and decorum expected from that institution.
  • The Ontario Legislature for failing to require as part of the GEA a “standardized” contract for wind leases that was clear, did not include any form of “GAG” component and made the wind generation proponent fully responsible for ALL aspects of damage to health and for the complete remediation to the original for the removal of every component of the wind generation equipment, power line and road systems enforced by means of a bond for an amount determined by an actuary to be sufficient for every potential future claim.For accepting without question the discriminatory report of the Chief Medical Officer of Health (Dr. King) in consultation with the Ontario Agency for Health Protection and Promotion, the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care and the Council of Ontario Medical Officers of Health when they failed to investigate or make any recommendations related to those living on leased properties that have no protection in the law for noise levels that the GEA acknowledges are health impacting.
  • The MPP’s who blindly voted in favor of the Green Energy Act (Notably absent for the vote was Premier Dalton McGuinty) and by so doing removed all protection from mothers and children residing on land that has been leased to wind developers.

Aggelonitis, Sophia | Albanese, Laura | Arthurs, Wayne | Balkissoon, Bas | Bartolucci, Rick | Bentley, Christopher | Broten, Laurel C. | Brown, Michael A. | Brownell, Jim | Bryant, Michael | Cansfield, Donna H. | Caplan, David | Carroll, Aileen | Chan, Michael | Colle, Mike | Delaney, Bob | Dickson, Joe | Dombrowsky, Leona | Duguid, Brad | Duncan, Dwight | Flynn, Kevin Daniel | Fonseca, Peter | Gerretsen, John | Gélinas, France | Gravelle, Michael | Horwath, Andrea | Hoy, Pat | Jaczek, Helena | Jeffrey, Linda | Johnson, Rick | Kular, Kuldip | Lalonde, Jean-Marc | Leal, Jeff | Levac, Dave | Marchese, Rosario | McMeekin, Ted | McNeely, Phil | Meilleur, Madeleine | Miller, Paul | Milloy, John | Mitchell, Carol | Moridi, Reza | Pendergast, Leeanna | Phillips, Gerry | Ramal, Khalil | Ramsay, David | Rinaldi, Lou | Ruprecht, Tony | Sandals, Liz | Smith, Monique | Smitherman, George | Sousa, Charles | Tabuns, Peter | Takhar, Harinder S. | Van Bommel, Maria | Watson, Jim | Wilkinson, John | Wynne, Kathleen O. | Zimmer, David

  • The Ministry of the Environment for purporting to have science supporting every facet of the regulations yet fighting every attempt to obtain such supporting science through the freedom of information legislation even going so far as to start charging for the preparation of fee estimates as a way to raise the costs of obtaining information beyond the resources of average Canadians.  For refusing to accept the original submission on the GEA sent by registered mail regarding the GEA from the residents of Clearview.For allowing projects to proceed knowing that they had no protocols or test procedures that their own staff could use to validate the noise levels upon which projects were “rubber stamp approved” by the “professional” engineers at the MOE.For issuing contracts to engineering companies with a conflict of duty who are “paid-up” members of CANWEA to define and determine the noise measurement protocols and processes that will be the final determinate of whether projects meet new standards set long after their original approval under the “standards” set down in the GEA.The list goes on and on, and regardless of who is the Minister “responsible” (what a misnomer!) there is absolutely no change by the bureaucracy or its professional Engineers to undertake any honest scientific evaluation of the noise generated by wind turbines having any form of much needed public oversight.
  • The Ontario Ministry of Health for its failure to perform the most basic due diligence and research towards ascertaining the health impacts from wind turbines, choosing instead to rely on information from selected scientific publications. The report issued by the MOH related to the health impacts of wind turbines on Ontarians was generated simply from a “read” of peer reviewed papers performed by a junior member of staff and failed to even include interviews of “protected” Ontarians (those living on adjacent properties) let alone anyone such as you living on “unprotected” lands and subject to much higher allowable levels of turbine noise.
  • The Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care and the Council of Ontario Medical Officers of Health for the support of discrimination and allowing medical officers of health (acting or permanent) under their control or within their organization to accept taxable income from the wind industry to promote the position that there are no health impacts from wind turbines when the legislation itself acknowledges by default that any person living closer than 550 meters or being subjected to noise levels greater than provided for under the GEA is liable for long term health impacting conditions. This lack of action discriminates against every person forced to live without protection of law on lands leased for wind generation.
  • The “Chair” in renewable energy at the university of Waterloo who has spent (wasted) the last year assembling a cadre of experts in wind related sciences and has yet to produce one single piece of information supporting the $5million of taxpayers money that the government endowed to this process.
  • The HPARB for refusing to properly investigate the complaints rejected by the College of Physicians and Surgeons thereby giving its tacit permission for physicians to accept taxable income for representing the position of the wind industry and for them to continue making statements in areas’ in which they have no expertise, without fear of repercussions. For issuing final decisions on such complaints 2 months prior to receiving the evidence of complainants thereby reducing the whole process to a humorous exercise in futility by very highly paid civil servants none of whom can be held responsible for their actions.
  • The office of the Ontario Ombudsman was made aware of your plight three years ago and has failed to issue any report or publication related to the matter of wind turbine noise or health impacts choosing instead to side with the HPARB in allowing medical officers of health to continue receiving taxable income from wind power lobbying organizations and refusing to investigate a situation where the final decision of the HPARB was made two months BEFORE it even received the submissions of the complainant!
  • The office of the Ontario Privacy Commissioner whose adjudicator, by refusing to deal with the MOE charging arbitrarily assessed fees to SOME Ontarians to prepare fee estimates, have given their tacit permission for the Ontario government to continue making charges not mandated in legislation for the preparation of fee estimates, thereby escalating the costs of obtaining access to noise-related health information held by the MOE to the point where average Ontarians cannot afford to obtain the noise readings affecting their health.
  • The engineers at the MOE whose rubber stamping of the data files produced by other professional engineers working for wind proponents without requiring that data to be current, measurable or reflecting the error corrections and incorporation of current publicly available test results from working installations required under section 77 of the Professional Engineers Act. IF the MOE conducted field tests and applied the necessary corrections found by international authorities to the computer estimates upon which each project is approved, most wind projects would be shown to be outside of the acceptable levels for approval of those projects.
  • The College of Physicians and Surgeons for its lack of concern and rejection of complaints over the actions of its members in positions of public trust who are receiving taxable income (as defined by the CRA) from wind industry organizations to disseminate and support the views of the wind industry without being required to produce proof of their qualifications in noise measurement nor provide one verifiable piece of science to support their assertions that the noise from wind turbines will not impact the health of our children over the long term.
  • The Professional Engineers Association of Ontario for turning a blind eye to the way in which their members are failing to meet the requirements of section 77 of the Ontario PEng act and refusing to properly investigate complaints from even their own members about the actions of other members in regard to the flawed estimates and measurement of wind turbine noise.
  • The members of the Professional Engineers Association working for wind proponents to produce noise “estimates” who flaunt the requirements of their registration by referencing terms such as “It is our belief” and “It is our understanding” to be the science that their association and the MOE (purportedly) requires to support their work and which their “associates” at the MOE accept to be valid data for the purposes of project approval.
  • Each Ontario professional engineer who sits on the sidelines while a few of their peers, identified above, place the credibility of their whole profession in question through their failure to use the scientific method and the precautionary principle as the basis for their calculations of noise levels generated by wind turbines.
  • The lawyers whose crafting of the contracts for leasing land to wind development companies includes “GAG” clauses that prevent your parents from even speaking out about or reporting to your doctor or local heath unit any impacts on your health from wind turbine noise, blade flicker or noise.
  • Every “LLC” (Limited Liability Corporation) involved in any aspect of the wind industry that can (and almost certainly will)  legally walk away from any responsibility for health damages, remediation of abandoned sites and any other form of accountability with the full blessings of the governments that have allowed this form of irresponsible corporate framework to exist.
  • Every Ontarian who supports discrimination by failing to insist that all levels of government provide the same protection to those without a voice of their own living on land leased for wind projects as those living on properties adjacent to wind projects.

Because of the various forms of protection that governments put in place to look after their own and since there is no accountability for civil servants, almost no one in the above list can be held personally responsible for their actions, you have very few options available to you to require your governments to protect you as they already do for your neighbors on adjoining properties.

Most of us in the wind movement placed our hopes with the Ontario Ombudsman but since the “renewal” of his five year term by Premier McGuinty and the Ontario Legislature it would appear that wind issues have “blown away” and the lack of protection provided to you has fallen out of his focus so even the “bastion of last resort” has joined the rest of your government in ignoring your plight.

As we allow governments to expand and take over control of everything we hold dear, we are certainly leaving one hell of a legacy to our children and grandchildren.

The documentation that I have collected over the past three years supporting every statement that I have made above will be made available to you (upon request) on CD so that when you are old enough to be able to act for yourself you will have evidence of the manner with which your government treated you when you were a child.


Peter Lomath, father of 4 and now retired after 45 years working in sound measurement and audio communications.

27 thoughts on “MUST READ: An apology to children living on properties leased for wind generation

  1. Peter, my thoughts exactly, and you wrote a magnificant piece. I too got sucked in believing wind was the answer, but there is a huge difference between the small wind turbines of yesterday and these locomotive engines on 400 foot towers. Yes, and I agree with the culpability of all those who have a mandate to PROTECT the public, but who turn a blind eye.
    Green energy is not green if it hurts.
    We don’t live in factories
    Wind is not a replacement for coal + nuclear
    Wind is not practical without storage, and not economically viable.
    Wind may be ok in the praries, or up north, NOT southern Ontario.
    May the provincial Liberals diasappear just like the Federal Liberals.

    Eric Jelinski P. Eng.

  2. Peter – can you get this out to a newspaper or tv? It is so compelling! You should be in government, or anywhere that calls for a sensible, knowledgeable and caring human with foresight!
    There are not many of you around! Thank you for your insight, hopefully it will not go un-noticed!

    • Spread it to whomever you wish, its the kids that are being forgotten in this quest by government to steamroller over the human rights that Canada so eloquently shoves down the throats of other countries.

      • I am on twitter, just look up EricJelinski and retweet. Whether or not it works, I have been sending directly to news sources. In a @tweet, the recipient gets an e-mail in their inbox, I think the more they get the merrier. Eric

  3. This is so well done and the Truth , can we all email this to everyone we know
    I will be that’s for sure.

    • Please don’t lose site of the intent of this apology – its the kids living on lands leased for wind turbines that HAVE to remain our biggest concern.

      We need to ask each of the parties that I have listed why they have taken this route and what they are going to do about it.

      There is only one institution with the power to investigate each of the organizations in my list and that is the Ontario Ombudsman, an appointment of the legislature and the only “arms-length” party with a mandate from the legislature to investigate and report to the legislature with the information necessary to make the changes in law necessary to protect those kids living on leased lands.

      Everyone needs to start asking why the Ombudsman has become so silent on the matter of wind and what is he going to do to start protecting those whose rights have been ignored!

  4. I agree 100%. Wind turbines will be seen by the children as one of the worst policy decisions of any Canadian government, ever.

  5. If the engineers involved in this speak out they will have their careers ruined. It’s not just losing or quiting a job it’s their whole future gone.
    Everyone had to be brought on board to get the IWTs installed in Ontario.

    • A predetermined outcome was needed and this is what MOE got. There may have been a few who went along with this to enhance their careers. The others did what they were told to do.
      Condeming all won’t get people with inside information to come foreward. These people need to feel safe to come foreward.

  6. Abandoned dreams. What is the cost to the housing economy when less is spent to build in rural properties?

    • Feel free to promote it any way you wish. I entered the wind movement with a letter to the Canadian representative at the UN which was ignored, then the 250 page submission to the MOE (sent registered) on the GEA was returned as undeliverable. That submission promoted a “zone of protection” for every Ontarian that would have provided a safe haven from wind turbine noise, it never even made it to the MOE and the Ombudsman failed to do anything about it!.

      This whole process has shown me how destitute the moral compass of government has become.

      Interestingly I have thousands of pages of support for all of my assertions and my project for 2012 is to create a CD that those who have suffered from the decisions of these parties can use later in their life to show intent to damage by the listed parties.

      • Written information had to be accumulated to document the IWT situation. Otherewise it is a he says she says situation.
        There are many who do not yet know who is behind IWT installations in Ontario. The government is only one part of this.
        Once big money got their feet in the door here then they could call the shots.

      • For those who are interested here is what got me started in fighting wind noise:

        Ambassador John McNee
        Permanent Mission of Canada to the United Nations
        One Dag Hammarskjöld Plaza
        885 Second Avenue, 14th Floor
        New York, NY 10017

        August 28, 2009

        Dear Mr. Ambassador,

        On August 16, 2009, I sent to your attention by Email the following letter:

        “I am a Canadian citizen greatly concerned by a bill recently passed by the Government of Ontario that discriminates against children resident on lands leased for wind power generation by eliminating even the most basic health safeguards of setbacks and noise standards for those children.
        Confirmation of this can be obtained from the attached file “due diligence.pdf” that shows questioned asked in an attempt to clearly define and clarify the standards, the response from the Ministry of the Environment that confirms they do not even understand their own standards and a further response in the form of a “Letter of understanding” (currently unanswered) that restates my interpretation of the governments rules from their own web site and the statements in Mr. Perry’s letter.
        I understand that “health” matters fall under provincial jurisdiction but since Canada is a party state to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and the removal of any form of protection for a child resident on leased lands by Ontario Bill 150 would, in my humble opinion, appear to contravene articles 2, 3, 6, 24, 31 and 32 of those rights it is a matter that falls under the international jurisdiction of the United Nations. Under the convention Canada’s representative is required to inform the United Nations accordingly.
        I have contacted UNICEF Canada and they concur that there is a high potential that, as a minimum, articles 3 and 4 are being contravened.
        This request is for Canada’s representative to officially inform the United Nations of the contravention of the Convention by the Province of Ontario due to the passing into law of Bill 150.
        “A Canada Fit for Children” – Canada’s plan of action in response to the May 2002 United Nations Special Session on Children asserts to the U.N. the rights of Canadian children and much of this documents content is also impacted by the lack of protection to children living in residences on lands leased for wind power embedded in Bill 150.
        Children resident on leased lands have no protection while their immediate neighbors on adjoining properties have some (minimal) health protection, this is discrimination and should not be allowed.
        If you would review the attached document “GEA_coverlet.pdf” you will find my proposed solution to this concern in the form of a “Basic health protection zone” applicable to all Ontarians that would have minimal impact on the attempts by the Ontario Government to promote wind power while ensuring that ALL Ontarians have the same (non-discriminatory) health protection.
        Unfortunately the Government of Ontario has seen fit to reject the submission “sight unseen” that would allow them to provide protection to those they currently they have legislated to discriminate against. This was accomplished by the refusal of the designated manager for the project to accept the registered mail containing the submission.
        I have undertaken a lengthy due diligence process towards responding to the Ontario Government public process (EBR Registry Number 010-6516 Regulation Proposal notice: Proposed Ministry of the Environment to implement the Green Energy and Green Economy act 2009-07-08) and my peer reviewed, 50+ page submission was rejected without reason even though it was sent by registered mail to the named party for submission 5 days before the closing date – a matter that is now the subject of a complaint to the Ontario Ombudsman.
        Copies of my due diligence material are attached to this email, so that your staff has full disclosure of my (rejected) submission and my ongoing efforts through the Ontario Ombudsman to have the Government of Ontario respond to my questions and requests for support of the “science” they assert was used to determine that children living on leased lands do not require any health protection.
        The Ontario government has acknowledged that a setback of 550 metres is appropriate for neighbors of those leasing their lands for wind power; I think that equal health protection should be provided to children on those same leased lands, namely 550 metres from the centre of their habitation.
        If you have any questions regarding this matter or require a formal signed request by mail please feel free to contact me by email
        Since I have not received either an acknowledgement of receipt or a response, please take this letter as a formal signed request to bring this matter to the attention of the United Nations as is required under the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
        If you cannot find the attachments supporting the original email, please contact me and I will happy to re-send that information to you.

        NOTHING came of this request, I guess the only messages that get broadcast by Canada are our current politicians “teaching” the Europeans what to do about “Their” money problems and our advise to others about the human rights that we have forgotten at home.

  7. I suffer from ‘annoyance’ from low frequency sound and this started with a 20 hour journey in a DC4-type piston engined aircraft at the age of 10. The engine firing was intermittent and the ear splitting headaches almost unbearable. My mother and sister were not affected.
    The only obvious residual effect was that electricity sub-stations were a nuisance and the loud hums kept me awake. Walking past them was unpleasant.
    That was until at the age of 50 when I worked in a ‘sick building’. Here I (and others) felt ill from the low frequency noise generated by the two separate phases of the building vibrating against one another. The acute headaches reappeared.
    I now sometimes have annoyance headaches when I stand downwind of an active wind turbine tower.

    It seems very possible that others who are disturbed by the inaudible sound emitting from the towers have also been pre-sensitised to low frequency noise by some similar mechanism.
    But that is only a possibility – there is no published research, but there is this continuous nagging feeling that the sensitisation process might start in childhood.
    It might or might not be possible that the infrasound intensity peaks caused by the rotor blades passing the towers are sufficient to sensitise others – we just don’t know! And we do not know why the neurologists who research these matters do not publish.
    It seems that very few people are sensitised to react to these emissions – but we just don’t know.

    We must try to find out.

  8. Thank you Peter Lomath for taking the time to put together such a comprehensive document. It truly is astounding how many “professionals” are turning a blind eye to the IWT situation.

    No wonder our city cousins are confused. On the one hand they hear their country kin questioning, demanding and criticizing the development of IWT’s, on the other hand they hear “experts” and “professionals” singing the praises of IWT’s and then for good measure mix in a bunch of political BS and we have a bona fide cluster f*&% on our hands.

    Nothing will change in regards to IWT’s unless we can get urban folks to realize that their trust in so-called professionals relative to IWT’s has been misplaced. Greed has overtaken and overshadowed all common sense, and in many cases even caused otherwise honest, moral people to misconstrue the truth.

    How do we fight the Greed Machine?! How do we get people to listen to the truth when their common sense has been usurped by the Greed Machine? I find it all very demoralizing.

    We NEED the urbanites to realize that they have been misled. Without their (voting)(political)support/clout I know rural Ontario is doomed.

  9. I have forwarded this Lorrie Golstein of the Toronto Sun and Sun News. I will send it on to others if necessary. It was a good protest in Port Elgin on Sat.

    • Is there any here who has a contact at the Star? As far as I can tell, there are studiously avoiding this issue but we need the support of their readers as well.

      I have sent a couple of letters but I am a voice in the wilderness and was ignored.


      • Keep trying. You are not a voice in the wilderness.
        The Toronto Star has a history of being one of the least effective listeners and has not reported on reams of letters and articles sent in. Having said that, you just never know when these media giants will decide they’d better get on the bus to save their reputation. So far they are no better that the gov’t for allowing this harm to continue…

  10. Peter thanks for manning up and voicing concern in such a fine manner. I’m copying our legal team in Toronto as I respond here. I’m trying to engeage our lawyer residents on the lake here by asking them to think of what legeacy they ultimately want to leave their children.
    In our picturesque little town with beautiful Gobles Grove Beach as one of our star family attractions the CAW, National Champions of Workplace Health and Safety and Human Rights, have been grandfathered permission by the MOE to install an 800 KW turbine with no setbacks despite the fact over 100 families live within the 550 setback zone some as close as 200 m. Their own people work and their guest families sleep within 100 m. Even the beach is in the danger zone.
    Liberals gave them a $6 B auto bailout and since Dalton needed a sales team complete with it’s own teaching campus up steps the CAW stooges. Ken is trying to blow some green wind into a deflating CAW. And despite saying since 2005 to the public the electricity is for the Family Education Centre consumption only they get awarded a tax payer subsidized Fit Contract to sell to the grid at a profit. Then they unleash their PR machine echoing the Liberal “don’t worry folks trust us it’s all good ” mantra on us residents.
    Tomorrow we sit down with Doris Dumais. It took her 3 weeks to resond to our legal demand to revoke the permit – just enough time for the CAW to pour the foundation.
    It’s going to take a Supreme Court challenge to enact laws governing low frequency sound.
    Now that is a cause worth the fight especially for the children. Lawyers are you listening?

    Greg Schmalz
    S.T.O.P. ( SaugeenShores Turbine Operation Policy )
    Follow us on Stop The CAW Turbine / Facebook and Windconcerns Ontario
    OnLine petition at / Join S.T.O.P. at

  11. Thank you Peter. Bullied families everywhere have been silenced. There is no protection for any living thing. Along with the children are pets and corralled livestock that are suffering too. They cannot escape either.

  12. We fight for the protection of the land, air, and water. We fight for the protection of the creatures, the birds and the people of the land. LAW We are fighting for our children. A truth and lesson given by a representative of the original people, at a meeting I recently attended. I echo…. Land, Air, and Water- for my child and yours.

  13. Thanks for doing this Pete; it all needed saying and you have done it very well.
    Best regards,

  14. The article by Peter Lomath is very interesting. Many wind opponents use a shotgun approach and fire arguments (and there are many!) in every direction. Here he targets one small area, which is extremely clear, totally black and white. The very fact that the government has chosen setback distances that they deem safe, seems like a clear admission that there is some distance which is not safe.

    Is there any way to start a class action suit on behalf of these children. Surely any agreement that their parents signed with wind companies cannot be binding on the children, where health and safety are concerned.

    • John if you scroll up, you will see a copy of the letter to Canada’s representative at the U.N. that got me started on this quest for protection for these kids.

      At the time I sent that letter I contacted as many of the “child protection” organizations as I could find and many of them (they deal with this sort of discrimination issue every day) agreed that certain sections of the U.N. children’s charter are being ignored.

      If anyone can follow up on this as a “legal” issue then it probably escalates into federal territory and then the question becomes does Harper want to take on McGuinty? (That would be an interesting clash of two massive ego’s!)

      I’d like to see people taking this to the Ontario Ombudsman because he has been aware of this problem since 2009 when I provided him with about 500 pages of information related to the GEA.

      The “GAG” clauses in some contracts also need to be made into an issue since parents who have signed on to wind have their rights to take their children to the Doctor or local health authorities severely limited in regard to speaking of any health issue that could in any way be related to wind. Even a simple statement like “Johny has only had these headaches since the turbines went in” would probably be covered by the GAG components of the contracts.

      The most concerning part of this story is the way in which EVERY organization that purports to offer/provide any form of protection has run away from the table and left these kids in danger.

      Keep and eye on the skyway124 project up here in Creemore for the next example of this type of lack of concern by McGuinty and everyone in contract with him in support of wind over children.

  15. Bodes an interesting conundrum:

    If the mandamus writ application has to be made by the legal guardian of the child, and if that legal guardian is also resident on the land and bound by a GAG order, can the guardian then be sued for breaking the GAG order…….

    Would the 3rd party prior notification (mine, to Canada’s representative at the U.N.) serve as part of the pre-requisite notification…..

Comments are closed.