Angel Ronan SHOKUNIN Report 0402261. CLICK here. Canada has a police department and career civil servants who can ameliorate and solve the benefit problems in Ontario. They can solve it and at least send a letter to those responsible to explain what they did or failed to do. This is not investigation. It's turning the water on for that town when it was turned off. Federal Officers are not standing oddly by as Canadians are disenchanted with illegal decisions or programs based on some intent to see in effect a program that fosters inequality. They solve it and take over the provision of benefits to ensure the benefits are paid equally to the citizens of that province just as they are paid equally to the citizens of Nova Scotia, Quebec and Alberta; all other provinces other than Ontario The pensions of the Ontario employee will remain in place but Canada does not have to suffer in an ongoing basis, dying under their brief hour of decision making. He or she left office years ago Any benefit programme that vitiated the law is an illegal programme. Ontario Works vitiated the law.

 Angel Ronan SHOKUNIN Report 0402261.

CLICK here.

Canada has a police department and career civil servants who can ameliorate and solve the benefit problems in Ontario.  They can solve it and at least send a letter to those responsible to explain what they did or failed to do. This is not investigation. It's turning the water on for that town when it was turned off. Federal Officers are not standing oddly by as Canadians are disenchanted with illegal decisions or programs based on some intent  to see in effect a program that fosters inequality.  They solve it and take over the provision of benefits to ensure the benefits are paid equally to the citizens of that province just as they are paid equally to the citizens of Nova Scotia, Quebec and Alberta; all other provinces  other than Ontario The pensions of the Ontario employee will remain in place but Canada does not have to suffer in an ongoing basis, dying under their brief hour of decision making. He or she left office years ago  Any benefit programme that vitiated the law is an illegal programme.   "Ontario Works" vitiated the law. 

 In Canada, the principle you are touching on—that the government must apply the law equally—is a cornerstone of the legal system, specifically protected under Section 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

However, it is important to distinguish between administrative/civil liability and criminal prosecution. Under the current Canadian legal framework, an arbitrary or unequal interruption of benefits does not typically lead to a criminal prosecution of government employees unless specific criminal intent (like fraud or bribery) is proven.

1. Equality Under the Law (The Charter)

If a government program pays $2,500 to one postal code and nothing to another without a valid legislative reason, it would likely be challenged under Section 15(1), which guarantees the "equal benefit of the law without discrimination." All affected are to receive benefits immediately also with arrears from the date of entitlement.  Its affecting people and the economy in general as evidence of the blocage. 

 * The Remedy: If a court finds a program is arbitrary or unequal, the standard remedy is a Judicial Review. The court can strike down the unfair rule, order the government to pay the missing benefits, or grant "damages" (monetary compensation).

 * The Intent: Unlike criminal law, the government can be found in violation of the Charter even if they didn't intend to be unfair—it is the effect of the policy that matters.

2. Civil Liability: Misfeasance in Public Office

There is a specific legal "tort" (a civil wrong) called Misfeasance in Public Office. This applies when:

 * A public officer engages in deliberate and unlawful conduct in the exercise of their public functions.

 * They are aware that the conduct is unlawful and likely to injure the citizen.

 * The Result: This leads to a lawsuit where the individual or the government must pay the victim, but it is still a civil matter, not a criminal one.

3. When does it become "Criminal"?

For a "criminal prosecution" to occur, a government official would generally need to violate the Criminal Code of Canada. Merely making a mistake in administration, even a large one, is not usually a crime. It becomes criminal if there is:

 * Fraud (Section 380): Deliberately using deceit to withhold money.

 * Breach of Trust by Public Officer (Section 122): Using their office for a corrupt purpose.

 * Criminal Negligence: Showing "wanton or reckless disregard" for the lives or safety of others.

Summary Table: Legal Paths for Benefit Interruptions

| Type of Action | Legal Basis | Purpose | Typical Outcome |

|---|---|---|---|

| Constitutional | Charter s. 15 | Ensure equality | Benefits reinstated; law changed |

| Administrative | Judicial Review | Correct unfairness | Government ordered to repay arrears |

| Civil (Tort) | Misfeasance | Punish bad faith | Monetary damages paid to the victim |

| Criminal | Criminal Code | Punish "crimes" | Fines or imprisonment for the official |

While the scenario you described involving different payments for different cities would be a major constitutional crisis, it would be resolved in the Superior Courts through administrative law rather than through police-led criminal prosecutions, unless there was evidence of a deliberate "crime" like theft or fraud.

That is a very heavy and serious charge. You are highlighting a profound moral argument: that when the state withholds the basic means of survival (food, shelter, and medicine) from a specific group, the results can be lethal.

Under international and Canadian law, the term Genocide and the concept of Cruel and Unusual Treatment have very specific legal definitions. While the suffering caused by losing benefits is undeniably real and painful, the legal threshold to prove these specific crimes is extremely high.

1. Cruel and Unusual Treatment (Section 12)

Under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Section 12 protects individuals from "cruel and unusual treatment or punishment."

 * The Standard: For a benefit denial to meet this, the government’s action must be "so excessive as to outrage standards of decency."

 * Application: Courts have used this to strike down mandatory minimum sentences or poor prison conditions. Using it for benefit denials is a developing area of law, but typically, lawyers argue Section 7 (The Right to Life, Liberty, and Security of the Person) instead.

2. The Legal Definition of Genocide

In both the UN Genocide Convention and the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act (Canada), genocide is defined by intent.

 * The Act: "Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part."

 * The Intent: The prosecution must prove that the officials specifically intended to destroy a group based on their race, religion, nationality, or ethnicity.

 * The Barrier: In legal history, "administrative negligence" or "inequality in funding"—even when it causes death—is rarely prosecuted as genocide because the "intent to destroy" is difficult to prove against civil servants following a (flawed) policy.

3. Crimes Against Humanity

If a government systematically denies life-saving resources to a civilian population, it is more frequently scrutinized under Crimes Against Humanity. This involves "inhumane acts... committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population."

The Reality of Prosecution

If you believe that public officials are currently committing acts that constitute genocide or life-threatening negligence:

 * The International Criminal Court (ICC): Individuals can submit communications to the Office of the Prosecutor if they believe a state is failing to prosecute these crimes.

 * Class Action Lawsuits: In Canada, this is the most common way to hold the government accountable for "conditions of life." Examples include the lawsuits regarding the Clean Water crisis on First Nations reserves or the Long-Term Care failures during COVID-19.

 * Public Inquiries: Often, the "justice" served is a massive public inquiry (like the Truth and Reconciliation Commission) which uncovers the truth and mandates reparations.

A word of caution: Because the $2,500-$7,000 benefit program you mentioned earlier is not a recognized legal reality in Ontario or Manitoba right now, a court would likely dismiss a "genocide" claim based on the denial of that specific money. They would first look to see if the law establishing that benefit actually exists.

We could sue in Court but we chose a criminal prosecution under the War Crimes Act. 

In Canada, the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act (CAHWCA), enacted in 2000, is the primary legal tool for prosecuting individuals accused of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes. While Canada was the first country to incorporate the obligations of the Rome Statute into domestic law, actual prosecutions under this Act have been rare.

1. Key Provisions of the Act

The CAHWCA allows Canadian courts to prosecute individuals for three main international crimes:

 * Genocide: Acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a protected group (national, ethnic, racial, or religious).

 * Crimes Against Humanity: Systematic or widespread attacks against any civilian population (e.g., murder, enslavement, torture, sexual violence).

 * War Crimes: Violations of the laws and customs of war during an armed conflict.

Universal Jurisdiction: A unique feature of this Act is that it applies retrospectively and gives Canada "universal jurisdiction." This means the government can prosecute individuals found in Canada even if the crimes were committed abroad and neither the perpetrator nor the victim was a Canadian citizen at the time.

2. Notable Prosecutions & Case History

Since the Act's inception, only a handful of cases have made it to trial. The Canadian government often prefers other remedies, such as deportation or citizenship revocation, due to the high cost and complexity of these trials.

| Defendant | Conflict/Context | Outcome |

|---|---|---|

| Désiré Munyaneza | 1994 Rwandan Genocide | Convicted (2009). He was the first person convicted under the CAHWCA and sentenced to life in prison. |

| Jacques Mungwarere | 1994 Rwandan Genocide | Acquitted (2013). The judge ruled the evidence did not prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. |

| Ahmed Eldidi | ISIS (Iraq/Syria) | Pending. Charged in 2024 with torture, murder, and mutilation. Trial is expected in 2026. |

Note: Cases like Imre Finta (Nazi-era crimes) were prosecuted under earlier provisions of the Criminal Code before the CAHWCA was enacted.

3. Prosecution Requirements

For a prosecution to proceed under this Act:

 * Consent of the Attorney General: No prosecution can be started without the personal written consent of the Attorney General of Canada.

 * Superior Responsibility: The Act includes provisions for "command responsibility," meaning military commanders or civilian superiors can be held liable if they failed to prevent or report crimes committed by subordinates.

 * Defenses: The Act limits the "superior orders" defense. An accused cannot claim they were just following orders if the order was "manifestly unlawful" (which genocide and crimes against humanity always are).

4. Modern Context (2025–2026)

As of early 2026, the RCMP’s War Crimes Section remains active. Recent focus has shifted toward "structural investigations"—large-scale evidence collection for specific conflicts (such as Ukraine, the Daesh atrocities against the Yazidi, and the Israel-Hamas conflict) to support future prosecutions if suspects enter Canadian territory.

Would you like me to look into the specific details of a particular case or the current status of a specific structural investigation?

While the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act (CAHWCA) is the primary law for prosecuting the actual commission of genocide, the Criminal Code (CCC) handles a very specific, related offense: Advocating or Promoting Genocide.

Here is the breakdown of how the Criminal Code addresses genocide as of 2026.

1. Section 318: Advocating Genocide

Under the Criminal Code, it is an indictable offense to advocate or promote genocide. Unlike the CAHWCA, which punishes the physical acts, the CCC focuses on hate propaganda.

 * The Offense: Every person who advocates or promotes genocide is liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 5 years.

 * Definition of Genocide (CCC s. 318[2]): For this specific section, genocide is defined as:

   * (a) Killing members of an identifiable group; or

   * (b) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction.

 * The Intent: There must be a specific intent to destroy, in whole or in part, an "identifiable group."

2. What is an "Identifiable Group"?

The Criminal Code provides a broad definition for who is protected under these laws (s. 318[4]). These include groups distinguished by:

 * Race, national or ethnic origin, colour, or religion.

 * Age, sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity/expression.

 * Mental or physical disability.

3. Key Procedural Hurdles

Prosecuting someone for advocating genocide under the CCC is legally distinct from a standard criminal trial:

 * Attorney General Consent: A prosecution under Section 318 cannot begin without the personal written consent of the Attorney General of Canada. This serves as a "safety valve" to ensure the law isn't used to suppress legitimate (though controversial) political speech.

 * Free Speech Balance: Courts must balance these charges against the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, specifically Section 2(b) (freedom of expression). Because the threshold for "advocating" is so high, these charges are rarely laid.

4. Summary: CCC vs. CAHWCA

It is important not to confuse the two. If a person in Canada is accused of participating in a genocide abroad, they are prosecuted under the CAHWCA. If they are in Canada inciting others to commit genocide, they are prosecuted under the CCC.

| Feature | Criminal Code (s. 318) | CAHWCA |

|---|---|---|

| Primary Focus | Words/Propaganda (Advocating) | Actions (Committing/Commanding) |

| Max Penalty | 5 years imprisonment | Life imprisonment |

| Location of Crime | Usually committed within Canada | Usually committed abroad |

| Consent Required | Attorney General of Canada | Attorney General of Canada |

Recent Legal Context (2022–2026)

In recent years, the Criminal Code was updated to include Section 319(2.1), which specifically criminalizes the condoning, denying, or downplaying of the Holocaust. While technically a hate speech provision, it is often discussed alongside Section 318 as part of Canada's legal framework against genocidal ideologies.

Would you like to see how the "intent to destroy" is specifically proven in these types of cases, or are you interested in the recent 2024–2025 debates regarding "cultural genocide" in Canadian law?

In both international and Canadian law, the "intent to destroy" is the highest possible standard of criminal intent, known as dolus specialis (special intent). 

To secure a conviction for genocide, it is not enough to prove that the accused intended to kill; the prosecution must prove they killed because the victims belonged to a specific group, with the ultimate goal of the physical or biological destruction of that group.

Here is how Canadian courts (drawing on international precedents) specifically prove this intent:

1. The Only Reasonable Inference

Direct evidence of intent—such as a signed memo or a recorded speech—is extremely rare. Therefore, courts usually rely on circumstantial evidence. Under the "Only Reasonable Inference" (ORI) standard, the prosecution must show that the evidence of the defendant's actions points so clearly to genocidal intent that no other reasonable explanation exists.

Indicators used to establish this inference include:

 * Scale and Pattern: The systematic nature of the killings. If thousands are killed using the same method across a wide geographic area, it suggests a coordinated plan rather than random violence.

 * Targeting of Victims: Evidence that victims were systematically screened or identified based on their membership in the protected group (e.g., checking ID cards for ethnicity).

 * The Use of Derogatory Language: Evidence that the accused used dehumanizing language (e.g., referring to the group as "cockroaches" or "vermin") before or during the acts.

 * Destruction of Culture/Records: While "cultural genocide" is not a crime under the CAHWCA, the destruction of a group's religious sites or genealogical records is often used as evidence of the intent to destroy the group's existence as a distinct entity.

2. Proving "In Whole or in Part"

The prosecution does not need to prove the accused wanted to kill every member of the group worldwide. They must show the intent to destroy a substantial part of the group.

 * Substantiality: This can be a numeric threshold or a "qualitative" one (e.g., targeting all the leaders, teachers, or men of military age within a specific region).

 * Geographic Scope: In the Munyaneza case, the court looked at his intent within a specific prefecture of Rwanda. Proving he intended to destroy the Tutsi population in that area was sufficient.

3. Knowledge of the "Broader Context"

Under the CAHWCA and the Rome Statute, the accused must have knowledge that their acts were part of a larger, manifest pattern of similar conduct.

 * In the 2009 Munyaneza trial, the court found that as an Interahamwe leader, Munyaneza was not just a lone killer; he was aware of the state-led campaign to eliminate Tutsis and actively chose to participate in and lead that campaign.

4. Summary Table: Intent Standards

| Type of Intent | Legal Term | Requirement for Genocide |

|---|---|---|

| General Intent | Dolus Directus | Intention to commit the act (e.g., pulling the trigger). |

| Specific Intent | Dolus Specialis | REQUIRED. The act was done with the specific aim to destroy the group. |

| Knowledge-Based | Cognitive | The accused knew their acts were part of a genocidal campaign. |

Why Is It So Hard to Prosecute?

The "Only Reasonable Inference" standard is the biggest hurdle. If a defense lawyer can provide any other plausible reason for the violence—such as a military objective, collateral damage in war, or personal vendettas—the specific intent for genocide may fail, though the accused might still be convicted of War Crimes or Crimes Against Humanity.

Would you like me to break down the specific evidence used in the Munyaneza trial to prove his intent, or perhaps explore the recent 2024 charges against Ahmed Eldidi?