LP_468x60
on-the-record-468x60-white

An Indian groom holds a flower and grains of rice at his bride's house ahead of their wedding.

An Ontario man who admitted to participating in two ‘sham’ marriages to help Indian women immigrate to Canada in return for services and cash has failed in his efforts to prove he’s married to the mother of his three children.

Amratpal Singh Sidhu asked Ontario’s Superior Court of Justice for a declaration that he’s legally married to Amandeep Kaur. She was looking for a judge to say the opposite.

“He openly admitted to participating in two ‘sham’ marriages, for financial gain and in an effort to dupe Canadian immigration authorities,” Justice Frances Wood wrote in a recent decision from the family court division.

“For many years, he declared himself single for income tax purposes and, when transferring real estate, declared that he was not a spouse, which allowed him to transfer the properties without (Amandeep Kaur’s) consent.”

Neither party divulged why it matters if they’re married or not.

“But, as (Sidhu) has made a claim for equalization in his application, this court infers that the importance relates to that claim – if the parties are not legally (married), he has no equalization claim,” Wood said.

An “equalization claim” is a legal process in Canadian family law where spouses seek a fair division of the property and debts accumulated during their marriage.

The court heard Sidhu and Kaur met while they were both working at Toronto’s Pearson International Airport.

“Both were residents of Ontario,” said the judge. “They agreed to travel to India to get married. The wedding plans were made while the parties were in Ontario, and they then travelled together from Ontario to India shortly before the ceremony.”

Both of them agree “that they participated in a traditional marriage ceremony in India on December 4, 1997,” said the decision.

Shortly after that Sidhu “travelled to a nearby town … where he participated in what he refers to as a ‘sham’ marriage ceremony,” it said.

Sidhu testified that “in exchange for care being provided to his ailing mother, he participated in this fake wedding to assist the ‘bride,’ Karamjit Kaur, in immigrating to Canada.”

Sidhu and Karamjit Kaur divorced in Ontario in January 2001, said the decision, dated Nov. 12.

“Despite (Sidhu’s) characterization of the second marriage as a ‘sham’, the fact is that it has been formally recognized in Ontario whereas there is no formal recognition nor registration of the parties’ alleged marriage either in Ontario or India,” Wood said.

“The parties agree that polygamous marriages are not permitted pursuant to the Hindu Marriage Act. (Sidhu) cannot, therefore, have been married to both (Amandeep Kaur) and Karamjit Kaur.”

Sidhu travelled to India again in 2022 “where he participated in yet another allegedly ‘sham’ marriage, once again with the aim of assisting the ‘bride’ in immigrating to Canada. This marriage was to Harjit Kaur. According to (Sidhu) Canadian authorities were not persuaded of the validity of the marriage and Harjit Kaur never did immigrate to Canada. There is a marriage certificate evidencing this marriage,” said the decision.

“Much was made by the parties as to whose idea the 2022 ‘sham’ marriage was. (Sidhu) insisted that Harjit Kaur is (Amandeep Kaur’s) cousin, and that (Amandeep Kaur) had been promised $40,000 to assist in the immigration process. He testified that (Amandeep Kaur and their child) were present at the ‘marriage’ ceremony. (Amandeep Kaur) denied this.”

On “several occasions” between 2000 and 2017 Sidhu “described himself as single and common-law on Income Tax filings and when transferring real property,” said the decision.

Amandeep Kaur “described herself as married in her 2018 Income Tax Return, but as single in the other returns available to the court.”

She “made some attempt to demonstrate that the relationship was ‘on and off’ to argue that they did not live together ‘as a married couple’ but does not deny that the parties lived together for at least some periods of time following the marriage,” said the decision.

“They have three children together. It is not necessary to determine that the parties lived together continuously from 1997 until their final separation.”

Sidhu alleges Amandeep Kaur “deliberately claimed that she was single and insisted that he do the same, to maximize her entitlement to certain tax benefits and credits. He testified that he declared himself single on income tax and real estate documents at (Amandeep Kaur’s) insistence.”

The judge had concerns about the credibility of both parties.

“Neither may rely on their own fraud to bolster their own position with respect to the validity of the marriage,” Wood said.

“Where the court is left in serious doubt as to the credibility of either party, it must have resort to any uncontroverted evidence. Undisputed documentary evidence is particularly helpful.”

When they returned to Canada in 1997, “both declared themselves single to different authorities,” said the judge.

“At no time did either obtain any sort of formal documentation recording their marriage.”

And “significantly,” Sidhu “married Karamjit Kaur immediately after the ceremony with” Amandeep Kaur, Wood said, noting “that marriage has been considered to be valid by an Ontario court when it granted a divorce, a process in which (Sidhu) participated. Since polygamy is not permitted in India, (Sidhu) cannot have been married to both (Amandeep Kaur) and Karamjit Kaur. Whether the second marriage was entered into for immigration purposes or not, that is the marriage that (Sidhu) chose to have formally recognized.”

The judge noted “a valid marriage certificate has been produced” for when Sidhu “married yet again” to Harjit Kaur.

Even if Amandeep Kaur “was an active participant” in that wedding, that doesn’t help Sidhu’s case, Wood said. “Rather, it bolsters the conclusion that both understood they were not legally married.”

The judge found that “neither party entered into the December 4, 1997 marriage with the intention that the marriage would be considered legally valid in Ontario.”

Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark nationalpost.com and sign up for our daily newsletter, Posted, here.


Iqbal Singh Virk, left, and Ranjit Singh Rowal, co-owners and drivers of an Ontario-based commercial truck, were arrested at the border with cocaine allegedly for Ryan Wedding's large narco cartel.

It was 3:26 in the morning when a long-haul tractor trailer loaded with steel bars pulled up on the U.S. side of the Blue Water Bridge at the southern end of Lake Huron, connecting Ontario and Michigan.

The driver, Iqbal Singh Virk, an owner-operator of the truck based in Brampton, Ont., lowered his window to speak with U.S. Customs officers monitoring overnight traffic on Aug. 28, 2024. In the passenger seat was Ranjit Singh Rowal, who shared the driving.

Virk answered their questions: No, they didn’t they have guns, drugs, or cash over $5,000 with them; no one had given them anything to bring across; they were both Indian citizens with permanent resident status in Canada.

Experienced drivers, it must have seemed routine until Virk was told to pull his truck over for inspection. Less than 10 minutes after they had rolled up at the border, a Rapiscan X-ray system was crawling over their truck.

It’s a system that penetrates steel and it spotted what the drivers hoped it wouldn’t.

At the rear of their trailer was an anomaly — a long, thin compartment above the trailer’s Ontario licence plate that wouldn’t normally be there. Officers were soon pulling bricks wrapped together in cellophane out from that hole, stacking them on the loading bay floor. They counted 115 bricks weighing slightly more than 124 kilos. An officer estimated that if it is high-grade cocaine it would be worth close to US$4 million.

That evidence left little room for the truckers to maneuver.

As they waited in jail over the next few months, the case ballooned into something that would soon burst into clanging news coverage.

Some 3,700 kilometres along the highways Virk and Rowal had just driven, in Los Angeles, U.S. authorities had been investigating a huge international criminal enterprise. That violent and prolific cartel, authorities claimed, was headed by Ryan Wedding, a former Olympic snowboarder for Team Canada. Wedding, born in Thunder Bay, Ont., was named the mastermind behind a deluge of cocaine flowing from Colombia to California and then to Canada, from a safe space in Mexico.

Two months after the border arrests of Virk and Rowal, an indictment was unsealed with Wedding’s name at the top — alongside his nicknames of “Giant” and “El Jefe,” Spanish for the boss — followed by 15 others. Ten of them were Canadian citizens or residents. The allegations called them organizers, traffickers, hitmen, transportation gurus and wheelmen. Last week the FBI called Wedding a modern-day Pablo Escobar and El Chapo Guzman, two of history’s most notorious drug lords.

The last two names on that indictment are Virk and Rowal.

While their role among the alarming accounts of murders and mega-loads seems small, the details of their cases, which have now been proven in court through guilty pleas — the first for any of the Canadians caught in the probe — shows them as an important piece of a jigsaw that knitted a transportation network in Canada to a narco cartel abroad, and reveals how the organizations generated huge amounts of money.

 A U.S. Customs photo of the hidden compartment at the back of the truck where cocaine and heroin was found.

Evidence presented in court while Virk and Rowal tried to quickly settle their cases says that international narcos had negotiated a haulage deal with a network of Indo-Canadian trucking firms and drivers based in Brampton, Ont., northwest of Toronto.

A dispatcher sent by the narcos would meet various drivers of Canada-bound commercial trucks at meeting spots in and around Los Angeles and hand over bricks of pressed cocaine. The drivers would hide the bricks in their trucks and then drive northeast into Canada, where the drugs were distributed by others.

The trucks were also hauling legitimate cargo to camouflage the trips and they got lost in the constant back-and-forth at some of the world’s busiest commercial border points. Members of the cooperating networks used serial numbers from U.S. one-dollar bills, swapped over encrypted communications, as passcodes to identify each other at their rendezvous.

Sometimes it went more smoothly than others.

In early April 2024, Virk — now 65 years old — agreed to collect a load of cocaine in California from the narcos and haul it back when next bringing in a load of regular cargo.

Virk and Rowal, who co-owned a tractor-trailer, drove into the United States on April 28, 2024, and headed for Los Angeles. They pulled the truck into a rest stop on May 3, 2024, and waited for the drugs to be delivered. A dispatcher for the narco said two large deliveries were coming. That was a problem because their compartment could only fit about 250 kilos.

It became an argument at the highest level. Authorities allege that Wedding, through encrypted messaging, asked for a discount on the transportation cost — $150,000 instead of the $220,000 previously agreed. The transport boss in Canada refused the lower price. Wedding allegedly refused to pay full freight for a load 30 per cent smaller and the deal was scrapped after a standoff.

Nobody involved in the deals knew it at the time, but it turns out that the bosses weren’t arranging the deal directly with each other. The FBI had infiltrated the operation and inserted a confidential source as a go-between.

That infiltration helps explain why, three months later, Virk and Rowal were stopped at the border bridge when next trying to cross back into Canada. Their load that day was later found to be split between cocaine and heroin, court records say.

 U.S. Customs photo of the bricks of cocaine, bundled in cellophane, found hidden in Virk’s and Rowal’s truck.

When both men were arrested, through a Punjabi interpreter, Virk told officers he had been a truck driver for seven years and routinely crossed the border, sometimes weekly, but didn’t admit to the drugs. Rowal wouldn’t say anything at all.

They were both arrested on drug charges and detained. They were transferred to California to face courts on the wider allegations.

On Aug. 5, Rowal signed a plea agreement with prosecutors. He agreed to plead guilty to two charges: conspiracy to distribute cocaine and possession with intent to distribute cocaine. Virk signed a similar agreement 10 days later.

They agreed they conspired with two or more people to distribute cocaine, knew they were carrying drugs and knew it was destined for further distribution. Their replacement charge informations for their plea were stripped of co-conspirator names, notably Wedding’s.

Their plea deals said the maximum penalty they faced was life imprisonment but their guilty pleas would lower that. They agreed to forfeit all property involved in the crime, including the truck.

Both men are citizens of India and travelled on an Indian passport who immigrated to Canada where they attained permanent resident status.

After his guilty plea but before his sentencing, Rowal’s lawyers asked the judge to order the return of his passport, Ontario health card, driver’s licence, cell phone and rings he was wearing. His lawyer said he needed the items to prepare for his departure from the United States. His lawyers had hopes that would happen soon, as they argued for Rowal to be sentenced to time already served and released.

One of his lawyers, Haley Huntley urged that his sentencing move quickly, saying Rowal placed “profound emotional and psychological importance” on wrapping it up and was counting “how many squares on the calendar” there were before sentencing.

“He has been planning for this day as one of the most important in his life, and he is eager for his sentencing to go forward as planned,” Huntley told the judge.

By that point, Rowal had been in jail for 449 days.

 Ryan Wedding, a most-wanted fugitive with a US$15 million bounty for his arrest.

The night before sentencing, prosecutors filed a document in court saying they had talked to the RCMP about Rowal’s status in Canada and were told that as a non-citizen permanent resident in Canada he would be considered inadmissible to the country after his conviction for serious criminality and sent for an admissibility hearing. A removal order against him was the likely outcome, they said the RCMP told them, leading to removal to India.

His lawyer lambasted prosecutors for it.

“The government then prepared and filed a public document, giving this useless information to the whole world. The government lawyers are supposed to pursue justice; they should not aim to inflict as much pain as possible, and unnecessary pain, on disenfranchised and indigent defendants.”

In court, Judge Sherilyn Peace Garnett accepted Rowal’s guilty plea and sentenced him to 37 months in prison. She recommended the U.S. Bureau of Prisons place him in a facility close to Canada, an hour’s drive from the border.

Virk, who also goes by the name Mark, pleaded guilty as well, in September, but his sentencing hearing has been delayed. It is now scheduled for March.

Lawyers for the two could not be reached for comment prior to publication deadline.

• Email: ahumphreys@postmedia.com | X:

Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark nationalpost.com and sign up for our newsletters here.


NDP leadership candidates, from left: Rob Ashton, Tanille Johnston, Avi Lewis, Heather McPherson and Tony McQuail, following the NDP French language leadership debate in Montreal on Thursday, November 27, 2025.

MONTREAL — The five contenders to lead the NDP took to the stage on Thursday night in Montreal for the first of two official leadership debate.

While more love-in than battle royale, the 90-minute debate still had its share of memorable moments. Here are some of the evening’s biggest takeaways:

Lewis easily clears field in French

Filmmaker Avi Lewis was by far the most comfortable candidate on the stage in French, giving detailed, fluid responses in the language and bantering gamely with francophone media in a post-debate scrum.

Edmonton MP Heather McPherson held her own in French portions of the debate, despite the occasional stilted response and anglicism — for instance, taking a shot at Alberta Premier Danielle Smith for “attaquer les trans kids” in recent legislation.

The other three candidates, who all chose to wear earpieces for simultaneous translation, lagged well behind.

“You’ve heard (this evening) that my French is not perfect,” acknowledged B.C.-based union leader Rob Ashton in the French portion of his closing debate.

Vancouver Island city councillor Tanille Johnston just shook her head and gave a flabbergasted look when asked after the debate to say, in French, how she thought she did.

‘Manly’ nation-building projects a threat to Indigenous women and girls

Lewis’s performance wasn’t without its wrinkes. During a segment on reconciliation with Canada’s First Nations, he bizzarely tied the Carney government’s major projects push to the crisis of missing and murdered Indigenous women.

“All of this talk of nation-building projects that has consumed the oxygen of our political conversation … They’re big, manly things with huge work camps entailed in remote areas. The impacts on Indigenous women and girls are intense, are horrifying,” said Lewis.

‘Tony, we only got eight minutes’

Lewis was also at the centre of the closest thing the debate gave us to a confrontation, impatiently interjecting during organic farmer Tony McQuail’s long-winded response on how to rebuild the party.

“Tony, we only got eight minutes!” Lewis chided.

McQuail was flustered but undeterred by the interruption.

“Yea, but you’ve got seven more and there are only four more of you … so let me make my point!” he shot back.

Sartorial signalling

Whoever ends up leader, it’s clear they’ll be a departure from Jagmeet Singh’s rolex and bespoke suits. A few candidates tried to coney their regularness with debate-night fashion choices.

Ashton boasted that he was wearing work boots onstage while taking a shot at “cosplay(ing)” Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre. McQuail, for his part, donned his now trademark straw hat.

Host city love

The contenders couldn’t call it a night without trying to score a few brownie points from host city Montreal, a pandering session moderator Karl Belanger teed up perfectly by asking each of them to name their favourite place in Canada.

“C’mon, le Montreal!” said McPherson on cue.

“Alright, so we’re trying to speak to Montrealers?” joked Avi Lewis, who named Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal as his top three cities.

“It’s gonna be Montreal!” drawled Ashton in his best Quebec accent.

Not all candidates were so shameless. Johnston said Tofino, B.C., a noted vacation spot for ex-Liberal prime minister Justin Trudeau, was her favourite getaway.

The next NDP leadership debate will take place in the Vancouver area in February.

National Post
rmohamed@postmedia.com

Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark nationalpost.com and sign up for our daily newsletter, Posted, here.


Premier Danielle Smiths speaks at the Unlock The Pipeline Gridlock conference hosted by the Indian Resource Council-Canada at the Westin Airport hotel on November 27, 2025.

OTTAWA — Deciding how long it will take for Alberta’s industrial carbon tax to hit its new “minimum” of $130 per tonne should be based on what “industry can afford,” says Alberta Premier Danielle Smith.

Smith made the comments fresh off the signing of a new energy and pipeline deal with Prime Minister Mark Carney, which throws the Liberal government’s support behind the construction of a new Alberta-B.C. bitumen pipeline and exempts the province from a set of clean electricity regulations.

Chief among the wins the prime minister has touted from the deal is Alberta’s commitment to strengthening its industrial carbon tax, which Smith had earlier this year frozen at $95 per tonne. Under the current federal standard, systems must progressively hike the tax to reach $170 per tonne by 2030.

The new deal commits Ottawa and Alberta to collaborate on long-term carbon pricing for its oil and gas and electricity sectors through its provincial TIER system. According to the pact, both governments agreed that the system “will ramp up to a minimum effective credit price of $130/tonne.”

Asked what year Alberta intends to meet the price of $130 per tonne, Smith told National Post in an interview Thursday, “we have to negotiate that.”

She said there are partners the province must negotiate with, including a group of oilsands companies proposing to build a massive carbon capture and storage project, which Carney has linked to any future construction of a new bitumen pipeline, that Smith agreed to in the deal.

While industrial carbon pricing is part of that project, the premier said “they’re also on the other side, in wanting to expand production, and knowing that if it goes too high, it could put us in an uncompetitive position compared to the United States.”

“We’ve got to gauge that. We’ve got to see what is happening in the global market. We’ve got to see what’s reasonable.”

Asked whether the new

“minimum” tax agreed to in the deal of $130 per tonne could be reached by 2030, Smith said that she was of the view that “it’s got to be at a level that the industry can afford.”

The next steps on Alberta’s carbon pricing policy will be the subject of another set of negotiations with Carney’s government, set to be concluded no later than next April.

“We wanted to send the signal that we’re open to having a discussion about what it should be, but that hasn’t been determined yet, how quickly it’s going to rise, or what the ultimate top price would be,” Smith said.

Industrial carbon pricing, which applies to heavy emitters, remains a cornerstone of Carney’s climate policy. His Nov. 4 budget promised to also develop a “post-2030 carbon pricing trajectory” by working with provinces and territories.

On the question of whether there was any scenario the premier would be willing to sign on to having that tax reach $170 per tonne, Smith said she did not want to “prejudge” future discussions or what the market may be out to 2050, which is when Canada and Alberta have agreed to achieve net-zero emissions.

“I think what we want to do is ensure that the price is at a level today that will stimulate some of the investment in emissions reduction technology without crushing the industry.”

She added: “I think you can see we all agree $170 by 2030, was too high, too fast, and I’m encouraged by the fact that they made that concession.”

Even with the major new energy deal in hand, Smith predicts no private sector proponent will come forward to build the pipeline proposal until approval is secured from the federal major projects office.

Under the pact, Smith committed to formally apply to that office, which Carney established this fall to help streamline the approvals process, no later than next July, slightly later than Alberta’s initially stated goal of next spring.

“I think we’d have to get approval from the major projects office to get a private sector proponent,” Smith said.

“So we’re prepared to take it through the first couple of stages. Because, let’s face it, our industry has been bitten before,” adding she believes any proponent needs a high level of approval certainty.

B.C. Premier David Eby has slammed the continued lack of a pipeline proponent when it comes to the federal backing of the project, saying it risks serving as a “distraction” from focusing on other major infrastructure projects that currently have private sector support and financing.

“There is not one private company that has stepped up to say, if you build it, we’ll buy it. If the approvals are in place, we’ll build it. Not one,” Eby said on Thursday.

Carney confirmed, while speaking with reporters that day, that without a private proposal, a new pipeline to the B.C. coast would not get built.

An Alberta official who spoke to reporters in a technical briefing before the deal was unveiled said that should the process ahead roll out smoothly, the goal would be to get shovels in the ground for a new pipeline by 2029.

National Post

Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark nationalpost.com and sign up for our daily newsletter, Posted, here.


NDP leadership candidates, from left: Rob Ashton, Tanille Johnston, Avi Lewis, Heather McPherson and Tony McQuail, following the NDP French language leadership debate in Montreal on Thursday, November 27, 2025.

MONTREAL — If now-backbench Liberal MP Steven Guilbeault was looking for sympathy, he won’t find it from four of the five candidates vying to be the next NDP leader.

Edmonton MP Heather McPherson had a blunt assessment when asked in a post-debate scrum about the anti-oil Guilbeault’s decision to

quit Prime Minister Mark Carney’s cabinet

in protest over an agreement with Alberta towards building a new oil pipeline.

“Mr. Guilbeault quit cabinet but he did not quit the (Liberal) party and he did not quit the caucus. If he really believed this was a fundamental problem for him, why didn’t he walk away?” said McPherson.

“This just means he’s not interested in doing the work,” she continued.

Guilbeault, a longtime campaigner for stricter climate policies, announced hours earlier that he would be stepping down as minister of Canadian identity and culture, but would continue to serve as the Liberal MP for the Montreal riding of Laurier—Sainte-Marie. This was after the

prime minister appeared in Calgary with Alberta Premier Danielle Smith to sign a memorandum of understanding.

It said that the two governments would work towards a building a new oil pipeline to the West Coast and Ottawa would suspend controversial “clean energy” regulations advanced by Guilbeault when he was formerly environment minister that would have forced provinces to find other means to generate electricity besides fossil fuels.

McPherson, the lone MP at the debate, didn’t mince words when asked if Guilbeault would be welcome in her caucus.

“I’m quite proud to say that the New Democratic Party does not accept floor-crossers,” said McPherson.

Filmmaker Avi Lewis gave a succinct “No!” when asked whether the NDP should take in Guilbeault.

The third major contender, union leader and former dockworker Rob Ashton, said that the voters in Guilbeault’s riding missed the boat by not choosing NDP candidate Nima Machouf in April’s election.

“Nima would have been fighting for her community. Nima wouldn’t have quit, because Nima’s not a quitter, she’s a fighter,” said Ashton.

The only candidate at the debate who said he’d welcome Guilbeault with open arms was Tony McQuail, an organic farmer and self-described “green progressive.”

“Yes, Today!” said McQuail in French when asked whether he thought the NDP should invite Guilbeault to join the party.

Upstart candidate Tanille Johnston, currently a local official in Vancouver Island, acknowledged that there were several disaffected Liberal MPs on B.C.’s coast, but said the NDP should look elsewhere when recruiting new candidates.

“We just really take a lot of pride in our environment in B.C., and I’m not so sure that reaching out to kind of disenchanted Liberals — because the prime minister decided to sign a (memorandum of understanding) for a pipeline — if they needed to go that far to finally realize ‘maybe this isn’t the party for me’, I’m not so sure that that’s where our relationship should start with the NDP in B.C.,” said Johnston.

Several member of the

Liberals’ B.C. caucus said publicly

in the days leading up to the announcement that they were against reversing the Trudeau-era ban on West Coast oil tanker traffic.

The next NDP debate will coincidentally take place in B.C.’s Lower Mainland in February.

National Post

rmohamed@postmedia.com

Watch the first NDP leadership debate here:

Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark nationalpost.com and sign up for our daily newsletter, Posted, here.


The Alberta-based Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms has filed a legal challenge to the Waterloo Region District School Board's decision to mandate the reading of land acknowledgements at school council meetings.

The Alberta-based

Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms

has filed a legal challenge over Waterloo Region District School Board’s decision to mandate the reading of land acknowledgements at school council meetings, while prohibiting debate on the issue.

The application has been brought on behalf of

Geoffrey Horsman

, a biochemistry professor and member of the Kitchener-Waterloo Collegiate and Vocational School Council as the father of three children attending district schools.

Horsman’s concerns began when the council started opening its meetings with land acknowledgements despite the fact that no vote or debate had ever been held on the practice, says the JCCF. In the spring of 2025, he sought to have the matter placed on the agenda for discussion. However, the council chair declined and referred him to the school principal.

On May 9, says JCCF, the principal informed Horsman that the board requires land acknowledgements at all school council meetings and that the topic could not be debated.

The judicial review challenges the Board’s conduct on three grounds:

  • mandating land acknowledgements compels Horsman to sit through a statement that contradicts his belief in the inherent dignity and equality of all people;
  • prohibiting any discussion of land acknowledgements at school council meetings suppresses his ability to raise or challenge the issue;
  • the Board has no statutory power under the Ontario Education Act or Regulation 612/00 to dictate school council practices or impose ideological recitations.

The dispute follows a related instance that arose in September, when another parent, Cristina Bairos Fernandes, raised an objection to opening parent involvement committee meetings with a land acknowledgement, reports

Juno News

.

The chair of the committee agreed to “note” her objection but

Scott Miller, the board’s director of education,

intervened stating that: “I think we’ve been pretty clear as a district school board what we believe, our commitment to Truth and Reconciliation, call to action. And that’s across the province.”

The committee ultimately voted to record the objection, but exclude mention of the director’s interference. Horseman was one of a few parent-committee members who requested the minutes include the director’s interference “rather than (leaving it out) as though it never happened.”

It wasn’t the first time a parent faced roadblocks for objecting to land acknowledgements at parent-run meeting, says the

JCCF

. In April, Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board parent Catherine Kronas raised concerns about imposing political speech in government settings. In response, she was suspended from attending council meetings. However, she was later reinstated following legal intervention from the

JCCF

.

Constitutional lawyer Hatim Kheir stated that Kronas’ comments “were a reasonable and measured expression of a viewpoint held by many Canadians.”

Further, he said: “The Board’s decision to suspend her from the Council, which she has a right to sit on as an elected parent member, is an act of censorship that offends the right to freedom of expression.”

In both instances, the parents expressed concern that reciting land acknowledgements is a form of political speech and questioned their appropriateness in government institutions.

 

Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark nationalpost.com and sign up for our daily newsletter, Posted, here.


Federal NDP leadership candidates, from left, Tanille Johnston, Avi Lewis, Tony McQuail, Heather McPherson and Rob Ashton.

NDP leadership candidates are taking part in the first official debate of the campaign Thursday evening in Montreal.

There are currently five contenders. Edmonton MP Heather McPherson, documentary filmmaker Avi Lewis and union leader Rob Ashton are considered the frontrunners. Campbell River, B.C., city councillor Tanille Johnston and organic farmer Tony McQuail are also running.

While the debate is taking place in Quebec, only 60 per cent of it will be in French, and the rest in English. The candidates (all anglophones) will also be allowed to wear earpieces to receive an English translation. However, if a candidate answers a French question in English, they will be cut off.

The party’s lone Quebec MP, Alexandre Boulerice, is hosting and will kick off the evening’s agenda with a welcome message.

Watch the 90-minute debate live, below, starting at 7 p.m. ET.

Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark nationalpost.com and sign up for our politics newsletter, First Reading, here.


When Quebec politicians talk about restrictions on religion, most of the time they mean Muslims.

Alberta’s use this month of the notwithstanding clause

to shield three controversial laws from judicial scrutiny has more or less united the chattering classes in outrage.

Even Amnesty International got in on the act

, accusing Alberta of “violat(ing) the spirit of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.”

“This is one of the most consequential actions our government will take during our time in office,”

Premier Danielle Smith said

of limiting “gender-affirming” care, including puberty-blockers and surgery, for children under 16; new parental-notification and -consent rules with respect to children who wish to “socially transition” at school; and limiting female-only sports to participants who were born female.

As ever, it will be interesting to compare the reaction now that

Quebec has redeployed Section 33 in its own culture war

— not against trans rights allegedly run amok, but against the most basic religious freedoms. Among other things, Bill 9, tabled Thursday in the National Assembly, does the following:

  • bans prayer in public, without prior authorization;
  • bans prayer in private, for example in prayer rooms provided in public institutions such as schools;
  • bans students and staff at all levels of public education, including day care, from covering their faces at school — i.e., from wearing the niqab or burqa; and
  • bans public institutions from offering only meals “based on a religious precept or tradition” — i.e., halal or kosher food.

And yes, it invokes the notwithstanding clause to protect itself from meddling judges. Somehow, though, that just never seems to be as controversial in the Rest of Canada when Quebec does it. Supporting trans rights is cool in a way that supporting religious rights isn’t.

Double standards aside, Quebec’s new legislation is fundamentally disreputable on several levels. If the province’s efforts to improve secularism have often seemed strangely deferential to Catholicism — the very religion that the Quiet Revolution rejected — Bill 9 privileges the elderly: Long-term care homes, unlike public schools, are exempt from the prayer-room prohibition.

It’s not hard to see why.

According to Statistics Canada’s General Social Survey

, in 2019, 58 per cent of Quebecers born between 1940 and 1959 were “affiliated” with a religion and that their faith was “somewhat or very important” to them. Just 28 per cent of those born between 1980 and 1999 said the same — the lowest in any region. And older people vote.

But the fact it’s easier to target younger Quebecers of faith doesn’t vindicate the effort. Quite the opposite, I would say.

It’s disreputable, too, because when Quebec politicians talk about “religion” in this context, roughly 97 per cent of the time they mean Muslims. (The other three per cent of the time they mean Jews.) Quebecers had every right to be perturbed this summer by

the sight of scores of Muslims praying to Allah with the Notre-Dame Basilica in the background

. That was an unambiguous provocation by the only religion that does that sort of thing in Canada.

If Quebec were honest, it would just make Bill 9 exclusively about Islam and leave the other religions alone. The notwithstanding clause would work just as well.

But that would be too honest, I suspect. Politicians would balk at seeing such specific discrimination laid out in black and white. They would insist on the tatty fig leaf of consistency. And so not only will Muslims who

don’t

protest-pray outside Christian landmarks now lose their spaces for quiet individual prayer, so will everyone else.

There is no reason to believe it will stop here. In provincial politics, there’s really no one to oppose the broader push to limit minority rights, both religious and linguistic. You might hope the Liberals would step up, but leader Pablo Rodriguez has argued (preposterously) that restrictions on civil servants’ attire

brought “social peace” to the province

— so there’s no help there. Plus, having briefly enjoyed a post-leadership bump in the polls, Rodriguez is now mired in

vote-buying allegations

with respect to his leadership campaign. (“What else did you expect from Pablo Rodriguez?” is a reasonable question to put to the party.)

The next obvious step will be to ban the niqab and burqa in all public places. Then attention will turn to the hijab, which students are still allowed to wear — for now. And anglophones and allophones still have lots of rights — maybe too many.

None of this is Ottawa’s doing. Indeed, there may not be anything anyone in Ottawa can say to affect this situation positively. But if federal politicians are going to pick and choose which rights to support and which to ignore, or

where

to support them, then they deserve to be judged just as harshly as the cowards in Quebec City targeting all religions for fear of one.

National Post

cselley@postmedia.com

Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark nationalpost.com and sign up for our daily newsletter, Posted, here.


Troy Edward William Clayton, who was just identified as a homicide victim, is escorted into Halifax provincial court in this undated photo.
Ryan Taplin - The Chronicle Herald

A self-admitted “nasty drunk” sentenced to six years in prison nearly five years ago for killing a Halifax man with one punch has just been identified as a homicide victim.

Troy Edward William Clayton pleaded guilty to manslaughter in February of 2021 for the 2017 killing of Benjamin Lokeny.

“The Nova Scotia Medical Examiner Service conducted an autopsy and identified the victim as 59-year-old Troy Clayton from Halifax,” said a Thursday news release from Halifax Regional Police spokesman Const. Martin Cromwell.

The force doesn’t “believe the incident was random.”

Halifax police “are looking for anyone who may have dashcam footage from Gottingen Street, between Charles Street and Uniacke Street, from 11 a.m. to 11:15 a.m. on Wednesday Nov. 26, to contact police. Those with video or information are asked to call police at 902-490-5020,” said the statement.

It noted “Halifax Regional Police extend their condolences to Mr. Clayton’s loved ones.”

“We are in the early stages of the investigation and, at this time, do not have information to share regarding a possible motive,” Cromwell said in an email in response to a question about whether investigators think Clayton’s death had anything to do with Lokeny’s killing.

Police won’t say how Clayton died. “We are also in the midst of collecting witness statements, so we are not ready to release further details about how Mr. Clayton was killed,” Cromwell said.

According to the January 2023 decision granting Clayton full parole, he punched Lokeny “once in the face. (Lokeny) fell backwards and hit his head on the sidewalk; (Clayton) then walked away from the scene.”

Lokeny died from his injuries a month later. His cause of death: blunt force trauma to the head.

Clayton told the parole board that Lokeny “kind of” provoked him before he struck him in the face.

After he discovered Lokeny died from his injuries, Clayton didn’t think he “would face any serious charges,” given that (he’d) only punched him once,” said the parole decision.

Clayton wasn’t arrested for the killing until March of 2019. He got out on parole in January 2023.

“Asked about your involvement in multiple assaults between 2017 and 2019, you said that when you are drunk you simply react without thinking, and that you were a ‘nasty drunk.’ The women against whom you used violence, you said, were fellow addicts who also were violent towards you,” said his 2023 parole decision.

At the time of its writing, Clayton’s criminal record stretched back more than three decades, with 76 prior convictions. He garnered 14 more between the time of Lokeny’s death and Clayton’s arrest for that killing.

“Over half of these convictions are related to failures to comply with court ordered sanctions, while the rest are made up of property related offences, drug related offences, impaired driving, failure to stop at the scene of an accident, as well as uttering threats and six convictions for assault,” said the parole board.

The judge who sentenced him for manslaughter noted Clayton’s guilty plea, the absence of weapons and that he only hit Lokeny once were mitigating factors in his case.

“Aggravating factors were your criminal record, your history of alcoholism, and the serious results of the offence,” said the parole board.

Clayton was convicted of a 2013 assault that happened during a night of drinking with his intimate partner.

“You pushed her to the ground and grabbed her by the throat,” said the parole board.

He was on bail at the time with the condition to stay away from booze.

“In 2014, you again assaulted your intimate partner while drinking, you pushed her against a wall and hit her in the face multiple times,” said the parole board.

He punched an intimate partner in the face in 2016, then acted aggressively with police when they showed up.

“In 2017 you were convicted of uttering threats. During that offence, you were intoxicated and were threatening people outside of a thrift store when you were denied entry to the store,” said the parole board.

“You were originally arrested for public intoxication, however you continued to threaten police. In 2019, you were in an altercation with your brother when a neighbour tried to break up the fight; you then both attacked the neighbour.”

Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark nationalpost.com and sign up for our daily newsletter, Posted, here.


This photo provided by U.S. Attorney's Office shows Rahmanullah Lakanwal on Thursday, Nov. 27, 2025.

Two members of the National Guard are in critical condition after being shot while patrolling in Washington, D.C. on Wednesday. The suspect was arrested after the “monstrous ambush-style attack,” which took place “just steps away from the White House,”

according to U.S. President Donald Trump

.

The shooter was identified by authorities as 29-year-old Rahmanullah Lakanwal on Thursday morning.

The two victims, identified as Sarah Beckstrom, 20, and Andrew Wolfe, 24, remain in critical condition.

 This photo combo created on Nov. 27, 2025 shows National Guard members, from left, Staff Sgt. Andrew Wolfe and Specialist Sarah Beckstrom.

Here’s what to know about the suspect and how the attack unfolded.

Who is suspect in the National Guard shooting?

Lakanwal was identified by U.S. attorney for D.C. Jeanine Pirro at

a news conference

Thursday as a 29-year-old Afghan national. He came to the United States in 2021 “under Biden’s Operation Allies Welcome, a program following the disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan,” said Pirro.

She said he was living in Bellingham in Washington state, with his wife and children.

Lakanwal had been a Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) partner in Afghanistan, CIA Director John Ratcliffe

told Fox News Digital

.

“The Biden administration justified bringing the alleged shooter to the United States in September 2021,” after the U.S. pulled out of Afghanistan, “due to his prior work with the U.S. government, including CIA, as a member of a partner force in Kandahar, which ended shortly following the chaotic evacuation,” Ratcliffe said in a statement.

FBI Director Kash Patel said at the news conference Thursday that he was aware the suspect “had a relationship in Afghanistan with partner forces.”

 Members of law enforcement, including the U.S. Secret Service and the Washington Metropolitan Police Department, respond to a shooting near the White House on Nov. 26, 2025 in Washington, DC.

“We are fully investigating that aspect of his background as well to include any known associates that are either overseas or here,” he said.

He called it an “ongoing investigation of terrorism.”

The suspect’s home in Washington state was searched by authorities overnight. Cellphones, laptops, iPads and other material were seized. Patel also said interviews were being conducted in San Diego pursuant to the investigation at the suspect’s Washington state house.

It was “too soon” to say what his motive could be, said Pirro.

How did the attack unfold?

According to Pirro, the attack was “targeted.”

The suspect allegedly drove his vehicle from Washington state to Washington, D.C. “with the intended target of coming to our nation’s capital,” she said.

 Two National Guard soldiers were shot in downtown Washington on Nov. 26, 2025.

She said the two guardsmen were “ambushed” while on patrol around 2:15 p.m. The shooter opened fire without provocation, armed with a .357 Smith and Wesson revolver.

“One guardsman is struck, goes down, and then the shooter leans over and strikes the guardsman again. Another guardsman is struck several times,” Pirro said.

Other members of the National Guard “responded immediately” and were able to subdue the suspect. He was taken to hospital, where he remains “under heavy guard.”

What charges does the suspect face?

Lakanwal faces “three counts of assault with intent to kill while armed,” said Pirro.

“He will also be charged with possession of a firearm during a crime of violence. He faces 15 years under the assault with the intent to kill,” she said. However, the charges could change based on the well-being of the two victims.

 Members of National Guard respond to a shooting near the White House on Nov. 26, 2025 in Washington, D.C.

“We are praying that they survive and that the highest charge will not have to be murder in the first degree. But make no mistake, if they do not, that will certainly be the charge,” she said.

Who were the victims?

Beckstrom and Wolfe were members of the West Virginia National Guard and had volunteered to go to Washington, D.C. to “protect the people of the district pursuant to a crime emergency” declared by Trump, Pirro said.

“They are receiving the finest medical care. Their families are with them now,” she said, although she could not elaborate on their injuries.

One of Wolfe’s neighbours, Michael Langone, described him as

a “great guy” to CNN

. Langone said Wolfe was the type of person who would “give the shirt off of his back to somebody.”

Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark nationalpost.com and sign up for our daily newsletter, Posted, here.