The COMER Lawsuit: What Now?

Open Modal

Share this on

Open Modal

Print content

Reading Time: 6 minutes
Help keep family & friends informed by sharing this article

News Release: Supreme Court Denies Request for Bank of Canada Lawsuit to Proceed 

Toronto, May 31, 2017 – After nearly 5½ years of contentious litigation between the Committee On Monetary and Economic Reform (COMER) and the Government of Canada involving three separate Federal Court and two additional Federal Court of Appeal hearings resulting in contrary decisions, on May 4, 2017, the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed COMER’s “leave” (permission to appeal) application from the second judgment of the Federal Court of Appeal. Following established practice, the federal Supreme Court does not issue reasons when it dismisses a leave application. 

The dismissal by the Supreme Court of the Leave application, means only that the Court does not want to hear the appeal. The jurisprudence on this is clear: it does not mean that the lower court decisions are correct in law. The possible reasons for the Supreme Court not wanting to hear the case are many and various, including the washing of their hands or “deference” to the political process – hence, this is why reasons are not issued by the Supreme Court in leave dismissals. 

We believe that the case has ample legal merit, and should have proceeded to trial. It is not uncommon for the Supreme Court to refuse leave on a given issue multiple times, finally to grant leave, hear the appeal and the case then succeed. The Supreme Court controls its own agenda, both in its timing and on the merits of issues it will or will not hear. (Annually, fewer than 8–10% of all cases filed are granted permission and heard at the Supreme Court of Canada.) 

It should be noted that throughout this arduous and expensive legal process, the substance of this lawsuit initiated in the public interest has not been addressed. (The matters raised by the lawsuit are summarized in the following original copy of the news release issued on December 19, 2011.) 

While COMER is disappointed in the Supreme Court’s failure to comply with its perceived duty to the plaintiffs and to the citizens of Canada under the Constitution and the Bank of Canada Act, two things are undeniable: 

  1. Through this long judicial odyssey, public knowledge, awareness and consciousness of the vital issues have been raised immeasurably, not only in Canada, but abroad. We know this from the significant feedback and informed commentary COMER and its legal counsel have received. 
  1. The current Supreme Court dismissal is not the end of the struggle over these critical issues! 

The proposed Canada Infrastructure Bank makes crystal clear the urgent need to now concentrate efforts within the political arena. In its arguments, the Crown has contended that the Government’s decision to drastically reduce its borrowing from the Bank of Canada was made by the people of Canada through the political process although the changes made were never debated publically nor in Parliament. This failure of the political process has led to the exponential growth of Canada’s debt incurred by all three levels of government due to accumulated deficits and compounded interest charges as well as to significant fiscal restraints on funding government programmes and infrastructure expenditures. 

Our Comment 

I once had two kittens – brothers. Their names were Picar and Esquie. 

I bought them a toy, a “cat-dancer.” It consisted of a highly pliable wire, at one end of which was what looked like a moth; at the other end was a handle. When one jerked the handle, the “moth” flew – and so did the cats! 

Now, were Esquie still here, he would still be chasing that “moth”! 

Picar, however, after a few frustrating attempts, sat still and observed intently; first, the “moth”; then the wire; then the handle. Finally, he made the connection between the movement of my hand and the antics of the “moth.” With impressive feline aplomb, he than rose and simply walked away. 

From time to time, I am reminded of Picar’s “AHA.” The culmination of the COMER lawsuit, it turns out, is one such time. The lawsuit inspired hope and involvement at home and abroad, expressed through supportive donations and – often deeply moving – messages of thanks and encouragement. Canadians are deeply indebted to those who rallied to the cause. 

William Krehm’s initiative will have farreaching effects. He has never wavered in backing this extraordinary and financially daunting project and, thankfully, has seen it through to its end. At almost 104, he continues to follow COMER’s progress with keen interest and continued support. 

The Supreme Court decision is not the end of the struggle! 

Importantly the lawsuit has tested one of the institutions in which we have placed much trust. The outcome has raised significant questions which, otherwise, might never have come to our attention. 

I am one such example. Recently, a friend gave me a book that she thought I would find interesting. It was not one that, until now, I’d ever have thought to open. Its title certainly caught my attention: The Failure of Corporate Law: Fundamental Flaws and Progressive Possibilities.

The author, Kent Greenfield, is professor of law at Boston College Law School, and has served as a law clerk under Supreme Court Justice David H. Suter. 

One of the claims made for this book is that it “shows that changing certain foundational assumptions about corporations and the law that rules them is critical to reining in corporate power. Throughout, Greenfield proposes concrete achievable adjustments to law and policy that would create real, positive change.” 

Intrigued, I read. What I read was downright exciting and flooded my head with a spate of questions! 

Subsequently, I discovered a book on the same theme by a Canadian Professor of Law, Harold Glasbeek, who is a professor emeritus and senior scholar at Osgoode Hall Law School, York University. His recently published book is entitled: Class Privilege: How Law Shelters Shareholders and Coddles Capitalism. 

Glasbeek points out that, “the mechanisms we have are not working.” He traces the inadequacy to the fact that “all of the law’s instruments and implementing institutions are based on the mistaken premise that we owe shareholders a debt of gratitude” that “justifies a reward or, as it turns out, many rewards. Most pertinently, limited fiscal liability and legal immunity.” 

He asks, “why is it that, if we sincerely desire corporations to behave better, we do not try to change the shareholders’ understanding of what are and are not appropriate interests to pursue?” His answer is that “the legal conventional wisdom does not countenance this possibility because of the way in which it conceptualizes the corporation. But really, this wisdom is intended to preserve the privileges of capitalists, of shareholders. It is an argument of political convenience that must be rejected if real political change is to be put on the agenda. 

And because the argument to be confronted is cloaked in legal garb, it is that legal garb that must be ripped off.” He then tries to do just that. 

Disappointed? Of course! Discouraged? Quite the contrary! This historic challenge has raised enormously the level of awareness on the issue, across Canada and around the world and has led to new insights that may well provoke a decisive step from debt to democracy. 

Unlike Picar, we cannot simply walk away! 


A Few Examples of Donors’


  1. I can think of no greater cause to support. This is about the survival of our country. 
  1. Keep up the great work; this is the financial “revolution” we need! 
  1. Please keep up this very worthy struggle. 
  1. If you can imagine our government’s not having to pay interest to use our own money for the good of the nation then donate to this cause. 

Press Release Toronto, Ontario, December 19, 2011 

Two Canadians and a Canadian economic think tank confront the global financial pow- ers in the Canadian federal court. 

The Canadians plead for declarations that would restore the use of the bank of Canada for the benefit of Canadians and remove it from the control of international private entities whose interests and directives are placed above the interest of Canadians and the primacy of the constitution of Canada. 

Canadian constitutional lawyer, Rocco Galati, on behalf of Canadians William Krehm, and Ann Emmett, and COMER (Committee for Monetary and Economic Reform) on December 12, 2011 filed an action in Federal Court, to restore the use of the Bank of Canada to its original purpose, by exercising its public statutory duty and responsibility. That purpose includes making interest free loans to municipal/ provincial/federal governments for “human capital” expenditures (education, health, other social services) and/or infrastructure expenditures. 

The action also constitutionally challenges the government’s fallacious accounting methods in its tabling of the budget by not calculating nor revealing the true and total revenues of the nation before transferring back “tax credits” to corporations and other taxpayers. 

The Plaintiffs state that since 1974 there has been a gradual but sure slide into the reality that the Bank of Canada and Canada’s monetary and financial policy are dictated by private foreign banks and financial interests contrary to the Bank of Canada Act. 

The Plaintiffs state that the Bank of International Settlements (BIS), the Financial Stability Forum (FSF) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) were all created with the cognizant intent of keeping poorer nations in their place which has now expanded to all nations in that these financial institutions largely succeed in over-riding governments and constitutional orders in countries such as Canada over which they exert financial control. 

The Plaintiffs state that the meetings of the BIS and Financial Stability Board (FSB) (successor of FSF), their minutes, their discussions and deliberations are secret and not available nor accountable to Parliament, the executive, nor the Canadian public notwithstanding that the Bank of Canada policies directly emanate from these meetings. These organizations are essentially private, foreign entities controlling Canada’s banking system and socio-economic policies. 

The Plaintiffs state that the defendants (officials) are unwittingly and /or wittingly, in varying degrees, knowledge and intent engaged in a conspiracy, along with the BIS, FSB, IMF to render impotent the Bank of Canada Act as well as Canadian sovereignty over financial, monetary, and socio-economic policy, and bypass the sovereign rule of Canada through its Parliament by means of banking and financial systems. 

Further information about this case is available at

Share Now

Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Stay Informed,
Join Our Mailing List.
Its Free.

Your Information is safe: Privacy Policy

Support Comer

Your donations will help fund our research, education, and outreach activities as well as help cover our expenses.

Related Articles:

Stay Informed, Join Our Mailing List. Its Free.

Your Information is safe: Privacy Policy

Join our Mailing List to stay informed